I mean... Facking hell
"Lads we've just lost the Ashes at home for the first time in 18 years and only 3 bats are averaging over 30 for the series. Changes? Nah, these guys are definitely good enough, why would you think otherwise?"
Australia were very good at making small changes to their XI each test.
On the plus side, new coaching setup should mean a very different team for the first New Zealand test in November
God I can't wait till Bayliss is a distant memory
It's like... Either:
1. They STILL, despite all the evidence to the contrary, think this group of players is good enough, or
2. They've already basically written the game off because it's Bayliss' last game so who gives a sheit, or
3. They're giving the underperformers one more match to keep their place (which implies they'll be kept around if they have one good match, which is the entire problem with England's selection criteria - one good game excuses 10 terrible ones)
Whichever option it is, it's a sheite decision
Keeping Roy, Bairstow and Buttler for this test is silly. The "pressure" is off and therefore I would suggest a decent score proves nothing whrn we know they will throw their wickets away at the slightest hint of pressure. The way Roy's wickets have fallen this series has been disgraceful. Do I blame him, yes a little. But the selectors are mainly to blame.
This test squad is poor. It's as poor as it has been on years. Possibly even decades.
Is there a 1 day series after this?
comment by Bake 'em away toys (U7303)
posted 1 minute ago
Is there a 1 day series after this?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nah. 6 weeks off then five t20s against NZ in early November
Roy definitely has nudes of the selectors.
comment by Amanda Hugginkiss (U11574)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Bake 'em away toys (U7303)
posted 1 minute ago
Is there a 1 day series after this?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nah. 6 weeks off then five t20s against NZ in early November
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I guess the slim line of logic in the lack of changes is that it wouldn't be fair to blood new, young players and then potentially for them to be dropped again after one game when the new coach comes in...
Still don't understand what purpose the selectors serve that couldn't be done by the coaching staff.
dont get all the doom and gloom tbh the series is level at 1-2
Yeah that's my thinking too. See if the existing crop can restore some pride by drawing the series then wipe the slate clean once the new coach comes in.
Do other test nations have selectors separate from coaches? I genuinely can't fathom how they justify their existence. I know there's a lot of county cricket to watch, but surely you'd still only need, say, 10 coaches/scouts to watch every Div1 and Div2 game going and report back to the management after each fixture.
After all it's not like the test squad is training together all year round, they only come together when there's a series upcoming. So during the long periods when the test team isn't even together, surely the coaches have nothing to do? Couldn't they go watch the CC then?
What's the point in having two selectors separate from the coaching staff? If they're effectively scouts, then why only 2? That means they can't possibly watch more than a fraction of the county matches taking place... surely if selectors = scouts, then you'd need more than 2?
It just doesn't make sense to me.
In my test team for the future I was bat Root at 5 and Stokes 6
Have Pope at 4. The top order need to take responsibility.
The later Root and Stokes bat the better. They can build innings..They are expected to do bot when they come in when we are already 2 down..
Maybe a long way into the future. I prefer Root 4, Stokes 5, Pope 6 for now while Pope is still new on the scene. Keep him where he's most used to batting and move him up if he keeps improving. Plus my order retains a right-left-right combo.
Hopefully Rob Yates does become a top player, cos then with Burns - Sibley - Yates - Root - Stokes - Pope we'd have an alternating left-then-right setup throughout the whole top 6.
Foakes best get straight back in the side as keeper batsman at 7.
Agree with Mandy's top 6 with Northeast or even keep Denly at number 3 for now.
comment by Phe'ndombele (U20037)
posted 23 minutes ago
Foakes best get straight back in the side as keeper batsman at 7.
Agree with Mandy's top 6 with Northeast or even keep Denly at number 3 for now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep. I'd still have Hildreth ahead of both to be honest, especially if we're looking at such a young and inexperienced top 6, but any of those three would be OK for now with an eye being kept on Yates, Crawley and (god forbid) Hameed for the #3 slot in future.
comment by Amanda Hugginkiss (U11574)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Phe'ndombele (U20037)
posted 23 minutes ago
Foakes best get straight back in the side as keeper batsman at 7.
