The lazy argument isn’t a good one like. Players from all over the world have made test cricket with a wide range of techniques. Chanderoaul and Smith all time greats. Burns got chosen for test cricket because he was by far the best domestic opener at the time and his technique got him there. His technique was also good enough to average 35 at test cricket and an Ashes hundred against Cummins and Hazlewood through 17/18 tests until the last year. You more than anyone has argued how an average of 35 in England as an opener holds far greater weight than anywhere else in the world. This year you have given all our batsmen all sorts of extenuating circumstances, bubbles, pitches in India, poor preparation but Burns has been singled out and lambasted at every turn. In terms of changing his technique up until a year ago it was serving him well and im not sure in a packed calendar year when he was supposed to make those fundamental changes.
There were 3 months between the end of the India series and the first Test in Brisbane that he didn’t play any cricket to be fair, that’s ample time. Not that I think he could have made any changes that would have made any difference, his quirks/faults are too ingrained.
I don't think it is really but that's a wider debate. I love the Rat as a poster but he hasn't ever really been supportive of Burns and has always treat him in my opinion differently. More supportive of Sibley, Bairstow and Crawley less so of Burns and Pope despite all of them regularly failing and Burns record being better than all of them in recent years. I remember in India Burns was out for 50 odd reverse sweeping, it was a terrible shot but the rat was incandescent with rage saying it was the worst shot in the history of test cricket and then Crawley in the next test just slogged one straight up in the air when he had only been in a few balls and nothing was said. As I said though if Burns never plays for England again he can have no complaints and lets hope over the next year someone else makes a breakthrough. We certainly cant get anywhere being 12/2 as often as we are.
Honestly to me the bottom line is of a worst bunch he is better than the rest.
Fair enough mate, don’t really disagree with any of that.
Or that. Only point I would make is that your assertion that he’s the best of the bad bunch cannot be proven or disproven as we don’t really know. There may be other openers that aren’t setting the CC alight but would be successful at Test level, such as Trescothick was, but we won’t know until we try them.
My concern is that I don't think our current coaching/selection set up could spot anyone in the CC who could do a Trescothick.
Yeah that’s fair enough mate.
There will be people out there who can spot these players but whether we have any in our set up is the question I agree.
I think you right but more of a concern and I think a big concern is don’t think one out there at the moment.
I probably would too, but for me the point is that it’s not a case of we have to pick Burns or Hameed (after this tour obviously).
True mate very true
This was prior to central contracts though. Why were Sibley and Burns put on central contracts if their techniqhes are so bad they need to go back to their counties for a season to sort out their game? TBF Surrey and Warwickshire aren't going to give a toss about a technical deficiency that is only exploited by elite bowlers at test level, they will just play them 'as is' and enjoy the 1000 runs they notch up. If you have central contracts taking players away from their counties for months/years on end, the England coaches need to be providing more than just situational advice, and helping players correct technical flaws.
It's reminiscent of Butcher's career. The odd hundred amongst a sea of single digit scores till it clicked for him in the 2001 Ashes. He must have had more chances than Burns.
They all have similar technical flaws to varying extent. Burns, Sibley, Pope, Crawley. All of them have their bat coming down from second slip area and not straight. It is the standard way in one day cricket but has then playing across their front pad.
Crikey just checked it surprised me to find Butcher played as many as 71 tests. Averaged 34 in the end.
Check out Ramprakash and have your mind blown
The definitive proof of my 'appoint for attitude, train for skill' theory. Fantastic technique but mentally weak. In the end, I think he was simply being picked for his fielding.
Hick and all.
I always wanted Ramprakash to do well because he was such a great player to watch. In his early tests I thought he was quite impressive against the West Indies. Was grafting it out for 75 minutes or so against great bowling from Ambrose and Walsh but just kept getting out in the 20s when he had done the hard work. Ultimately he wasn't mentally strong enough and those last tests in SA were painful to watch. A brilliant 150 in the WI and averaging 40 in his career against Australia were a decent effort.
