Ashes Team/Thread
- Thread starter The Rat
- Start date
chopsfc007
Striker
Why do you call everyone strange who disagrees
I don't, he hates Bairstow for no reason, always on here slagging him off, its very
strange
so don't make stuff up mate
chopsfc007
Striker
You do though lots of the time it's weird
Do you call everyone you disagree with weird
chopsfc007
Striker
No he doesn't like Bairstow it's allowed
He hates him for no reason, it is strange, not really fussed what you say marra
I'm not sure it is too soon, especially when you consider how short of quality number 3s we are. He hasn't looked phased by anything about test cricket, he has a test 50 to his name batting at (iirc) 10 and has looked like a batsman as opposed to a bowler who can bat or an all rounder.
It won't happen for this Ashes series unfortunately, but I can't help thinking it's his best chance of securing his place in the team and solving a big problem.
Salem Street South
Striker
I agree with you. It's something I've thought for a while, we could, maybe should, have had a look at it in Sri Lanka over the winter.
Early days of course but he looks good enough as a batsman to play there, and his bowling as an option would be a nice bonus. He's relatively inexperienced though, and totally untried at 3 so it would be a gamble, but one worth taking in my opinion.
I want Roy to open and have done for ages. Not convinced at all by Burns, Vince and don't want Ballance anywhere near the side.
I agree that Stokes, Bairstow, Ali as 6,7,8 is the best combination for those three and makes the side the strongest, although I've no doubt Bairstow could open or bat 3, 4 or 5 if he accepted it and got his head right.
That leaves Buttler at 5 and Root at 4 where he wants to bat.
I believe the side should consist of the 11 best players, and to me Foakes looked like he was at home at Test level in the winter. The only space left though is opener which, having said all that means I'd either consider bringing Stoneman back in as a genuine opener, make Foakes open and leave the Stokes/Bairstow/Ali combination alone, or tell Bairstow to open and reproduce his ODI partnership with Roy and give Foakes the gloves.
Roy
Bairstow
Curran
Root
Buttler
Stokes
Foakes
Ali
Wood
Broad
Anderson
Stoneman, Archer and Woakes make the squad.
Last edited:
It’s easy enough batting 9 with no pressure. You’re under estimating the pressure when picked as a batsman only
There are better options
As you defs don’t need 6 or 7 bowlers in England
Bess looked good with bat too, not sure I’d be throwing them in
Curran would need to be playing 3 for Surrey too
That side ain’t going to be getting big 1st innings test scores too many all rounders
Last edited:
Salem Street South
Striker
The only difference to the side you picked is Curran (avg 32.4) and Foakes (avg 41.5) for Burns (avg 25.0) and Vince (avg 24.9) so I’ve no idea how you arrived at that conclusion or what you’re going on about all rounders for.
Mate Curran getting runs down the order at 9 can’t be compared to opening the batting against fresh new ball Bowlers like
It’s not a fair comparison of stats
Foakes is a good batsman but he bats 5,6,7 and we have better players there already in thr side
It’s a completely different job at the top of the order like. Specialist position
Salem Street South
Striker
I’m not sure it is anymore, ODI and T20 has changed things. You get a bit too hung up on positions in batting orders. It’s about getting as many of our best 11 cricketers in that side as we can, something Smith and Taylor have said they are intent on doing.
Yes in an ideal world we’d have specialists but we have lots of multidimensional, multifaceted cricketers. The strength of our side is our all rounders, so let’s get as many in as possible. Root wants us to play aggressive cricket. There is talk about 4 day Tests (which I don’t agree with, but lots of Tests don’t make it to the last day now). I want to see an England side like the 2005 one that can go out and score 450 on the first day, which pretty much guarantees we won’t lose.
Playing these sorts of cricketers together goes a way towards achieving this.
Of course there will be failures, but the more match winners we have, the more matches we win. It’s that simple in my opinion.
Ok the stats only paint part of the picture but on the evidence I’ve seen, in my opinion Curran/Foakes are far more likely to produce runs and/or match winning performances than Burns/Vince, regardless where they bat.
Last edited:
Voice of fair play
Striker
I agree with that in principle, but it's more the way Curran has gone about his innings that tells me we should move him up. He looks like a proper batsman.
Regardless though, it's a moot point as it's not going to happen for this series, and unless someone in the coaching hierarchy at Surrey or England pushes to try him there, won't happen any time after.
No offence mate but we’ve had that exact approach for 4 years under bayliss
Been very Attacking and the reason we’ve been so inconsistent is we can’t bat long periods of time
I don’t know how anyone can have watched England over the last few years and think we need to attack more
Test cricket hasn’t changed that much
Salem Street South
Striker
We have and I don’t see it changing soon. It’s the way Root wants us to play and I think the success of the white ball sides has a lot to do with it, and although the inconsistency is frustrating, it plays to our best players strengths IMO.
Like I say, I simply feel Curran and Foakes offer more than Vince or Burns, wherever they bat. Could be wrong, just the way I see it as things stands. As someone else said though, it’s a moot point as Curran at 3 isn’t likely to happen.
Bri
Striker
No it hasn't really.
Batting is different in T20 and 50 over but the rules of the game are different too. Batting is easier in those formats and that makes faster scoring a lot easier.
Now people are saying a very good T20 or 50 over player can adapt to Test cricket. OK, I'll believe some can, the ones who have the technique and application to adapt. In the current England Test Team I can think of a few, Stokes, Root, Bairstow for example - but when they play Test cricket they play
I'd disagree. I has changed since the 70s/80s, average runs per over have gone up to 3 - 3.5 I'd say.
But the techniques required are still the same and the reason is the rules of 4-day cricket to those of T20 and 50 over are different. Less hitting and more attacking bowling - scoring is harder.
But the best T20/50 over players can also play good Test cricket -Root, Stokes, Bairstow and Buttler. They're good enough to adapt their game and play more circumspectly.
The big pointer here is that we don't have a good top 3 in Test (nor at Durham). Why is that?
Voice of fair play
Striker
I don’t think a attacking style has been the reason for inconsistent scores at test level, as the poster said it worked in the Ashes in 2005 against a good bowling attack.
The reason for inconsistency imo is simply. down to lack of talent and ability with our batsman and too many over them thrown into the deep end of test cricket high up the order when not good enough to bat as high.
Batting at test level is harder totally agree and even harder when you at the top of the order.
Yet why do England keep putting their less talented batsman higher up the order setting them up to fail imo, while the more talented and experienced batsman bat lower down the order where it is easier.
It’s a lack of responsibility by the best and more experienced batsman allowing that to happen and is selfish on their part imo.
I know it’s not as black and white as that but the overall point is the best batsman are not taking responsibility for the team!
Last edited:
Salem Street South
Striker
I think this is totally overplayed to be honest, there are slight differences regarding field settings etc, but it’s still the same game and the same principles apply. There aren’t even that many specialists that only play the shorter form and the ones that do were mostly quality Test players that reached the end of their time at that level and now only play the shorter form to prolong their career, eg. Dhoni, Gayle, Malinga, ABV till he retired etc. Most of the top internationals around the world play all formats. I see the shorter form as a stepping stone to the Test side. If you play well there, you earn a call up.
2005 was the first time really that I saw our Test side play with that attacking mentality and it came from the one day side, going at 4 an over on the first day and it was down to players like Trescothick, Bell, Pietersen and Flintoff, who were all also brilliant one day players. It meant we scored 350+ in the first innings four times, three times getting over 400 which basically won us that series and that’s what we’ll need to do to win this one, I think.
Last edited:
