• The forum upgrades are now largely complete.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.

England Squad For New Zealand Tests

The Rat said:
He averages 10 more

So we’d s knew number 4 to come in and average 40 not gonna happen
Click to expand...

For the hundredth time, literally anyone would average more batting at 4 than 3. What matters is the contribution to the team. If the batsman after Root scores 11 more because he's better protected from the new ball, then you've justified the decision.
 

smoker said:
For the hundredth time, literally anyone would average more batting at 4 than 3. What matters is the contribution to the team. If the batsman after Root scores 11 more because he's better protected from the new ball, then you've justified the decision.
Click to expand...
Steve Smith doesn't.

So do you think number 5 would average more than 4 as well? Doesn't work like that. Yu literally can't compare a player's performance of batting at 3 and then hypothetically batting at 4 in the same match. Because he didn't. It is absolutely impossible to make that claim.

If you had a player available now who had a body of work we could look at and show that he averaged 11 more at 4 than at 3, then you might have a point. I can't think of one though.
 
Steak Pie said:
Steve Smith doesn't.

So do you think number 5 would average more than 4 as well? Doesn't work like that. Yu literally can't compare a player's performance of batting at 3 and then hypothetically batting at 4 in the same match. Because he didn't. It is absolutely impossible to make that claim.

If you had a player available now who had a body of work we could look at and show that he averaged 11 more at 4 than at 3, then you might have a point. I can't think of one though.
Click to expand...

There are literally loads of examples:

- Joe Root averages 16 more at 5 than 4.
- Ollie Pope averages 12 more at 5 than 4.
- Dan Lawrence averages 21 more at 4 than 3.
Etc

You could make an argument for pushing any batsman down the order where he will score more runs.

Why on earth would you pick a batsman who doesn't know where his off stump is to face the new ball at #3, when you have a batsman of Root's quality who was good enough to open the batting when he first played for England? Pope or Bairstow will be no better than a human shield. If its all about protecting Joe's average then you might as well pick Sibley as a third opener.
 
Surely it’s form and talent at the present time that’s more important than what someone may have scored at 3 or 4, seven/eight years ago that has contributed to overall average.

The bottom line for me is Root will score runs anywhere because he is soo good and is more mature and knows his game inside out.

He has just scored two hundreds in the very last 3 game series in a problem position for England yet we moving him and putting someone in his place at 3, who all suspect will struggle.

And every single time of the last few years when we have tried a new player in that position they have struggled too.
smoker said:
There are literally loads of examples:

- Joe Root averages 16 more at 5 than 4.
- Ollie Pope averages 12 more at 5 than 4.
- Dan Lawrence averages 21 more at 4 than 3.
Etc

You could make an argument for pushing any batsman down the order where he will score more runs.

Why on earth would you pick a batsman who doesn't know where his off stump is to face the new ball at #3, when you have a batsman of Root's quality who was good enough to open the batting when he first played for England? Pope or Bairstow will be no better than a human shield. If its all about protecting Joe's average then you might as well pick Sibley as a third opener.
Click to expand...
Could not agree more it’s a team game and what best for the team not what his best for Root.

I really struggle why we keep throwing player after player like lambs to the slaughter when we have one of the best batsman in the world just one place lower!!

Who has just scored 2 hundreds very recently in that position
 
Last edited:
Voice of fair play said:
Surely it’s form and talent at the present time that’s more important than what someone may have scored at 3 or 4, seven/eight years ago that has contributed to overall average.

The bottom line for me is Root will score runs anywhere because he is soo good and is more mature and knows his game inside out.

He has just scored two hundreds in the very last 3 game series in a problem position for England yet we moving him and putting someone in his place at 3, who all suspect will struggle.

And every single time of the last few years when we have tried a new player in that position they have struggled too.

Could not agree more it’s a team game and what best for the team not what his best for Root.

I really struggle why we keep throwing player after player like lambs to the slaughter when we have one of the best batsman in the world just one place lower!!

Who has just scored 2 hundreds very recently in that position
Click to expand...

