• The first stage of the forum upgrades has now been completed but they remain in a degraded state and are still being worked on.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.

New Zealand v England 3rd test Hamilton


I would definitely consider playing 4 seamers in England and no spinner against India for all the summer and prepare wickets to suit.

Spinner options for us not good

Although problem is there have the best seamer in the world!

However that’s exactly what India and Pakistan what do to us but the other way round.
 
Last edited:
Our best cricket now is played when the wicket is flat, so that's what I'd want us to prepare against India. No different to the norm really. We produce the best Test pitches in the world in my opinion, along with Australia
 
Our 2nd defeat this year by more than 400 runs. Only the 4th time in history we've lost by more than 400 runs where runs only has decided the defeat.
 
Sadly not seen a minute of this test or luckily more so. Was nice to read pope out to a reverse ramp , without watching it, it stood out as the best shot to play in an effort to save a test.
Aidan11 said:
Our 2nd defeat this year by more than 400 runs. Only the 4th time in history we've lost by more than 400 runs where runs only has decided the defeat.
Click to expand...
The last 2.5 to 3 years has helped England compete by having this approach. What will happen is hammerings because Root aside our batting is abysmal at times. The only way to overcome it’s incompetence is to be aggressive and hope.

Would Crawley,Duckett or pope get as many tests for any other country, chick Bairstow in as well?
 
Last edited:
hank evans said:
Sadly not seen a minute of this test or luckily more so. Was nice to read pope out to a reverse ramp , without watching it, it stood out as the best shot to play in an effort to save a test.

The last 2.5 to 3 years has helped England compete by having this approach. What will happen is hammerings because Root aside our batting is abysmal at times. The only way to overcome it’s incompetence is to be aggressive and hope.

Would Crawley,Duckett or pope get as many tests for any other country, chick Bairstow in as well?
Click to expand...
Duckett would get into every test side in the world imo bar India
hank evans said:
Sadly not seen a minute of this test or luckily more so. Was nice to read pope out to a reverse ramp , without watching it, it stood out as the best shot to play in an effort to save a test.

The last 2.5 to 3 years has helped England compete by having this approach. What will happen is hammerings because Root aside our batting is abysmal at times. The only way to overcome it’s incompetence is to be aggressive and hope.

Would Crawley,Duckett or pope get as many tests for any other country, chick Bairstow in as well?
Click to expand...
This test side has won 3 games after the opposition has scored over 500 in the first innings almost unheard of, before these last 2 to 3 years we had one in 17 tests with a negative approach.

Now we have a brand that is winning and playing great cricket with granted some bad losses on the journey but in the main great stuff.

We have one of the most promising in form batsman in the world in Harry Brook.

Yet apparently all we done is be aggressive and hope!

Absolute insult to this regime the way they have turned the fortunes around of English test cricket
 
Last edited:
Pope played like a bloke who knows no matter how shit his scores are he’ll he be picked come what may.

It’s too pally. I’d rather blokes get one Test too many than discarded before they’ve had a proper chance, but we know that Crawley and Pope in particular are not good enough for this level.

The way Lees in particular was discarded doesn’t sit comfortably with me. Him and Crawley had pretty much identical records in the summer of 2022 yet Lees was the fall guy.
 
Voice of fair play said:
Duckett would get into every test side in the world imo bar India

This test side has won 3 games after the opposition has scored over 500 in the first innings almost unheard of, before these last 2 to 3 years we had one in 17 tests with a negative approach.

Now we have a brand that is winning and playing great cricket with granted some bad losses on the journey but in the main great stuff.

We have one of the most promising in form batsman in the world in Harry Brook.

Yet apparently all we done is be aggressive and hope!

Absolute insult to this regime the way they have turned the fortunes around of English test cricket
Click to expand...
I forgot brook. Quite the oversight. But was looking at the consistent under achievers. Duckett out of the 3 is the one I would keep as he is better outright than pope and Crawley

You have mis interpreted my post, I said our style has helped make us competetive,if you can’t leave a ball alone when it doesn’t need playing an element of hope is involved! Not we are literally standing in a huddle saying hope this gans well.

