Prospective England openers

[rentaghost]

Problem with Sibley is he is a player you pick to not lose a game rather than win it.

He would be a perfect player to pick when you 2-1 up going into the oval on a good wicket in the last game of series.

But if you want to be positive and look to win games not someone I would pick!

I don’t agree with that. I don’t agree with the whole defensive v attacking opening batsman argument. Essentially batsmen get picked by weight of runs, they are either good enough or not to score runs at test level. For me the likes of Sibley, Burns, Hales all got dropped because they weren’t scoring enough runs not because they were too attacking or defensive. It’s up to any of them to push their case and Sibley is doing that.

 

[Voice of fair play]

Speed is less the issue for me. It’s more that I don’t think he had the shots to keep the scoreboard ticking, and thus he would get stuck and if out of form he could never make a score

Cook scored slowly, as did Atherton, but they had ways of making big runs

Yeah great point I just think his lack of shots and the fact international teams will give him even less scoring shots, would simply just put more pressure on other players

The other two were different class and more consistent

 

[chunkyshanhawk53]

Yeah great point I just think his lack of shots and the fact international teams will give him even less scoring shots, would simply just put more pressure on other players

The other two were different class and more consistent

The two things are similar of course

I often think he looks comfortable, but then they choke his scoring areas. So whilst being comfortable he eats balls (which is fine), but then can’t find a way to make a big score, unless he’s bang in form.

An out of form Crawley may make a 50, an out of form Sibley may make a painful 15

 

[Voice of fair play]

I don’t agree with that. I don’t agree with the whole defensive v attacking opening batsman argument. Essentially batsmen get picked by weight of runs, they are either good enough or not to score runs at test level. For me the likes of Sibley, Burns, Hales all got dropped because they weren’t scoring enough runs not because they were too attacking or defensive. It’s up to any of them to push their case and Sibley is doing that.

Personally I think cricket (all cricket) is about adapting your game to all conditions and adapting your game to any game situation.

Whether it is digging in on bad wickets, making hay on good wickets, scoring quickly when needed scoring slowly when needed.

Where as Sibley for me is simply a one dimensional cricketer and very much think top international teams will just totally stop his scoring and eventually he will get out without scoring big runs.

My point been all cricket is time related and at some point you need to adapt to the situation and simply don’t see he doing that

The two things are similar of course

I often think he looks comfortable, but then they choke his scoring areas. So whilst being comfortable he eats balls (which is fine), but then can’t find a way to make a big score, unless he’s bang in form.

An out of form Crawley may make a 50, an out of form Sibley may make a painful 15

Yeah I would always go for the first one, and like I said earlier even if he is bang on form.

If that is on a good wicket him scoring big runs would take him that bloody long, ridiculous as it sounds that could actually take up valuable time to get 20 opposition wickets on that good wicket.

 

[The Rat]

I don’t agree with that. I don’t agree with the whole defensive v attacking opening batsman argument. Essentially batsmen get picked by weight of runs, they are either good enough or not to score runs at test level. For me the likes of Sibley, Burns, Hales all got dropped because they weren’t scoring enough runs not because they were too attacking or defensive. It’s up to any of them to push their case and Sibley is doing that.

totally agree

 

[Voice of fair play]

mate cant agree like, England need an opener who scores runs regeularly, doesnt matter how he gets them, we just need runs

not saying he will, but thats all I am interested in

I can’t see it myself as top class international bowlers would just stop his scoring shots and even if a long time will not score big runs at the top level for me

 

[The Rat]

Personally I think cricket (all cricket) is about adapting your game to all conditions and adapting your game to any game situation.

Whether it is digging in on bad wickets, making hay on good wickets, scoring quickly when needed scoring slowly when needed.

Where as Sibley for me is simply a one dimensional cricketer and very much think top international teams will just totally stop his scoring and eventually he will get out without scoring big runs.

My point been all cricket is time related and at some point you need to adapt to the situation and simply don’t see he doing that

Yeah I would always go for the first one, and like I said earlier even if he is bang on form.

If that is on a good wicket him scoring big runs would take him that bloody long, ridiculous as it sounds that could actually take up valuable time to get 20 opposition wickets on that good wicket.

On the frst post, its about scoring runs

there is no right or wrong way you just need to score runs

 

[Voice of fair play]

On the frst post, its about scoring runs

there is no right or wrong way you just need to score runs

Well of course there is, even test matches are time related.

You can’t come out with blanket statements like that otherwise you saying it’s ok to score a 100 over 3 days.

You have to have a balance and give your bowlers time to get 20 wickets because it’s impossible to win test matches without doing that!!

 

[The Rat]

Well of course there is, even test matches are time related.

You can’t come out with blanket statements like that otherwise you saying it’s ok to score a 100 over 3 days.

You have to have a balance and give your bowlers time to get 20 wickets because it’s impossible to win test matches without doing that!!

Mate, nobody is averaging over 30, if someone averaged 40 it would transform the team

its just the priority

Sibley wasnt dropped because he was scoring slowly like

 

[Voice of fair play]

Mate, nobody is averaging over 30, if someone averaged 40 it would transform the team

its just the priority

Sibley wasnt dropped because he was scoring slowly like

Well yeah I agree with that.

He wasn’t scoring runs and he was scoring slowly even worse!!

The way I look at cricket always have is your first thought is to win a game then if you get in trouble trying to win a game you look to draw a game.

That’s the way I want this new look England to go about their cricket.

Selecting Sibley would not only be wrong for me but would send the wrong message.

