You all mocked me saying Leach should open instead of Roy.

Only Leach has a 50 as opener. Leach has a higher test average overall.

This match, JR's innings lasted 15 and 18 balls. In the 2nd innings today, Leach lasted 17 balls unbeaten for the greatest 1 n/o in test history.

Ok, if he'd been opening we wouldn't have had him to save the day at the end with his heroic 70-odd stand. But it seems the easiest way to get Jimmy back into the side.

Unless we bring in that Sibley chap (who probably hasn't played any red-ball cricket in months now the ECB only play non-slog in spring and autumn), there aren't really any other options.

I love Roy as a slogger, as I love Hales and Morgan.

But with the Ashes on the line he was almost perfect today. Stokes showed that you only need to score at 0.1-0.2 an over until you've worn the bowlers down and Leach can do that better than Roy.

All hail the Ciderabad hero.

And cleaning your glasses between deliveries is a damned sight more civilised than twitching like your trying to hide sandpaper down your bøllocks as that Convict cünt does.

I hope he gets a match-winning 4th innings five-fer and still knows it wasn't as much fun as a 50 partnership without scoring a run.

Hero.

{And if LA reads this, I still do swear on the whole Hindu Pantheon and my beloved that I really did read that article where Stokes said he'd told the management he wouldn't bat higher than 6.}

Maybe Denly can move up to 3 now he's scored a 50 that helped turn the match in a winning cause? {Especially if Leach can see the shine off more than Roy.}

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult

Only Leach has a 50 as opener. Leach has a higher test average overall.

This match, JR's innings lasted 15 and 18 balls. In the 2nd innings today, Leach lasted 17 balls unbeaten for the greatest 1 n/o in test history.

Ok, if he'd been opening we wouldn't have had him to save the day at the end with his heroic 70-odd stand. But it seems the easiest way to get Jimmy back into the side.

Unless we bring in that Sibley chap (who probably hasn't played any red-ball cricket in months now the ECB only play non-slog in spring and autumn), there aren't really any other options.

I love Roy as a slogger, as I love Hales and Morgan.

But with the Ashes on the line he was almost perfect today. Stokes showed that you only need to score at 0.1-0.2 an over until you've worn the bowlers down and Leach can do that better than Roy.

All hail the Ciderabad hero.

And cleaning your glasses between deliveries is a damned sight more civilised than twitching like your trying to hide sandpaper down your bøllocks as that Convict cünt does.

I hope he gets a match-winning 4th innings five-fer and still knows it wasn't as much fun as a 50 partnership without scoring a run.

Hero.

{And if LA reads this, I still do swear on the whole Hindu Pantheon and my beloved that I really did read that article where Stokes said he'd told the management he wouldn't bat higher than 6.}

Maybe Denly can move up to 3 now he's scored a 50 that helped turn the match in a winning cause? {Especially if Leach can see the shine off more than Roy.}

---

Tbf - it was and still is a ridiculous statement. If Stokes had any real faith in Leach the batsman he wouldn't have tried to protect him so much. He has a first-class average of 11 ffs. Watch how he got out in the first innings - that is more his ability.

Not to take anything away from his efforts of course, but still madness to think he could open the batting. Oh - and I do believe you on the article - you not mad enough to just imagine that ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Luis Anaconda

Tbf - it was and still is a ridiculous statement. If Stokes had any real faith in Leach the batsman he wouldn't have tried to protect him so much. He has a first-class average of 11 ffs. Watch how he got out in the first innings - that is more his ability.

Not to take anything away from his efforts of course, but still madness to think he could open the batting. Oh - and I do believe you on the article - you not mad enough to just imagine that ;)

---

Oh, I know I'm being silly. I'm just yet again making the point that we no longer produce test top 3 batsmen. In fact, other than Root, our middle order is make up of all-rounders and WKs.

I don't follow the CCC but those that do on the Graun were talking about Sibley (???) before the Ireland test. Basically, we're sticking with Roy on the basis of 70 against the Micks, when Leach did even better and actually opened.

I have no idea if Sibley's good enough, and if he is, why he hasn't been given a chance. It's just we don't seem to have any red ball batting cabs on the rank. Everyone's a slogging all-rounder now. I know we can't really open with Leach. I was just trying to praise the fact that he ducked the bouncers and got in line behind the pitched up deliveries and played straight. When unsure, he played with soft hands as opposed to trying to knock the leather off the ball and nicking off.

Either we find a proper opener or we take our talented sloggers and force them to do two hours of nets a day without playing a single attacking shot.

Stokes showed the way. It was a more exaggerated version of that 202* KP got against Ind, where he slogged from 150 to 200 in about 25 balls.

Buttler and Roy have to learn that you have to earn the right to slog, as Stokes did, batting defensively until you've reached 50 unless we've already got a big platform. {Yeah right.}

Credit to Bairstow's 30 against the new ball which started the acceleration, but we are going to have to find some proper test batsmen.

