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

Re-arranging deckchairs on the Titanic for the 3rd test


rentaghost said:
I think he has the most talent of the 3 but the weakest mental approach.
Click to expand...

He is the worst player of spin of the 3, which is remarkable when you consider Sibley's limitations

Sibley should have played this series IMO, I think he'd have batted time, he can do that even out of form


England need to keep going, they cant think like the fans are understandbly thinking and give up and just pick anyone, the series is still alive, no matter how comical that sounds

Crawley and Bairstow HAVE to come in for Burns and Pope. The should have started the series as they are decently equippred to play on these pitches

Leach and Wood have to play

4 changes is a lot and you never know, if 1 new batsman fired alongside Root and Malan

you have to cling to that
 
The Rat said:
He is the worst player of spin of the 3, which is remarkable when you consider Sibley's limitations

Sibley should have played this series IMO, I think he'd have batted time, he can do that even out of form


England need to keep going, they cant think like the fans are understandbly thinking and give up and just pick anyone, the series is still alive, no matter how comical that sounds

Crawley and Bairstow HAVE to come in for Burns and Pope. The should have started the series as they are decently equippred to play on these pitches

Leach and Wood have to play

4 changes is a lot and you never know, if 1 new batsman fired alongside Root and Malan

you have to cling to that
Click to expand...
I know you say they have to come in but how are two players with absolutely shocking recent records for England and no cricket at all behind them expected to come in and get runs against what will probably be their strongest attack again? I have no expectations of any of the 4 players getting runs but if either of them get a semblance of a knock in the second innings I would probably stick with them. Hobsons choice failures with cricket behind them or failures with no cricket behind them.
 
rentaghost said:
I know you say they have to come in but how are two players with absolutely shocking recent records for England and no cricket at all behind them expected to come in and get runs against what will probably be their strongest attack again? I have no expectations of any of the 4 players getting runs but if either of them get a semblance of a knock in the second innings I would probably stick with them. Hobsons choice failures with cricket behind them or failures with no cricket behind them.
Click to expand...

the answer to that is they probably wont do it

but what we do know is that if we pick the same batting lineup again we will 100% get beat

They are better players than 2 they are replacing, technically wise, especially Bairstow v spin compared to Pope and Crawley v left arm pace, compared to Burns

they are the right calls and whether they score runs, probs not, but doesnt mean you should stick with 2 players who we know for sure wont

this is my point, we have to try and win the next test, we have to try, if we pick the same side, we know we will get absolutely hammered. so at least try

Bairstow looked a lot better than Pope in the summer.... a lot better. Neither should be in the side, but again, this is the squad that is there.
 
Last edited:
at the minute we are knackered

Openers continually leave our two best specialist batsmen (root and Malian) exposed early.

Our middle order simply don’t have the ability to build innings and is set up to attack from strong positions (see opening stand issues)

The policy of rotation is clearly irritating the players as evidenced by undercurrents in Anderson and broad interviews in particular

All of this erodes confidence which manifests itself in poor skills elsewhere ie. Fielding, catching

When you add that to some of the team ability wise aren’t good enough and no demonstrable impact/improvement from the coaching team and it is a complete mess.
 
As I put on the Jimmy thread…

39-16-66-3 in this test.

Yes they were ‘his’ conditions but if he gets rested for Melbourne it’ll be mental. There were sufficient rest periods in between for him to play each of the first three. Silverwood and Root trying to be too clever with him.

He might be on the downward curve but he’s still our best bowler imo (with Robinson) and we can’t afford to not pick him.
 
The Rat said:
the answer to that is they probably wont do it

but what we do know is that if we pick the same batting lineup again we will 100% get beat

They are better players than 2 they are replacing, technically wise, especially Bairstow v spin compared to Pope and Crawley v left arm pace, compared to Burns

they are the right calls and whether they score runs, probs not, but doesnt mean you should stick with 2 players who we know for sure wont

this is my point, we have to try and win the next test, we have to try, if we pick the same side, we know we will get absolutely hammered. so at least try

Bairstow looked a lot better than Pope in the summer.... a lot better. Neither should be in the side, but again, this is the squad that is there.
Click to expand...
What did Bairstow do that was a lot better than Pope ?
 