Granted like that I always want cricket to be played positively and probably clouded by that at times!

 

[rentaghost]

You can’t come out with blanket statements like that otherwise you saying it’s ok to score a 100 over 3 days.

You have to have a balance and give your bowlers time to get 20 wickets because it’s impossible to win test matches without doing that!!

No again I don’t agree. Of course in a perfect world you want ghe perfect opening batsman. A one capable of seeing off the new ball and then scoring at a great pace and scoring big hundreds to give you the best chance of winning the game. Everybody would recognise that. However those players don’t exist so first and foremost you need players that can open the batting, see off the nee ball and score runs reasonably consistently. Whether they are attacking or defensive is secondary.

 

[Voice of fair play]

No again I don’t agree. Of course in a perfect world you want ghe perfect opening batsman. A one capable of seeing off the new ball and then scoring at a great pace and scoring big hundreds to give you the best chance of winning the game. Everybody would recognise that. However those players don’t exist so first and foremost you need players that can open the batting, see off the nee ball and score runs reasonably consistently. Whether they are attacking or defensive is secondary.

Of course that makes sense mate, but there is always a balance between the two.

It’s unrealistic to expect opening batsman to score runs very quickly in modern day test cricket as it bloody hard to do that.

So of course see your point, but Sibley is far to much the other way.

There is times in games, especially in second innings of matches where players need to adapt to the game situation whether it is upping the rate to set up a declaration or chasing down a score in a fourth innings and personally think Sibley not capable of that.

Equally there is times in games where naturally attacking players should change their game it a side needs to draw a game, like I say adapt to the situation.

I personally thought in 2021 when England played New Zealand in the first test match when New Zealand set England 273 of 75 overs that to simply go for a draw from the very start was a terrible example of how cricket should be played, Sibley scored 60 of 207 balls and from ball one we never even tried to win that game.

We should have at least tried and then shut up shop, if say we lost 2/3 wickets but we did not even attempt to win that game!

Appreciate you see it differently mate and always respect your view, but I want players to play more positive, and that doesn’t mean whacking the ball, it means looking to rotate the strike and push on a bit when you eye is in and your well set, not play the same way all the time, every time.
Sibley was the perfect player you needed in the above game if looking for a draw and the complete wrong player if looking for a win.

 

[rentaghost]

Of course that makes sense mate, but there is always a balance between the two.

It’s unrealistic to expect opening batsman to score runs very quickly in modern day test cricket as it bloody hard to do that.

So of course see your point, but Sibley is far to much the other way.

There is times in games, especially in second innings of matches where players need to adapt to the game situation whether it is upping the rate to set up a declaration or chasing down a score in a fourth innings and personally think Sibley not capable of that.

Equally there is times in games where naturally attacking players should change their game it a side needs to draw a game, like I say adapt to the situation.

I personally thought in 2021 when England played New Zealand in the first test match when New Zealand set England 273 of 75 overs that to simply go for a draw from the very start was a terrible example of how cricket should be played, Sibley scored 60 of 207 balls and from ball one we never even tried to win that game.

We should have at least tried and then shut up shop, if say we lost 2/3 wickets but we did not even attempt to win that game!

Appreciate you see it differently mate and always respect your view, but I want players to play more positive, and that doesn’t mean whacking the ball, it means looking to rotate the strike and push on a bit when you eye is in and your well set, not play the same way all the time, every time.
Sibley was the perfect player you needed in the above game if looking for a draw and the complete wrong player if looking for a win.

I want everything you want. I reiterate though the first criteria is to find an opener who can do the job of opening the batting against world class test match cricket, see off the new ball and score runs. If that person happens to be someone who scores too slowly then it’s a flaw that we have to accept. If he happens to be able to go through the gears then brilliant. However in my opinion we can’t discount the batting style of a batsmen until we have got some good enough to open the batting against world class attacks. I’m not for one minute saying Sibley is btw because first and foremost for me he got dropped due to lack of runs. I’m just simply saying we can’t afford to discount anyone.

 

[wayne entwhistle no9]

Feels like everyone is scoring runs apart from one of the incumbent opening batsmen Crawley, who is under pressure anyway.

 

[Voice of fair play]

I want everything you want. I reiterate though the first criteria is to find an opener who can do the job of opening the batting against world class test match cricket, see off the new ball and score runs. If that person happens to be someone who scores too slowly then it’s a flaw that we have to accept. If he happens to be able to go through the gears then brilliant. However in my opinion we can’t discount the batting style of a batsmen until we have got some good enough to open the batting against world class attacks. I’m not for one minute saying Sibley is btw because first and foremost for me he got dropped due to lack of runs. I’m just simply saying we can’t afford to discount anyone.

Well yeah once again see that point, maybe I have to much positive of a outlook and you dead right we have not exactly got loads to choose from to discount anybody.

I still don’t like the idea of choosing two very similar opening who simply just grind out scores as too many good bowlers about at test level and sooner a later a ball will have your name on it.

And the majority of times that will happen to Sibley in international cricket imo, meaning all he will have done is take up time for next to nowt.

 

[chunkyshanhawk53]

35 for Crawley

 

[rentaghost]

Robson 101 not out
Compton 63 not out
Libby 104 not out

 

[rentaghost]

The squad has been sorted now but

Compton 125 not out. I agree with The Rat over too small a sample at this stage but he is piling up the runs.
Crawley 62
Sibley 9
Lees 44

Not sure anyone else close enough to be worth a mention.