Thought they would have gone with Cook. Taking wickets at 16 over the last 3 years
-
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
- Thread starter Liverpool Beachball
- Start date
mackembhoy
Striker
Me too but then if neither going to play in the test barring further injury. Better for the player to be doing something for their county
Tongue not needed for the blast.
Supposedly Tongue is somewhat fast and awkward whereas Cook probs more akin to Woakes/Potts. So tongue offers something different.
Last edited:
Durham-Mackem41
Midfield
Burns made a an Ashes hundred. Your hero Crawley got dropped in an ashes series and recalled despite averaging 11 in that year and was awful again.
He has hard hands plays with an angled bat as is a poor judge of line and length. If you play enough games every has the odd good knock.
I hope he does well in the series but more likely be low scores. Also Burns could catch in the slips.
Crawley will never ever be a decent test batsman it’s as simple as that as others have said we would of lost nothing moving Pope up to open.
Bairstow looked stiff as a board during our game v Yorkshire recently. Would of had him in as batsman only.
mackembhoy
Striker
Plays T20 cricket and already seen he's not the answer at test level.
Tongue a new bowler to look at and not going to disrupt a county when invariably doesn't do anything but carry drinks.
Last edited:
MustardAndOnions
Winger
He isnt my hero, but your criticism is ridiculous
I thouht they may look at Cook
No we havent, Brook has replaced Foakes, not bairstow
no most didnt want that at all, not seen one person in cricket suggest this
its a weird weird thing on this forum.
They didnt even pick Foakes in Pakistan man, he isnt that important
Exactly!! was trying to get that point across to him several times ( you have done it better)
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
Its amazin how you are right but every other single person in cricket is wrong
THEY. PLAY. IN. COMPLETELY. DIFFERENT. POSITIONS.
ffs man.
Its either Brook or Foakes, its nothing to do with Crawley.
Foakes was not missed in Pakistan, not even 1% and thats a plae you supposedly need your "best keeper"
Pope did it and we were 2-0 up
Last edited:
mackembhoy
Striker
Here's all these articles from people in cricket not discussing changing our opener from a quick google. Baring in mind i've seen more articles than this for months.He isnt my hero, but your criticism is ridiculous
I thouht they may look at Cook
No we havent, Brook has replaced Foakes, not bairstow
no most didnt want that at all, not seen one person in cricket suggest this
its a weird weird thing on this forum.
They didnt even pick Foakes in Pakistan man, he isnt that important
Its amazin how you are right but every other single person in cricket is wrong
THEY. PLAY. IN. COMPLETELY. DIFFERENT. POSITIONS.
ffs man.
Its either Brook or Foakes, its nothing to do with Crawley.
Foakes was not missed in Pakistan, not even 1% and thats a plae you supposedly need your "best keeper"
Pope did it and we were 2-0 up
Mark Butcher and Scyld Berry not sure who they are in cricket, must be new to the commenting on the game.
Use
You must be logged on to see external links
or
You must be logged on to see external links
if you want to get past the paywalls to read their views.
You must be logged on to see external links
Albeit in these articles more mention Stokes than Pope but the latter still mooted.
I also post on Cricketweb and the opinion has been the same on Crawley for months and about dropping him most having Pope to open. You also just had to look at the comments on twitter after the squad was announced again all about Crawley.
Again for you at the back RE Pakistan
Pope only kept in Pakistan because Foakes was ill. The plan had been to use Leach and Livingstone as our two spinners in Pakistan.
As Foakes was ill it allowed us to pick Jacks to strengthen the batting plus go with 3 spinners instead of 2.
Livingstone then got injured in the first test and Jacks took a 6fer unexpectedly. Foakes would have come back in if Livingstone didn't get injured.
Jacks kept his place so we didn't go in with just one frontline spinner and there's always something to be said for not changing a winning team
Foakes then came back because the keeping was too much for Pope and also batting at 3. As we moved him down the order in the second test second innings.
Foakes also scored 64 in the third test only Brook and Duckett scored more. He also had 5 dismissals. But obviously the third test and performances in account for 1% or something, so Brooks century and Ahmed fifer in that test must be similar.