The Rat said:
the answer to that is they probably wont do it

but what we do know is that if we pick the same batting lineup again we will 100% get beat

They are better players than 2 they are replacing, technically wise, especially Bairstow v spin compared to Pope and Crawley v left arm pace, compared to Burns

they are the right calls and whether they score runs, probs not, but doesnt mean you should stick with 2 players who we know for sure wont

this is my point, we have to try and win the next test, we have to try, if we pick the same side, we know we will get absolutely hammered. so at least try

Bairstow looked a lot better than Pope in the summer.... a lot better. Neither should be in the side, but again, this is the squad that is there.
Click to expand...
Pope will be replaced that much is for sure. All of our none proven test match players have technical issues it’s not unique to Burns. Crawley (like Burns, Sibley etc) his bat doesn’t come down straight and like Pope he needs to feel bat on ball. Hameed low hands on pitches with bounce. Burns technical problem against left arm pace hasn’t stopped him averaging in the 30s against Australia with a test match 100. It didn’t stop him batting for 100 balls in this innings which if replicated by the other batsmen would save the game. Like Pope and Hameed he can have no complaints if he is dropped but he is still the best of an incredibly bad bunch imo. I think Crawley and Bairstow will get a shot but for Pope and Hameed we will see.
 
The Rat said:
He is the worst player of spin of the 3, which is remarkable when you consider Sibley's limitations

Sibley should have played this series IMO, I think he'd have batted time, he can do that even out of form


England need to keep going, they cant think like the fans are understandbly thinking and give up and just pick anyone, the series is still alive, no matter how comical that sounds

Crawley and Bairstow HAVE to come in for Burns and Pope. The should have started the series as they are decently equippred to play on these pitches

Leach and Wood have to play

4 changes is a lot and you never know, if 1 new batsman fired alongside Root and Malan

you have to cling to that
Click to expand...
I think Sibley would have been as bad if not worse than Burns.
 
rentaghost said:
Of course he would. You can’t argue that you don’t want players with technical faults and then advocate Sibley.
Click to expand...
Personally I think the likes of Hazelwood and Cummins would have had him on toast

At the moment would have Bairstow in my side, but of course there is good arguments for him not to be
 
Last edited:
Jack Torrance said:
He’s got about 50 runs in 4 innings so far. I just can’t see him scoring runs in Australia. Crawley and Vince maybe
Click to expand...
Vince hasn't opened in red ball since he played for England.

Bats 5 and his only ton in summr was against the worst bowling attack in county cricket Leicestershire.
 
Last edited:
rentaghost said:
Of course he would. You can’t argue that you don’t want players with technical faults and then advocate Sibley.
Click to expand...

Mate, the bloke uou backed regularly gets out in the first few overs :lol:

Sibley to be fair to him actually regularly bats time, just cant score.

Was just an observation like, Burns is miles worse as he cant do the fundamental job as an opener which is to see off the new ball

I find it amusing you hve watched those first 2 games and yet will pick exactly the same team, mad.
 
The Rat said:
Mate, the bloke uou backed regularly gets out in the first few overs :lol:

Sibley to be fair to him actually regularly bats time, just cant score.

Was just an observation like, Burns is miles worse as he cant do the fundamental job as an opener which is to see off the new ball

I find it amusing you hve watched those first 2 games and yet will pick exactly the same team, mad.
Click to expand...
Again the smilies as usual show a lack of respect for the person holding a discussion and a difference of opinion with you. As far as changes are concerned I would have Bairstow for Pope and probably Crawley for Hameed. My ‘support’ for Burns is simply out of very bad options for the next test I would probably go for the opener with an average of over 30 against Australia, had a ton against them and had just batted for 100 balls in this game looking decent. You would prefer Sibley given the choice. I disagree but I won’t be hoying smilies up to take the piss ;)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top