Maybe....if we find ourselves 3 or 4 down extremely quickly then send him in just to break up momentum. Because we seem to go to from 3 or 4 to all out / Caribbean collapso far too often!

Will be interesting to see Smith vs Archer 2

You would think Smith would relish the battle and may have too much experience for Archer but it wouldn’t be the strangest thing in the world if he completely folded after the first one rattled off him.

Archer’s speed is catching them out and Smith can make the adjustments but can he do it after a concussion and the memory of bad injury.

By the way...I’m assuming Khawaja is getting dropped for Laubaschagne (or however u spell it) so Smith can get back in? Shame..Kawaja is gone at the game. Huge loss for England...huge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tony C

Maybe....if we find ourselves 3 or 4 down extremely quickly then send him in just to break up momentum. Because we seem to go to from 3 or 4 to all out / Caribbean collapso far too often!

Will be interesting to see Smith vs Archer 2

You would think Smith would relish the battle and may have too much experience for Archer but it wouldn’t be the strangest thing in the world if he completely folded after the first one rattled off him.

Archer’s speed is catching them out and Smith can make the adjustments but can he do it after a concussion and the memory of bad injury.

By the way...I’m assuming Khawaja is getting dropped for Laubaschagne (or however u spell it) so Smith can get back in? Shame..Kawaja is gone at the game. Huge loss for England...huge.

---

That's not a bad idea. If we start collapsing, have a drinks break watchman. Again, it couldn't make us that much worse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult

Oh, I know I'm being silly. I'm just yet again making the point that we no longer produce test top 3 batsmen. In fact, other than Root, our middle order is make up of all-rounders and WKs.

I don't follow the CCC but those that do on the Graun were talking about Sibley (???) before the Ireland test. Basically, we're sticking with Roy on the basis of 70 against the Micks, when Leach did even better and actually opened.

I have no idea if Sibley's good enough, and if he is, why he hasn't been given a chance. It's just we don't seem to have any red ball batting cabs on the rank. Everyone's a slogging all-rounder now. I know we can't really open with Leach. I was just trying to praise the fact that he ducked the bouncers and got in line behind the pitched up deliveries and played straight. When unsure, he played with soft hands as opposed to trying to knock the leather off the ball and nicking off.

Either we find a proper opener or we take our talented sloggers and force them to do two hours of nets a day without playing a single attacking shot.

Stokes showed the way. It was a more exaggerated version of that 202* KP got against Ind, where he slogged from 150 to 200 in about 25 balls.

Buttler and Roy have to learn that you have to earn the right to slog, as Stokes did, batting defensively until you've reached 50 unless we've already got a big platform. {Yeah right.}

Credit to Bairstow's 30 against the new ball which started the acceleration, but we are going to have to find some proper test batsmen.

---

I wish you would stop saying slogging when you mean stroke-playing. I know we "play" too many strokes when the going is tough but these boys can play some very good attacking cricket - not slogging. Roy's on-drive - arguable the hardest shot in the game (other then the leave it seems) – is a thing of utter beauty. He is definitely not a slogger

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Luis Anaconda

I wish you would stop saying slogging when you mean stroke-playing. I know we "play" too many strokes when the going is tough but these boys can play some very good attacking cricket - not slogging. Roy's on-drive - arguable the hardest shot in the game (other then the leave it seems) – is a thing of utter beauty. He is definitely not a slogger

---

All right. {Though KP's words to Aggers on TMS were: "Once I got to 150, I just slogged my way to 200.")

I have nothing against slogging/stroke-making as long as the chap, if in the team as a batsman, can also play the forward defensive and the leave.

If one of our quicks can face 50 deliveries and just score 2 runs, as Stokes did, or our no.11 spinner can defend 16 balls and score a run of his 17th, then why can't our specialist batsmen?

These are test matches, not stroke-making fests. You need to see the shine off the ball and tire the bowlers out. Stokes played pretty much the perfect innings in terms of defending at the start of the innings and then attacking later.

The fact that Boycott criticised Stokes for not scoring fast enough at the end of day 3 is deliciously ironic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult

All right. {Though KP's words to Aggers on TMS were: "Once I got to 150, I just slogged my way to 200.")

I have nothing against slogging/stroke-making as long as the chap, if in the team as a batsman, can also play the forward defensive and the leave.

If one of our quicks can face 50 deliveries and just score 2 runs, as Stokes did, or our no.11 spinner can defend 16 balls and score a run of his 17th, then why can't our specialist batsmen?

These are test matches, not stroke-making fests. You need to see the shine off the ball and tire the bowlers out. Stokes played pretty much the perfect innings in terms of defending at the start of the innings and then attacking later.

The fact that Boycott criticised Stokes for not scoring fast enough at the end of day 3 is deliciously ironic.

---

You still seem to miss the point that slogging and strokemaking are two different things :shrug: