• 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.

Test squad v Ireland


JackL said:
I haven't said anything like that and I don't care whether he plays for surrey or not, I don't really follow county cricket like that to the point I have allegiances.

Out of interest who would you open with? I feel like we share a common goal of removing Crawley from the side but just have differing views in who to replace him with 😂
Click to expand...

Just an opener really, I wouldnt mind them opening with Foakes like his technique is absolutely sound, but its a specialist position, nobody averages more than 30 since Cook.

Brook and Bairstow are key in the middle order thats all, they averaed like 65+ since Stokes came in at nearly a run a ball, that would more than likely half if they opened, its that much harder.

We just need to play to our strengths, which is our middle order, not weaken it, I think it looks unreal.

All thats happened since we won every test last summer is Brook and Duckett have replaced Foakes and Lees, to me that makes the team stronger.

I think the team looks excellent, I know my mates in Oz are surprised by the negativity.
 
Just reading in times

Brook averaging 80, bairstow 75 under stokes

Absolutely outrageous with a strike rate ay nearly a run a ball

And people would throw that away to have one of them opening, absolutely crackers like. Just baffles me anyone can even contemplate doing that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bri
MustardAndOnions said:
Just an opener really, I wouldnt mind them opening with Foakes like his technique is absolutely sound, but its a specialist position, nobody averages more than 30 since Cook.
Click to expand...
That’s incorrect though only by a smidgin. Burns averages 30.32.

MustardAndOnions said:
All thats happened since we won every test last summer is Brook and Duckett have replaced Foakes and Lees, to me that makes the team stronger.
Click to expand...
That’s wrong by the slightly bigger margin of an innings defeat, but at 6-1 over the summer it was still glorious.
 
MustardAndOnions said:
Hardly any difference like, least he wins England the odd game

Anyway
Click to expand...
Totally agree mate. I’m a huge fan of this team and of the direction of travel, who has spent far more than he can afford (or he dares tell his better half) on tickets for the Ashes. But cricket stats are all about the second decimal place.
Although there is one fear with Bairstow. He must be in the middle order after last summer if we believe he’s fit. But he does have a record of the gloves damaging his batting. Are we risking that?

There’s obviously no reason why it should. But top level sport is partly played in the mind. Alec Stewart was about 15 worse an innings as a keeper bat than as an opener. Every time we gave him the gloves we said it would be different this time. It never was. We ruined a 50ish opening bat we’d give anything for just now and weakened the batting by shoving a sixth bat in who couldn’t ever make up the -15.

If Bairstow regresses to the moderate form he had last time he had a sustained spell with the gloves, it won’t look so clever. That said, not sure what the alternative is. You can’t drop any of 3-7. Maybe carrying Stokes when he’s not fit to bowl unbalances the side a bit bit I’d still support his selection. So I’m in.
 
Last edited:
Fleagle said:
Totally agree mate. I’m a huge fan of this team and of the direction of travel, who has spent far more than he can afford (or he dares tell his better half) on tickets for the Ashes. But cricket stats are all about the second decimal place.
Although there is one fear with Bairstow. He must be in the middle order after last summer if we believe he’s fit. But he does have a record of the gloves damaging his batting. Are we risking that?

There’s obviously no reason why it should. But top level sport is partly played in the mind. Alec Stewart was about 15 worse an innings as a keeper bat than as an opener. Every time we gave him the gloves we said it would be different this time. It never was. We ruined a 50ish opening bat we’d give anything for just now and weakened the batting by shoving a sixth bat in who couldn’t ever make up the -15.

If Bairstow regresses to the moderate form he had last time he had a sustained spell with the gloves, it won’t look so clever. That said, not sure what the alternative is. You can’t drop any of 3-7. Maybe carrying Stokes when he’s not fit to bowl unbalances the side a bit bit I’d still support his selection. So I’m in.
Click to expand...

Bairstow isn’t replacing foakes

Brook is

Bairstow was in the side last summer. Brook wasn’t. This is the bit that confuses me. Forgot about records before stokes n mccullum for all the players mind, it’s irrelevant. Just for your information though, bairstow at 7 averages high 30s with gloves
 
Still think Crawley is so lucky to be anywhere near the test side. He’s the worst opener I have seen in my lifetime watching England. His technique is awful so flawed.

Not to mention a below average slip fielder shells lots of catches.
 