Agree with Mandy's top 6 with Northeast or even keep Denly at number 3 for now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep. I'd still have Hildreth ahead of both to be honest, especially if we're looking at such a young and inexperienced top 6, but any of those three would be OK for now with an eye being kept on Yates, Crawley and (god forbid) Hameed for the #3 slot in future.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Isn't Hildreth the most successful opener in County Cricket for the last ten years? Yet has never got a sniff of the slot we simply can’t fill?
He bats at 4 for Somerset, not an opener. Run machine though
comment by Amanda Hugginkiss (U11574)
posted 50 seconds ago
He bats at 4 for Somerset, not an opener. Run machine though
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah just looked, my bad.. think somebody told me what I posted and was quite surprised when I heard it.
That's why I'm excited about Rob Yates. Only 19 but batting at 3 for Warks, and hit a big ton (140-odd) in the CC this year at a "proper" strike rate. Fingers crossed he keeps developing because he would tick all the boxes - a natural fit in the top order, whereas Hildreth and Northeast are both more used to batting 4.
I still reckon either could work at 3, though to be fair Denly is more experienced there
Hildreth and Burns should have been selected years ago
Youd have burns c 1, sibley 2, hildreth/northeast/denly 3, root 4, stokes 5, pope 6, foakes 7
Far better than what weve already for tests and can get so much better.
Bairstow, Buttler, Roy - ODIs only
Sign in if you want to comment
the LIVE Cricket Thread
Page 189 of 232
190 | 191 | 192 | 193 | 194
posted on 9/9/19
I mean... Facking hell
"Lads we've just lost the Ashes at home for the first time in 18 years and only 3 bats are averaging over 30 for the series. Changes? Nah, these guys are definitely good enough, why would you think otherwise?"
posted on 9/9/19
Australia were very good at making small changes to their XI each test.
posted on 9/9/19
On the plus side, new coaching setup should mean a very different team for the first New Zealand test in November
posted on 9/9/19
God I can't wait till Bayliss is a distant memory
posted on 9/9/19
It's like... Either:
1. They STILL, despite all the evidence to the contrary, think this group of players is good enough, or
2. They've already basically written the game off because it's Bayliss' last game so who gives a sheit, or
3. They're giving the underperformers one more match to keep their place (which implies they'll be kept around if they have one good match, which is the entire problem with England's selection criteria - one good game excuses 10 terrible ones)
Whichever option it is, it's a sheite decision
posted on 9/9/19
Keeping Roy, Bairstow and Buttler for this test is silly. The "pressure" is off and therefore I would suggest a decent score proves nothing whrn we know they will throw their wickets away at the slightest hint of pressure. The way Roy's wickets have fallen this series has been disgraceful. Do I blame him, yes a little. But the selectors are mainly to blame.
This test squad is poor. It's as poor as it has been on years. Possibly even decades.
posted on 9/9/19
Is there a 1 day series after this?
posted on 9/9/19
comment by Bake 'em away toys (U7303)
posted 1 minute ago
Is there a 1 day series after this?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nah. 6 weeks off then five t20s against NZ in early November
posted on 9/9/19
Roy definitely has nudes of the selectors.
posted on 9/9/19
comment by Amanda Hugginkiss (U11574)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Bake 'em away toys (U7303)
posted 1 minute ago
Is there a 1 day series after this?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nah. 6 weeks off then five t20s against NZ in early November
----------------------------------------------------------------------
posted on 9/9/19
I guess the slim line of logic in the lack of changes is that it wouldn't be fair to blood new, young players and then potentially for them to be dropped again after one game when the new coach comes in...