Totally incorrect

Joe root batting at 4 is better for the team

It’s beyond belief you still can’t get this! :lol:
smoker said:
There are literally loads of examples:

- Joe Root averages 16 more at 5 than 4.
- Ollie Pope averages 12 more at 5 than 4.
- Dan Lawrence averages 21 more at 4 than 3.
Etc

You could make an argument for pushing any batsman down the order where he will score more runs.

Why on earth would you pick a batsman who doesn't know where his off stump is to face the new ball at #3, when you have a batsman of Root's quality who was good enough to open the batting when he first played for England? Pope or Bairstow will be no better than a human shield. If its all about protecting Joe's average then you might as well pick Sibley as a third opener.
Click to expand...

Jepodising your best player just to cover sll shortfalls is literally the worst thing you can do in cricket. What I find amusing is that we’ve been here so many times. We are just better when Root bats 4
Sea to Shining Sea said:
This is like a wifi reset where you just press the tiny button once. Someone needs to tell them that they need to hold the button to actually reset otherwise it just keeps buffering
Click to expand...

I read Rob key in the mail on pope

I didn’t necessarily agree with him but he outline well why pope is moving and questioned whether this coach n captain could get more out of him

There’s an argument to say pope could average like 33/35 there which would be a big improvement. Let’s see

What I would say is it’s not as simple as just picking the top run scorer in CC to open. We have tried that loads, and there were big campaigns to get Sibley and burns in there and it did ok

I’m not sure Crawley is anything other than a good white ball player but I guess they’re trying to find players with qualities that aren’t necessarily obvious just in CC stats

I’d argue there is a large body of work that Crawley hasn’t got it mind. Let’s see

I’ll be behind them and you have to give McCullum a few tests to work with these players, Rob key said it simple that he will then work out who he rates and who he doesn’t
 
Last edited:
The Rat said:
Totally incorrect

Joe root batting at 4 is better for the team

It’s beyond belief you still can’t get this! :lol:


Jepodising your best player just to cover sll shortfalls is literally the worst thing you can do in cricket. What I find amusing is that we’ve been here so many times. We are just better when Root bats 4


I read Rob key in the mail on pope

I didn’t necessarily agree with him but he outline well why pope is moving and questioned whether this coach n captain could get more out of him

There’s an argument to say pope could average like 33/35 there which would be a big improvement. Let’s see

What I would say is it’s not as simple as just picking the top run scorer in CC to open. We have tried that loads, and there were big campaigns to get Sibley and burns in there and it did ok

I’m not sure Crawley is anything other than a good white ball player but I guess they’re trying to find players with qualities that aren’t necessarily obvious just in CC stats

I’d argue there is a large body of work that Crawley hasn’t got it mind. Let’s see

I’ll be behind them and you have to give McCullum a few tests to work with these players, Rob key said it simple that he will then work out who he rates and who he doesn’t
Click to expand...
I get you prefer Root at 4.

But what is beyond belief is at the very same time your constant twisting of other suggestions at 3 (like Bairstow & Pope)

You like people at my work constant twisting and complaining about something with providing a viable solution/alternative.

You did the same when you constantly had a go at Rory Burns opening and was asked who should open instead no solution.
The Rat said:
Totally incorrect

Joe root batting at 4 is better for the team

It’s beyond belief you still can’t get this! :lol:


Jepodising your best player just to cover sll shortfalls is literally the worst thing you can do in cricket. What I find amusing is that we’ve been here so many times. We are just better when Root bats 4


I read Rob key in the mail on pope

I didn’t necessarily agree with him but he outline well why pope is moving and questioned whether this coach n captain could get more out of him

There’s an argument to say pope could average like 33/35 there which would be a big improvement. Let’s see

What I would say is it’s not as simple as just picking the top run scorer in CC to open. We have tried that loads, and there were big campaigns to get Sibley and burns in there and it did ok

I’m not sure Crawley is anything other than a good white ball player but I guess they’re trying to find players with qualities that aren’t necessarily obvious just in CC stats

I’d argue there is a large body of work that Crawley hasn’t got it mind. Let’s see

I’ll be behind them and you have to give McCullum a few tests to work with these players, Rob key said it simple that he will then work out who he rates and who he doesn’t
Click to expand...
I get you prefer Root at 4.

