Cricket

I think Crawley is a decent player, and is still young, but I’m not convinced he is a Test opener.

At best indifferent to the other two.

 

Losing by 300 runs, 10 wickets and an innings to a side scoring 365.

As bad as it gets really. Until the winter. I'm sure Joe Root will still be sticking around pretending to be a Captain rather than focusing on his batting.

 

But who else is there? And we (even you!) were much happier about after the captaincy-batting interaction after SL and the First Test.

Team selection has been poor, though.

 

Absolutely I was. Because I was led to believe that things had changed in the background which enabled him to spend more time on his batting. Clearly that isn't the case. But he's not nearly consistent enough to justify his triple role he currently does.

Does the captain still have a big role in selection? I assume so. Which isn't exactly another endorsement.

 

I presume so, too - that’s always been the England way (less so in Australia). They got selection badly wrong.

The problem is that the only realistic alternatives as captain that I can see would be Stokes - which would be worse in so far as having the potential to impact on two aspects of the game, not one - or Buttler, who lacks consistency too. I might have said Broad in the past but he’s not guaranteed a place any more and clearly hasn’t got long to go.

 

Just saw Root's dismissal. Blimey. Head completely gone. Sort of dismissal that got me out at school.

It's a shame Foakes hasn't done much with the bat, would have liked to see him a little bit more but at least with Buttler we get the odd innings which can help take it away from the opposition.

I've said Stokes for Captain for a while but if yesterday showed anything, it's that he'll bowl himself into the ground if it's not going our way.

There isn't anybody else as I think the best captain is a batsman that doesn't bowl at all like Cook or Strauss at their peak. So Root it is. Being horribly wasted.

 

I could see some of the younger batsmen - Pope, Crawley, maybe Lawrence - being future captains but that’s a way off even presuming they remain in the side.

Burns captains Surrey, of course.

 

Don't understand the hostility frankly. When the first test was played on a fair pitch which also took spin we won. All pitches since have therefore been deliberately created as spinning minefields. Of course our batsmen will be out of their depth on those wickets and of course their spinner will be far better than ours. Let's see how their top order would face on a damp seaming Headingly wicket. I just hope the low scores for Sibley, Crawley, Bairstow and Pope won't destroy their confidence for when they get to play on proper pitches again.

 

It’s more disappointment than hostility. We performed so well in SL and in the First Test that it looked promising. But we lost so meekly in the other Tests.

 

True, however I think the rotation of sending Butler home after the first test looks silly, he's fairly decent with the bat and is our best wicket keeper. After the second test the confidence was shot as they saw they couldn't compete with India on a sandpit of a wicket.

Having said that, I haven't been convinced by our openers for over a decade now. I think part of the problem is the pushing of slogging forms of the game doesn't suit the education of young batsmen who also want to make their way in test cricket. I wasn't too fussed with the 50 overs one-day cricket. 20/20 however is an eyesore (although I admit to seeing Middlesex a couple of times at Lords a few summers ago), here's the ball, slog the f*** out of it. I have no interest in the Hundred, and I wonder how long it will be before there's a 10/10 where the bowler has to bowl underarm to get to the batsman at waist height?

20/20 is all about bringing much needed extra funds in to cricket, but it's no good for developing test batsmen.

 

Down to the spinning pitches though ?

 

If the wickets are made as spinner friendly, and the batsmen have no idea where the balls are going, I can see a lot more low scores in the limited overs games too.

 

I thought we had just started to fix the long term opener issue before this winter. Sibley seemed capable of getting his head down, Crawley looked a confident stroke-playing prospect, Burns was there or thereabouts. I just hope this winter hasn't killed their newly found confidence.

 

Disappointing result but I’m not surprised. If anything I expected this in all 4 tests and a 4-0 whitewash. So thanks to Root’s batting in the first test the cracks were papered over.

Team selection has been baffling, and I think highlights the one day crash bang stuff is now the priority. Funny how England seem to pivot from one to the other and can’t concentrate on both like other countries. I reckon they’re following the money.

 

I don't think Crawley is an opener. Got a double century at 3 so we move him to an opener where he can't buy a score.

We need a Warner style opener but we didn't have the patience to try Jason Roy for more than a debut series against the Aussies.

 

Yes i think crawley was just filling in as opener and will drop to 3 as long as Burns and Sibley can still remember how to score on proper wickets.
I really hoped Roy would work as an aggressive opener but like Hales before him he seemed incapable of reigning-it-in-a-bit and became a rabbit caught in the headlights. Would be happy to see them give it another go but not sure he can cope with the pressure of 4 slips and a need to not give his wicket away. A wild slice through the slips gets him 4 runs and applause in 50 / 20 over games but a wicket and abuse in test cricket.

 

True . However Gower and Botham and others generally hung around a lot longer than this current mob . If your day out was curtailed by a bunch of blokes swinging wildly at the ball and all over by noon then I am sure your memories would not be so fond.

 

England needed about 115 off 15 or 16 overs at 183-2. Gooch and Randall were flying.
Botham and Gower yet to bat against a 45 over old ball.
For perspective.

 

Well there is a T10 format so we're half way there.

 

And going back to the days of old , Boycott may not have been the most popular player in the changing room and he may not have been the most pleasing on the eye but it is nailed on that the fast bowlers
in his team appreciated his ability to occupy the crease for long periods so that they could put their
feet up and have a well earned rest.

 

And on the subject of 20/20 , where is the glory in being a bowler?
The bowlers are just fodder for the game . If you just wanted to "win"
then you would select bowlers in the mould of "flat" Jack Simmons and
say to the opposing batters " dig that one out son"
But for the game to be a spectacle fast bowlers are neutered and the batsmen
have to win.

 

He was always going home after the first test as his wife was due to give birth to their first child

 

Call me old-fashioned, but in that case I would not have considered him for selection for the First Test at all.

 

I did think that as well. Foakes on a spinning wicket is probably the better bet anyway as he's a better keeper

 

Its not often I agree with Michael Vaughan but ECB needs to prioritise the test team over white ball.

We've conquered the short form format, the priority must be to become the best Test team in the world now.

 

Is Buttler the best T20 batsman?
Imperious today.

 

Was he?
Must have been in my meeting then.

 

Well those last overs weren't very good,to say the least.