Just sayin' that when we play like this, we always have one game where our batsmen all go to pieces.
I'd suggest a cheeky punt on the Kiwis.
Just sayin' that when we play like this, we always have one game where our batsmen all go to pieces.
I'd suggest a cheeky punt on the Kiwis.
Seems natural that a massive dose of hubris is in the post after thwacking the convicts like that.
3 single figure scores, three in the 20s and an 89 wasn't really what I meant. I'd almost be happier is we'd been skittled out in that game for a hundred or so, knowing we'd got it out of our system.
Against SL we need c.110 off 20 overs with 7 wickets left, so we've had an end collapse as well as a beginning collapse, but we haven't had a proper, old skool, English collapsofück yet.
Stokes scored 80s in both games. {And that bodes well for the Ashes, I accept.}
If you had a choice, would you bat first or chase? I just wonder if we're more likely to collapse while chasing or if this would be offset by the fact that our bowlers could restrict the Kiwis and reduce scoreboard pressure.
Any idea why Woakes would still have had an over left if the Aussies had gone the distance? Seems silly to me.
He's really proving himself as an ODI bowler.
There was an article in the Times or Graun saying Joffra must play in the Ashes. But if both JA and SB are fit and firing, and Stokes is going to play, are they really suggesting we should drop Woakes?
Or could be go into a test match with 5 quicks and just Root's twirlers, a bit like the WIndies used to but with Stokes as well.
It's a pity YJB isn't good enough as a test no.3 as I'd like to see Foakes keep. But we have too many all rounders and no test top order.
Don't think Broad is an automatic pick so maybe an opportunity there (wrong in my view). Woakes isn't guaranteed a start - there is Wood as well. I fancy there may be a bit of rotation but I would start at Edgbaston with:
Burns
Roy
??? (won't score any runs anyway)
Root
Bairstow
Stokes
Buttler (these three in any order)
Ali
Archer
Broad
Anderson
Re Woakes in the ODI - don't think Morgan likes to bowl him in the middle overs. Really seen as just a new ball bowler. Could almost bowl him out from the start. Fair enough to bring him back for the tail though
I agree about bringing Woakes back for the tail, but as you say, if he's not going to be used at the death, then keep bowling him if he's only going at 3-4 an over at the start.
We just don't have a test top 3, though, and I don't see how you can hope to win a series without one.
Starc (famous last words) isn't actually that dangerous in English conditions though. Can't bowl with a Duke ball. Hazelwood may be more of an issue. Interesting, if seems likely, Roy opens. Just needs to come off once or twice and he could have a real effect on the series imo. Genuinely can't think of who we can pick at 3 (Joe? Joe? ARE YOU LISTENING JOE?). Mind you, Jimmy versus their top order shouldn't be a long contest either
Even if you haven't jinxed us to get skittled out by Starc, it doesn't matter. My missus would be too good for any of our contenders for top 3. She bowled against 8 year olds in the park in Mumbai with more talent than the likes of Burns and Vince.
Do you really think Roy could open in an Ashes test? A FC average of 38, with a SR over 82. We need to see off the new ball and get to lunch, to allow our middle and lower-middle order to make hay in the late-afternoon sun.
I've honestly seen people posting on the Times and Graun saying the current odi side should be what we use for the test.
It's the Ashes, ffs. They can't be won simply by playing a bunch of slogging all-rounders. Cloud over and a lost toss and we'll be all out by lunch on the first day.
It's a gamble and the figures don't stack up but sometimes momentum can be a key thing. Look at Trescothick who hardly had a stellar career pre-Test debut and was unorthodox. Got in on the back of great one-day form and was one of the finest openers we've had imo
:nod: Trescothick gets too little credit for our 2005 Ashes win imo. He took the attack to the Australian seamers, got our run-rate up and generally gave us momentum and the initiative (until Warne came on, obviously). There is something to be said for that sort of player - after all, Sehwag's game didn't change much between tests and one-dayers and he ended up averaging 49 :shrug:
Never did see him bat - probably didn't miss much. I was thinking the other day of the best XI I had actually seen live. Think I came up with something like this. Bit batting top heavy but didn't want to leave out Crowe. Not sure you need a fifth bowler anyway
Greenidge
Cook
Richards
Tendulkar (though never saw him bat only field)
Ponting
Crowe M
Gilchrist
Marshall
Warne
Hadlee
McGrath
I’ve got all those, but I’d be able to put Gavaskar in ahead of Cook.
Actually, don’t know if this counts, but I saw Sobers play (albeit in an old fúcker’s game at The Oval when he was about 50) and he’d have to get a spot ahead of Ponting -which also sorts your bowling issue out.
Good point. I hope you're right. I think it no coincidence that as we've seen the rise of T20 leagues, we've been unable to replace Strauss, Cook and Trott.
All our bowlers and WKs can slog scoops and switch-hits for six, but we don't have anyone that can see off the new ball.
But Hales didn't work as an opener despite being in great form in the slogging.
Tbh, if you look at the way Stokes has played this tournament, I don't think he could do a worse job as opener than someone like Burns.
That would give us the option of playing Foakes, a proper 'keeper who's already scored a test ton. And with the likes of YJB, Buttler and Ali (if he returned to form) it's not as though Stokes at 6 is our only counter-attacking option.
Stokes actually has the technique to defend. And as I say, we could then play a proper keeper, or have Woakes and Archer in a side with 5 quicks.
Ali, Woakes/Foakes and Archer at 7,8,9 isn't too shabby. (Or Ali, Foakes, Woakes. - A no.9 with a test century to his name. Pity Broad forgot how to bat.)
Because nobody ever mentions how important his runs were in a psychological sense in taking the attack to the Aussies and in scoring quickly to ensure results. He gets overlooked in most of the retrospectives about that series, but having an English opener go after Australia’s quicks when we’d spent the previous 15 years just desperately trying to hang on was a big psychological shift.
Actually I could have put Gavaskar in - saw him in this match
https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/...f-england-1987
Actually forgotten I'd seen Khan and Dev play too :yikes: Think Imran might even squeeze McGrath out of my team
LOL! That's where I saw him, too. I remember thinking 'How come this little Indian chap is playing the fearsome Marshall as if he's all the time in the world, when our players are being ripped apart by him?
The answer, of course, was that he was much, much better than them.
I remember Imran's knock in that game, too. :cloud9: Who would have thought he'd end up being Prime Minister of Pakistan, eh?
Nah. It was scoring 407 a/o in just under 80 overs on the first day of the 2nd test that turned things around after the Lords humiliation.
MK got 90 in 102 balls. That set it up for KP and Freddie to continue.
But I haven't watched any retrospectives. I only have my memories from the time. If only we had an opener like him now.