Still don't understand what purpose the selectors serve that couldn't be done by the coaching staff.
posted on 9/9/19
dont get all the doom and gloom tbh the series is level at 1-2
posted on 9/9/19
Yeah that's my thinking too. See if the existing crop can restore some pride by drawing the series then wipe the slate clean once the new coach comes in.
posted on 9/9/19
Do other test nations have selectors separate from coaches? I genuinely can't fathom how they justify their existence. I know there's a lot of county cricket to watch, but surely you'd still only need, say, 10 coaches/scouts to watch every Div1 and Div2 game going and report back to the management after each fixture.
After all it's not like the test squad is training together all year round, they only come together when there's a series upcoming. So during the long periods when the test team isn't even together, surely the coaches have nothing to do? Couldn't they go watch the CC then?
What's the point in having two selectors separate from the coaching staff? If they're effectively scouts, then why only 2? That means they can't possibly watch more than a fraction of the county matches taking place... surely if selectors = scouts, then you'd need more than 2?
It just doesn't make sense to me.
posted on 9/9/19
In my test team for the future I was bat Root at 5 and Stokes 6
Have Pope at 4. The top order need to take responsibility.
The later Root and Stokes bat the better. They can build innings..They are expected to do bot when they come in when we are already 2 down..
posted on 9/9/19
Maybe a long way into the future. I prefer Root 4, Stokes 5, Pope 6 for now while Pope is still new on the scene. Keep him where he's most used to batting and move him up if he keeps improving. Plus my order retains a right-left-right combo.
Hopefully Rob Yates does become a top player, cos then with Burns - Sibley - Yates - Root - Stokes - Pope we'd have an alternating left-then-right setup throughout the whole top 6.
posted on 9/9/19
Foakes best get straight back in the side as keeper batsman at 7.
Agree with Mandy's top 6 with Northeast or even keep Denly at number 3 for now.
posted on 9/9/19
comment by Phe'ndombele (U20037)
posted 23 minutes ago
Foakes best get straight back in the side as keeper batsman at 7.
Agree with Mandy's top 6 with Northeast or even keep Denly at number 3 for now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep. I'd still have Hildreth ahead of both to be honest, especially if we're looking at such a young and inexperienced top 6, but any of those three would be OK for now with an eye being kept on Yates, Crawley and (god forbid) Hameed for the #3 slot in future.
posted on 9/9/19
comment by Amanda Hugginkiss (U11574)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Phe'ndombele (U20037)
posted 23 minutes ago
Foakes best get straight back in the side as keeper batsman at 7.
Agree with Mandy's top 6 with Northeast or even keep Denly at number 3 for now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep. I'd still have Hildreth ahead of both to be honest, especially if we're looking at such a young and inexperienced top 6, but any of those three would be OK for now with an eye being kept on Yates, Crawley and (god forbid) Hameed for the #3 slot in future.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Isn't Hildreth the most successful opener in County Cricket for the last ten years? Yet has never got a sniff of the slot we simply can’t fill?
posted on 9/9/19
He bats at 4 for Somerset, not an opener. Run machine though
posted on 9/9/19
comment by Amanda Hugginkiss (U11574)
posted 50 seconds ago
He bats at 4 for Somerset, not an opener. Run machine though
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah just looked, my bad.. think somebody told me what I posted and was quite surprised when I heard it.
posted on 9/9/19
That's why I'm excited about Rob Yates. Only 19 but batting at 3 for Warks, and hit a big ton (140-odd) in the CC this year at a "proper" strike rate. Fingers crossed he keeps developing because he would tick all the boxes - a natural fit in the top order, whereas Hildreth and Northeast are both more used to batting 4.
I still reckon either could work at 3, though to be fair Denly is more experienced there
posted on 9/9/19
Hildreth and Burns should have been selected years ago
posted on 9/9/19
Youd have burns c 1, sibley 2, hildreth/northeast/denly 3, root 4, stokes 5, pope 6, foakes 7
Far better than what weve already for tests and can get so much better.
posted on 9/9/19
Bairstow, Buttler, Roy - ODIs only
Page 189 of 232
190 | 191 | 192 | 193 | 194