Brook replaced Bairstow, Bairstow replaced Foakes really. Not Brook replacing Foakes as you said.
What if Livingstone had done Brook levels in Pakistan would have been an even more of a head scratcher of trying to pick the team well before now.
Last edited:
MustardAndOnions
Winger
All the articles after the selection said its the right thing, take a look, I havet not the time
we didnt miss Foakes in Pakistsan, that was in the indication he wasnt going to be back
it isnt a remote suprise
Yes BRook has replaced Foakes
and Duckett replaced Lees, the only changes from last summer. People trying to make this is a Bairstow story, its nout to do woth him
Why always Bairstow? Why does Bairstow always get picked on treated differently, no matter how he performs? Leave him alone man.
Foakes is a good cricketer and agood bloke but Bairstow and Brook are much better, its really as simple as that.
I dunno why you are still wasting you enery on this
Last edited:
Voice of fair play
Striker
It’s been explained to you a thousand times by several posters on here.He isnt my hero, but your criticism is ridiculous
I thouht they may look at Cook
No we havent, Brook has replaced Foakes, not bairstow
no most didnt want that at all, not seen one person in cricket suggest this
its a weird weird thing on this forum.
They didnt even pick Foakes in Pakistan man, he isnt that important
Its amazin how you are right but every other single person in cricket is wrong
THEY. PLAY. IN. COMPLETELY. DIFFERENT. POSITIONS.
ffs man.
Its either Brook or Foakes, its nothing to do with Crawley.
Foakes was not missed in Pakistan, not even 1% and thats a plae you supposedly need your "best keeper"
Pope did it and we were 2-0 up
JackL
Midfield
That looks so much more appealing with Crawley not in it...
MustardAndOnions
Winger
It’s been explained you about a thousand times. You’re wrong mate, deal with it
If you want another opener, pick one, it’s a specialist position
Bairstow and Brook are far superior players to foakes
I can’t believe you’re still going on about this like, get over it man. He Averages 4 more than Crawley, that’ll transform the team
Spending an whole ashes summrr talking about this man. It’s remarkable, it’s not even an issue.
Last edited:
Voice of fair play
Striker
It’s not about been right or wrong mate.
It’s about respecting each others opinions and views and you would do well to remember that.
Sport any sport will always have different views about who makes a certain side.
I respect your view why you would prefer Crawley and Bairstow in the side, you would do well to respect that others prefer Bairstow and Foakes.
It’s just a different view and neither is right or wrong
Last edited:
MustardAndOnions
Winger
You are still banging on the same point over a week later
It’s never going to happen
The team is stronger than last summer. When are you going to move on?
Foakes will be keeping in the Royal London and Brook will be batting in the middle order in his place, that’s the decision. Move on
Every time Crawley, Brook or bairstow get out now we will have people in here gloating “look see foakes wouldn’t have done that”
Last edited:
Voice of fair play
Striker
You are still banging on the same point over a week later
It’s never going to happen
The team is stronger than last summer. When are you going to move on?
Foakes will be keeping in the Royal London and Brook will be batting in the middle order in his place, that’s the decision. Move on
Every time Crawley, Brook or bairstow get out now we will have people in here gloating “look see foakes wouldn’t have done that”
I hope not, because it’s not about that, it’s about the team doing well and been grown up and accepting different views
MustardAndOnions
Winger
You don’t seem to able to accept it thohhh
You’ve been making the same redundant point for 10 days
Is it not time to move on?
Voice of fair play
Striker
I accept it and want England to win no matter who they play and hope Crawley scores a hundred every game.
But I totally resent your lack of respect for other posters views and opinions.
Telling them they wrong, when it’s not a question of right or wrong just a different opinion
MustardAndOnions
Winger
You literally just said I was wrong saying “several posters had explained it to me”
Aye some on here desperate for England to lose wickets! I’ll be there thankfully so you won’t hear out from me!
Durham-Mackem41
Midfield
Love it how you think Bairstow is going to maintain his batting average with the gloves and moving him down the order to 7. By playing Foakes would of allowed Johny to stay at 5 and concentrate on his batting.