But what is beyond belief is at the very same time your constant twisting of other suggestions at 3 (like Bairstow & Pope)

You like people at my work constant twisting and complaining about something with providing a viable solution/alternative.

You did the same when you constantly had a go at Rory Burns opening and was asked who should open instead no solution.
 
Last edited:
Voice of fair play said:
I get you prefer Root at 4.

But what is beyond belief is at the very same time your constant twisting of other suggestions at 3 (like Bairstow & Pope)

You like people at my work constant twisting and complaining about something with providing a viable solution/alternative.

You did the same when you constantly had a go at Rory Burns opening and was asked who should open instead no solution.

I get you prefer Root at 4.

But what is beyond belief is at the very same time your constant twisting of other suggestions at 3 (like Bairstow & Pope)

You like people at my work constant twisting and complaining about something with providing a viable solution/alternative.

You did the same when you constantly had a go at Rory Burns opening and was asked who should open instead no solution.
Click to expand...

No England and root dk better with him at 4
It’s a fact

You want to move our best player for absolutely no reason, you don’t even have a suggestion for number 4

The funny thing is this has been done countless times

It doesn’t work :lol:

He’s batted 3 loads it doesn’t work that’s a fact not an opinion, results do not improve and our best player scores less runs
 
The Rat said:
No England and root dk better with him at 4
It’s a fact

You want to move our best player for absolutely no reason, you don’t even have a suggestion for number 4

The funny thing is this has been done countless times

It doesn’t work :lol:

He’s batted 3 loads it doesn’t work that’s a fact not an opinion, results do not improve and our best player scores less runs
Click to expand...


The main point here which fail to grasp time after time, is in a ideal world every single person on this board what want Root at 4!

However what has happened countless times every single time is every single person at 3 has failed time and time again.

That’s the reason years and years of failure at 3 by player after player!

So do you just keep failing and trying new player after new player or move you best player just one position ( a position where he has ver recently score 2 hundreds).

It’s about seeing the bigger picture and been flexible for the team
 
Last edited:
Voice of fair play said:
The main point here which fail to grasp time after time, is in a ideal world every single person on this board what want Root at 4!

However what has happened countless times every single time is every single person at 3 has failed time and time again.

That’s the reason years and years of failure at 3 by player after player!

So do you just keep failing and trying new player after new player or move you best player just one position ( a position where he has ver recently score 2 hundreds).

It’s about seeing the bigger picture and been flexible for the team
Click to expand...

He’s batted 3 for England loads and loads and it hasn’t worked at all.

This has already happened!!
 
The Rat said:
He’s batted 3 for England loads and loads and it hasn’t worked at all.

This has already happened!!
Click to expand...
Neither has anyone else, everyone else has failed massively and every person that is suggested there you criticize.

He is miles more capable than any other option mentioned miles more
 
Voice of fair play said:
Neither has anyone else, everyone else has failed massively and every person that is suggested there you criticize.

He is miles more capable than any other option mentioned miles more
Click to expand...

But yet it hasn’t worked

You keep suggesting something that already happened! That’s the strange thing about these posts

We tried several number 4s and couldn’t find anyone. Only in England would this even get discussed
 
I feel for Harry Brook mind. The sort form he's in would normally grant you a place.

Wonder if they will surprise us and pick him. But I see them backing Root Bairstow Stokes.

Personally despite backing foakes for a long time. Would prefer to see Brook at 5 and Jonny back at 7 with the gloves. 7 is still his best position.
 
Can someone that understands cricket better than me explain the logic behind announcing Pope batting at 3 please?

From what I have read it's not a position he has ever bat at, so seems a strange one
 
chunksafc said:
Can someone that understands cricket better than me explain the logic behind announcing Pope batting at 3 please?

From what I have read it's not a position he has ever bat at, so seems a strange one
Click to expand...
I genuinely don't get it. He had never batted at 4 when we gave him test debut either. Since then he's mainly batted 6 or 5.

Only just recently started batting 4 for Surrey.

But if your making Root your 4 and Stokes your 6. It doesn't really leave any options.

They still think hes one of our 7 best batsman. He still to me has a higher ceiling than loads we've tried, but sadly he's just got progressively worse.

I really hope it pays off. I'm not sure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top