Durham-Mackem41 said:
Still think Crawley is so lucky to be anywhere near the test side. He’s the worst opener I have seen in my lifetime watching England. His technique is awful so flawed.

Not to mention a below average slip fielder shells lots of catches.
Click to expand...

His record is no worse than those he replaced, did you see Sibley and Burns technique? their's are much worse

he also scored the fastest 100 ever by a test opener for England in the history of test cricket just 3 games ago

and last summer was in the 2 fastest 100 opening partnerships ever by English openers in the history of test cricket

you are allowed to want someone else, but posts like this are such hyperbole.
 
Durham-Mackem41 said:
Still think Crawley is so lucky to be anywhere near the test side. He’s the worst opener I have seen in my lifetime watching England. His technique is awful so flawed.

Not to mention a below average slip fielder shells lots of catches.
Click to expand...
Nah, it's sweet. McCullum and Stokes have decided their amazing, not-at-all-hubristic tactics will vanquish all comers, to the point we don't need an opening batter. Or a wicketkeeper.

You naysayer
 
TheRey said:
Nah, it's sweet. McCullum and Stokes have decided their amazing, not-at-all-hubristic tactics will vanquish all comers, to the point we don't need an opening batter. Or a wicketkeeper.

You naysayer
Click to expand...

We have one, thankfully he is a lot better than the bloke he replaced, averaging almost double since their appointments.

Sure Foakes will do well stumping some 18 years olds in the Royal London though. So all is good.
 
MustardAndOnions said:
We have one, thankfully he is a lot better than the bloke he replaced, averaging almost double since their appointments.

Sure Foakes will do well stumping some 18 years olds in the Royal London though. So all is good.
Click to expand...
Batting 5 without the gloves. So you may as well be comparing chalk and cheese.

Your missing that keypoint we've actually weakened Bairstow by putting him 7. Even though you made the point to downplay Foakes, bairstow also averages nearly half of what he did last summer with the gloves.

Your one of the only ones making this a Bairstow/Foakes thing.

Most wanted the following top 7 on here and elsewhere.

Duckett
Pope
Root
Brook
Bairstow
Stokes
Foakes

But as McCullum and Stokes want to stick with Crawley then we've got to back it.

If bairstow averages 38 with the gloves like Foakes has since McCullum took over then he's done well. Not a chance he's averaging 75 again from there.

If we want to get anything resembling the bairstow of last summer then him and Ben should swap. Way Ben has batted most times he's batted under his captaincy would be better suited with the long tail we will have.
 
Regardless of the merits of keeping Crawley in or out of the team, batting wise he is being backed by McCullum and Stokes so he isnt going anywhere soon

But at the very least just take him out of the slip cordon, dropping catches aren't going to help with the lads confidence
 
mackembhoy said:
Batting 5 without the gloves. So you may as well be comparing chalk and cheese.

Your missing that keypoint we've actually weakened Bairstow by putting him 7. Even though you made the point to downplay Foakes, bairstow also averages nearly half of what he did last summer with the gloves.

Your one of the only ones making this a Bairstow/Foakes thing.

Most wanted the following top 7 on here and elsewhere.

Duckett
Pope
Root
Brook
Bairstow
Stokes
Foakes

But as McCullum and Stokes want to stick with Crawley then we've got to back it.

If bairstow averages 38 with the gloves like Foakes has since McCullum took over then he's done well. Not a chance he's averaging 75 again from there.

If we want to get anything resembling the bairstow of last summer then him and Ben should swap. Way Ben has batted most times he's batted under his captaincy would be better suited with the long tail we will have.
Click to expand...
Exactly!! was trying to get that point across to him several times ( you have done it better) :D

Yet you would think the way he has gone on it’s the most ridiculous thing in the world to suggest both Bairstow and Foakes in the side is better option for the side than Crawley and Bairstow!

It’s not it’s a more than fair view
 
Last edited:
Sillypoint said:
is that cos he got Smith out with a dubious LBW
Click to expand...
Backup for Woakes,Potts and Broad as were not going to risk Jimmy or Robinson.

Tongue only played 7 T20's whereas the other backup options out there either yet to get a test call up or very few in Cook, Porter, Gregory, Fisher, Mahmood all play T20 cricket.

So may as well pick a guy who's unlikely to play in Tests or T20 but have a look at them and if called upon won't be too bad against Ireland.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top