But I think you knew that.
Voice of fair play said:
Duckett would get into every test side in the world imo bar India

This test side has won 3 games after the opposition has scored over 500 in the first innings almost unheard of, before these last 2 to 3 years we had one in 17 tests with a negative approach.

Now we have a brand that is winning and playing great cricket with granted some bad losses on the journey but in the main great stuff.

We have one of the most promising in form batsman in the world in Harry Brook.

Yet apparently all we done is be aggressive and hope!

Absolute insult to this regime the way they have turned the fortunes around of English test cricket
Click to expand...
Also numerous times in the past I’ve agreed with you in support of this regime,I’ve merely stated this brand can win heavily and quickly,that is tempered with a heavy loss can happen. Luck and hope are a huge part of how we play: Brook in the 1st test is dropped 5 times. We don’t win if that doesn’t happen, I imagine brook was saying I hope he drops that and im
A lucky bastard he has!
 
Last edited:
hank evans said:
I forgot brook. Quite the oversight. But was looking at the consistent under achievers. Duckett out of the 3 is the one I would keep as he is better outright than pope and Crawley

You have mis interpreted my post, I said our style has helped make us competetive,if you can’t leave a ball alone when it doesn’t need playing an element of hope is involved! Not we are literally standing in a huddle saying hope this gans well.

But I think you knew that.

Also numerous times in the past I’ve agreed with you in support of this regime,I’ve merely stated this brand can win heavily and quickly,that is tempered with a heavy loss can happen. Luck and hope are a huge part of how we play: Brook in the 1st test is dropped 5 times. We don’t win if that doesn’t happen, I imagine brook was saying I hope he drops that and im
A lucky bastard he has!
Click to expand...
Yeah fair enough mate, but to use the word ‘ hope’ is a total disservice to what this regime stands for?

This regime is miles more than that and it’s not just about aggression also.

What they do is create an environment that allows players to play with confidence and flourish at the top level particularly new players.

Players like Atkinson, Carse and now Bethell would not only have not been picked by previous regimes, they would have not got the best out of them like this regime has due to the environment they have created.

As for Brook mate he was lucky in that particular innings but what about many others we he has been brilliant
 
Last edited:
scotch said:
Bethell (as painful as it will be to lose the left hand/right hand and height difference)
Duckett
Smith
Root
Brook
Pope (WK)
Stokes
Atkinson
Carse
Wood
? (Before this winter Bashir was nailed on for me, but he's been really poor over 6 tests)
Click to expand...

Bethell has done brilliant at 3 so I don’t know why we’d move him.
 
Might have to give the gloves to someone else if he opens. Probably too much to open and keep wicket.

Might keep Ollie Pope in the side. :lol:
 
Parkside said:
Not every test side would necessarily want such an attacking but risktaking batsman opening.

He's been virtually opening in all his test innings so far.
Click to expand...
I think there very little depth in the opening position worldwide tbh, thus making not many at the moment better, you think Jasiwal,Khawaja then you struggling
 
Parkside said:
Not every test side would necessarily want such an attacking but risktaking batsman opening.

He's been virtually opening in all his test innings so far.
Click to expand...

True, but you could say that for Root as well tbf. Saw a stat that in his last 17 innings, we’ve only been 60-2 or better 4 times.

I still wouldn’t want root to open. Play your best players in their best positions, find a competent opener.
 
DonaldDownTheWing said:
True, but you could say that for Root as well tbf. Saw a stat that in his last 17 innings, we’ve only been 60-2 or better 4 times.

I still wouldn’t want root to open. Play your best players in their best positions, find a competent opener.
Click to expand...
Let smith open keep Beth at 3 and let pope keep the gloves and bat 6
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top