Rory Burns

rentaghost said:
Hello mate good to have you back. I think the issue with Burns is that you are really critical of him in particular but get really defensive when others are critical of other players, arguably poorer ones such as Sibley, Crawley, Bess etc.
Click to expand...

that’s not true though

go through my posts, I never ever wanted him dropped. He was in all my XIs

he doesn’t score enough runs, simple as that. I’d still play him but he’s not a great Test cricketer

and I’ve been very critical of Pope too, I’ve got it into for no players

Sibley is what he is. I’d stick with him as I think he serves his purpose for now

my point with Burns is he gets way way less stick than the other players and was often even a pundit on sky talking about the art of test batting!

chuffed for him to get a 100 but he needs to do that a hell of a lot more

I dunno where this idea came from that I want him dropped I could find you 5 or 6 posts recently where he is in my side
Voice of fair play said:
Whatever his test average is, he is the best opening batsman in the country in red ball cricket.

And the best opener batsman in the country should have a central contract don’t you think?

Where the 3rd or 4th fourth best fast bowler in the country with a history of injuries is less likely to get one, that makes common sense to me.

Don’t think Burns is seen as a success just better than all the others.

I do agree with you though about the over the top reaction though, things taken a bit out of perspective imo.
Click to expand...

you might be right that he’s better than the others but he hasn’t shown that in test cricket, that’s my point.

for his technique he needs to be more disciplined

you’ll never ever persuade me that Rory Burns is more valuable and should be paid more than Mark Wood like sorry

anyone who was out in South Africa or Antigua will back me up on that one
 
Last edited:


The Rat said:
that’s not true though

go through my posts, I never ever wanted him dropped. He was in all my XIs

he doesn’t score enough runs, simple as that. I’d still play him but he’s not a great Test cricketer

and I’ve been very critical of Pope too, I’ve got it into for no players

Sibley is what he is. I’d stick with him as I think he serves his purpose for now

my point with Burns is he gets way way less stick than the other players and was often even a pundit on sky talking about the art of test batting!

chuffed for him to get a 100 but he needs to do that a hell of a lot more

I dunno where this idea came from that I want him dropped I could find you 5 or 6 posts recently where he is in my side
Click to expand...
Genuine question - how can you be so discarding of Burns yet want to stick by Sibley?

Sibley has no shots other than a clip of the legs, and can't play spin to save his life. Not saying Burns is perfect, but at least he has a plan against every type of bowler
 
Crawley is the one I’m sad about

it’s not the end for him but he maybe needs a breather

I’m not remotely interested in his scores in county cricket but he has the game for test wickets when everything is moving right

certainly in Australia

not sure he will make it there now

my own view is that England haven’t turned into a bad side

after the win in India we were top of the test rankings

we’ve took the piss with rotation

and personally I was worried about the impact of that Indian series on those pitches on the young batters

I think it’s really hurt their confidence and a few will need taken out for a bit
 
TheRey said:
Genuine question - how can you be so discarding of Burns yet want to stick by Sibley?

Sibley has no shots other than a clip of the legs, and can't play spin to save his life. Not saying Burns is perfect, but at least he has a plan against every type of bowler
Click to expand...

I’m not discarding

he gets in my side

but he averages early 30s. He’s not great

neither is sibley

neither is Crawley

neither was Denly

neither is pope

neither is Lawrence

it is what it is.
chunkylover53 said:
Sibley doesn’t look like a crack dealer
Click to expand...

aye and this

unforgivable hair
 
The Rat said:
that’s not true though

go through my posts, I never ever wanted him dropped. He was in all my XIs

he doesn’t score enough runs, simple as that. I’d still play him but he’s not a great Test cricketer

and I’ve been very critical of Pope too, I’ve got it into for no players

Sibley is what he is. I’d stick with him as I think he serves his purpose for now

my point with Burns is he gets way way less stick than the other players and was often even a pundit on sky talking about the art of test batting!

chuffed for him to get a 100 but he needs to do that a hell of a lot more

I dunno where this idea came from that I want him dropped I could find you 5 or 6 posts recently where he is in my side


you might be right that he’s better than the others but he hasn’t shown that in test cricket, that’s my point.

for his technique he needs to be more disciplined

you’ll never ever persuade me that Rory Burns is more valuable and should be paid more than Mark Wood like sorry

anyone who was out in South Africa or Antigua will back me up on that one
Click to expand...
Don’t think anyone disputes the talent of Wood or his capability, but it’s clear he is in a pace bowling department that is very good and Burns is in a sub standard era of opening batsman.

