-
The forums will be unavailable for a few hours on Saturday 6th June, when they do return they will initially be in a degraded state with some features missing, but normal posting/reading will be possible. The main website will not be affected by these updates.
New user registrations are currently disabled.
Some other features of the forum are also currently disabled.
Moen Ali
- Thread starter essex boy
- Start date
Easy with hindsight. Who instead though? Tongue for Anderson I’d give you at least for this test. The other two are not at all clear.
Take the gloves off JB (assuming by this you mean he plays as a batter) and you’re losing Brook. Or, possibly, as it was widely advocated on here, Crawley and finding a makeshift opener from the middle order. They wouldn’t look good with hindsight either. Especially the Crawley one.
In the spinner slot I think they were at least arguably right not to throw a teenage leg-spinner who’s learning his craft in at the deep end as the sole spinner in a home Ashes series. But then who if you want an off spinner? Will Jacks who didn’t really look the part even in favourable conditions in Pakistan? Dom Bess, on the back of his inability to take any wickets at all against us? An uncapped shot in the dark? It was a huge gamble and it failed but all the others are huge gambles too.
Durham-Mackem41
Midfield
Would of not of played a spinner used Root he has taken as many as Mo.given Foakes the gloves. Had Stokes and 3 with Bairstow at 6. Had Woakes in from Lords Tongue has taken as many as Jimmy in 1 game.
I am huge fan of Jimmy he’s been unreal for us but has never looked right in any spell.
Hope Stokes gets his knee sorted or will be forever trying to get 12 players into 11.
When has ever a 40/41 year old pro looked right??
Shilton cost us 90 footy World Cup.
Anderson and mo cost us this series. And Jonny.
But they are the boys and part of the drinking gang. Mo don't drink but adapted to fit in early.
Mr Foakes and Tongue and Ahmed are not.
rentaghost
Striker
From being 37 to 40 years old he has around 100 test wickets at 22 so I would say that is a good example. At the beginning of this series no-one would have considered not playing Anderson at the start. Anderson and Bairstow have been high class international cricketers it’s hardly jobs for the boys. A lot of wise after the event rubbish coming out here.
Tongue for example - there’s not one single person on here advocating for him to play. It was Stokes who gave him a shot but he remains a decent county performer who had a good test match.
Last edited:
Unless you are watching county cricket how would you expect people to be clamouring for him to play? He showed huge promise against Ireland with 5 for (appreciate only Ireland). England's one dimension bowling attack lost the first test (we are not losing that with a quick playing), Tongue was then bought in for the second test and was our best bowler. He offered something different, extra pace. Why is this important? On flat wickets (which Stokes in his wisdom asked for) batsman are often got out through their own mistake ie, lack of concentration. By bowling 5 mph quicker Tongue is more like to induce a mistake as batsman have a fraction of a split second less to play their shot (huge factor in test cricket). England have lost this series (there will no result today due to the weather) because we have picked the wrong bowling attack in each test bar Headingley and were undercooked with some ala Bairstow taking a few tests to get going
Last edited:
rentaghost
Striker
We have plenty of bowlers who bowl 86-88 including Tongue, Mahmood, Stone, Atkinson and I’m sure there are others. Bowling sharper doesn’t by definition make you a better bet. Tongue has been around for a long time and no one really interested in him until Stokes (yes Stokes) took a punt. He did well but there are plenty that have done well in a test or two and never been good enough. Don’t get me wrong I would have played him here but there as much chance that he would have bowled without control and without wickets as there was of him being the surprise package he was at Lords.
Last edited:
True. But pace becomes more important if the skipper is asking for flatter pitches. Less movement off the pitch means Anderson is far less effective.
rentaghost
Striker
True but it hasn’t stopped Woakes, Broad and Robinson taking their wickets at a healthy average. It’s ok having a Wood or an Archet who are quality absolutely rapid.
There are times when you need to place more emphasis on pace others when movement/swing bowlers will be more prominent. In this series, we needed at least one quick in every test, at Lords, Edgbaston, The Oval I would argue we needed two. Australia had two at each ground (Starc and Cummins are high 80s) and did not lose a test
There is no guarantee any bowler will perform in any test they are picked for so not sure what your point is on Tongue
Last edited:
Chortle
rentaghost
Striker
Another post that didn't have the ending the OP wanted. Ali was a great pick and we didn’t have many options. Excellent performance in his final test. Well done Mo and well done Stokes
A poor backwards pick IMO as we go to India next where we will need at least two spinners with no test cricket behind them this summer. I would have picked Ahmed and saw nothing from Ali to change that. He averaged 25 with the bat and 51 with the ball and we drew 2-2 against a fairly ordinary Australia side. England will be kicking themselves
What was significant about picking Ali, was how he got better as the series went on due to no longer format cricket prior to the Ashes but by the time he got going we were playing catch up
rentaghost
Striker
What was significant about Ali was that at a time where we don’t have great depth we chose someone with experience who was capable of putting in a match defining performance with bat and ball in the heat of the most challenging form of cricket.
Great series, great entertainment and if you didn’t enjoy that as a great spectacle you need a personality transplant.
FatCat2402
Winger
Ahmed, 8 Cc matches for Leics this season. 6 wickets, average of 60 odd. Not sure he would have added much. It is an issue.... We haven't produced decent spinners for a while unfortunately.
I would not describe it as great as the overall quality was very ordinary
FatCat2402
Winger
I'm sorry, that is utter rubbish.
Jack Torrance
Striker
Shame he’s not off to India, thought he balanced the side well at 3. If he didn’t get injured at edgebaston I think we’d have won that test
Watching the likes of Duckett, Ali, Jimmy at times and some of Bairstow's keeping in this series has at times resembled watching county cricket
Our batting in the second test at Lords was like watching a club first XI
Entertaining to watch but poor quality.
FatCat2402
Winger
The problem with your mindset is that you focus almost entirely on the things you don't like. Why not look at all the brilliant stuff that happened as well ?
It's such a common and miserable trait. I mean I'm a right negative bastard but even I can look at the series as a whole and say it was enjoyable and there were plenty of moments of brilliance.
I suppose we could go back to not even attempting to chase down 250 in a full days play as happened under Root if that's your preference