You were the one who made the comparison between the two and it is terrible one for the above reasons

If someone is the best in their position and another is behind others in their position and also has a bad injury record ,of course he is less likely to be given a lucrative contract over a period of time.

It amazes me you can’t grasp that principle to be honest
 
Last edited:
Voice of fair play said:
Don’t think anyone disputes the talent of Wood or his capability, but it’s clear he is in a pace bowling department that is very good and Burns is in a sub standard era of opening batsman.

You were the one who made the comparison between the two and it is terrible one for the above reasons

If someone is the best in their position and another is behind others in their position and also has a bad injury record ,of course he is less likely to be given a lucrative contract over a period of time.

It amazes me you can’t grasp that principle to be honest
Click to expand...

its not terrible at all

Wood is much more valuable for England


Wood is the fastest bowler in our history

we could find numerous batsman to average 30

really really poor post mate
 
Last edited:
The Rat said:
its not terrible at all

Wood is much more valuable for England


Wood is the fastest bowler in our history

we could find numerous batsman to average 30

really really poor post mate
Click to expand...
See, I think that’s a bit selective

For starters, Burns averages 33. And there isn’t a huge amount of choice to replace him. I mean, he’s above the following who we’ve tried in the top 3 in recent years; Sibley, Crawley, Jennings, Vince, Robson, Lyth, Denly, Compton, Stoneman, Carberry. Hameed was better but then fell apart in first class cricket. And then there is Cook and Trott.

so we can’t find numerous batsmen to average what he has.

Secondly, yeah Wood is fast. And a top class bowler. But if you’re playing the stats game, I can think of at least 5 current English bowlers who average less than him. 7 if you include Stone and Robinson (limited tests of course)
 
Last edited:
chunkylover53 said:
See, I think that’s a bit selective

For starters, Burns averages 33. And there isn’t a huge amount of choice to replace him. I mean, he’s above the following who we’ve tried in the top 3 in recent years; Sibley, Crawley, Jennings, Vince, Robson, Lyth, Denly, Compton, Stoneman, Carberry. Hameed was better but then fell apart in first class cricket. And then there is Cook and Trott.

so we can’t find numerous batsmen to average what he has.

Secondly, yeah Wood is fast. And a top class bowler. But if you’re playing the stats game, I can think of at least 5 current English bowlers who average less than him. 7 if you include Stone and Robinson (limited tests of course)
Click to expand...

we dont have a bowler who can bowl like he did in South Africa

Stats dont tell you everything.

I am assume Woakes for example averages a lot less than Wood, good for him, but thats meaningless on those wickets abroad

I've said many times I woldnt drop Burns, but 33, is not irreplacable thats my point

He just shouldnt be paid more than Wood, and a few others, I find it absolutely farcicle tbh

All the journos I have chatted with all agree on that specific point, but they rightly say its to do with an outdated contract system, rather than anything else.

Chris Woakes hasn't played for England since September and is on a million quid a year

Wood is on nowhere near that amount but has played all 3 formats for example and been on every tour and in every squad.
mikemanc said:
He's back alright :lol:
Click to expand...

Haha

Will always stick up for Wood

he is a unique bowler, who gets taken for granted.
 
Last edited:
The Rat said:
we dont have a bowler who can bowl like he did in South Africa

Stats dont tell you everything.

I am assume Woakes for example averages a lot less than Wood, good for him, but thats meaningless on those wickets abroad

I've said many times I woldnt drop Burns, but 33, is not irreplacable thats my point

He just shouldnt be paid more than Wood, and a few others, I find it absolutely farcicle tbh

All the journos I have chatted with all agree on that specific point, but they rightly say its to do with an outdated contract system, rather than anything else.

Chris Woakes hasn't played for England since September and is on a million quid a year

Wood is on nowhere near that amount but has played all 3 formats for example and been on every tour and in every squad.


Haha

Will always stick up for Wood

he is a unique bowler, who gets taken for granted.
Click to expand...
It was the "really really poor post" that made me laugh
 
chunkylover53 said:
See, I think that’s a bit selective

For starters, Burns averages 33. And there isn’t a huge amount of choice to replace him. I mean, he’s above the following who we’ve tried in the top 3 in recent years; Sibley, Crawley, Jennings, Vince, Robson, Lyth, Denly, Compton, Stoneman, Carberry. Hameed was better but then fell apart in first class cricket. And then there is Cook and Trott.

so we can’t find numerous batsmen to average what he has.

Secondly, yeah Wood is fast. And a top class bowler. But if you’re playing the stats game, I can think of at least 5 current English bowlers who average less than him. 7 if you include Stone and Robinson (limited tests of course)
Click to expand...
I think Woods bowling figures are a bit skewed mind from when he bowled with a shorter run up and his pace was nowhere near as quick. Think I read since he changed his run up he averages 22 with the ball
 
Jack Torrance said:
I think Woods bowling figures are a bit skewed mind from when he bowled with a shorter run up and his pace was nowhere near as quick. Think I read since he changed his run up he averages 22 with the ball
Click to expand...
Oh absolutely. But all players have skews. I’m not saying he’s not developed into a really top class bowler at all, but the point is more that we have an abundance of riches. He’s been shat on of course

here are his stats per year for interest

Mark Wood - Test Cricket - Performance Analysis by Year

Wood, M A - Test Cricket - Summary of performances by calendar year
www.howstat.com
 
chunkylover53 said:
Oh absolutely. But all players have skews. I’m not saying he’s not developed into a really top class bowler at all, but the point is more that we have an abundance of riches. He’s been shat on of course

here are his stats per year for interest

Mark Wood - Test Cricket - Performance Analysis by Year

Wood, M A - Test Cricket - Summary of performances by calendar year
www.howstat.com
Click to expand...
Really surprising that this is only the second year he's bowled 100 overs in tests, I know he's missed a lot of games but I didn't expect that.
 
chunkylover53 said:
Oh absolutely. But all players have skews. I’m not saying he’s not developed into a really top class bowler at all, but the point is more that we have an abundance of riches. He’s been shat on of course

here are his stats per year for interest

Mark Wood - Test Cricket - Performance Analysis by Year

Wood, M A - Test Cricket - Summary of performances by calendar year
www.howstat.com
Click to expand...

hes Much much more valuable to England thst Rory Burns

if people wanna disagree with that, fine, but I think those people don’t realize a 95mph bowler is a once in a generation thing.
Voice of fair play said:
You just not getting the point at all

So I will just move on
Click to expand...

I have

you’re talking utter nonsense mate sorry
 
The Rat said:
hes Much much more valuable to England thst Rory Burns

if people wanna disagree with that, fine, but I think those people don’t realize a 95mph bowler is a once in a generation thing.


I have

you’re talking utter nonsense mate sorry
Click to expand...
Your failing to grasp the concept that although Wood is hell of a bowler we have loads and loads of talent in that department, your cricket knowledge will know that surely?

Yet very little talent in the opening batting department hence Burns getting a central contract.

It’s not nonsense it’s just common sense

It’s been pointed out to you by a few posters and is quite a straightforward concept to understand not sure why you are struggling with it?

Yeah seem to think it’s a criticism of Wood when it isn’t, all the posters on here know he is a very good bowler.

Unless you suggesting because all our bowlers are good and all our batsman average apart from Root only our bowlers should be given a central contract?

As they is only soo many that can be given out, and your best opening batsman in the country who more or less is going to play every game will always be given one!
 
Last edited:
Voice of fair play said:
Your failing to grasp the concept that although Wood is hell of a bowler we have loads and loads of talent in that department, your cricket knowledge will know that surely?

Yet very little talent in the opening batting department hence Burns getting a central contract.

It’s not nonsense it’s just common sense

It’s been pointed out to you by a few posters and is quite a straightforward concept to understand not sure why you are struggling with it?

Yeah seem to think it’s a criticism of Wood when it isn’t, all the posters on here know he is a very good bowler.

Unless you suggesting because all our bowlers are good and all our batsman average apart from Root only our bowlers should be given a central contract?

As they is only soo many that can be given out, and your best opening batsman in the country who more or less is going to play every game will always be given one!
Click to expand...

:lol:

I get your point, its just utter nonsense, and nobody has pointed it out to me no

Burns wasnt even in the side 3 tests ago man ffs :lol:

Nice try, but you're talking utter nonsense here. A basic lack of cricket knowledge shining through big time.
 

Back
Top