******Cricket Thread******

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think England have issues, but much more towards the top order, and a little less in the middle.

Obviously as the top 2 or 3 wickets keep failing, the pressure ramps up on the middle order. It would have undoubtedly been a different year had there been at least semi-reliable openers.

I think at the end of the order we should be able to find something out of;
Woakes (Inj), Overton, Wood, Broad (Inj), Anderson, Bess, Curran, Robinson, Archer (Inj)

While more in the middle/lower middle, again can we hope to find some form from some of the following, at some point? ;
Buttler, Bairstow, Stokes (Inj), Foakes (Inj), Pope, Lawrence, Ali

The openers, top 3, top 4, are clearly an issue beyond Root.

There've been quite a few peripheral players mentioned on this thread but i really think if the openers are in any way improved then perhaps the team could settle a bit.

the one thing the selectors did listen to is they went through a period of dropping openers after they'd failed inside a few tests at most, and the clamour was for time. Now they seem to be sticking with players for a bit too long. They have shifted Crawley on to be fair, i really cant second guess what will happen with Sibley.
 
Last edited:
shemnel said:
I think England have issues, but much more towards the top order, and a little less in the middle.

Obviously as the top 2 or 3 wickets keep failing, the pressure ramps up on the middle order. It would have undoubtedly been a different year had there been at least semi-reliable openers.

I think at the end of the order we should be able to find something out of;
Woakes (Inj), Overton, Wood, Broad (Inj), Anderson, Bess, Curran, Robinson, Archer (Inj)

While more in the middle/lower middle, again can we hope to find some form from some of the following, at some point? ;
Buttler, Bairstow, Stokes (Inj), Foakes (Inj), Pope, Lawrence, Ali

The openers, top 3, top 4, are clearly an issue beyond Root.

There've been quite a few peripheral players mentioned on this thread but i really think if the openers are in any way improved then perhaps the team could settle a bit.
Click to expand...
David Steele type needed. He wii be lurking in the county undergrowth somewhere.
 
supercity88 said:
I like your optimism but I think we will struggle to bowl them out with our pace attack. Archer is a huge miss in Australian conditions.

They have got issues but will no doubt find some form with the bat and their bowling attack is high class.
Click to expand...
Its just i dont think there is a side with all bases covered.We have done well abroad apart from India recentely.If Wood and Broad are there we will give them peoblems.Broad is a very skillfull bowler.
Spin is our problem as they are reluctant to pick Rashid or Parkinson.
 
melrose40yarder said:
Its just i dont think there is a side with all bases covered.We have done well abroad apart from India recentely.If Wood and Broad are there we will give them peoblems.Broad is a very skillfull bowler.
Spin is our problem as they are reluctant to pick Rashid or Parkinson.
Click to expand...
Think Rashid has an issue with his shoulder which means he can't bowl the overs you'd expect from a test cricketer over the 5 days
 
If you go back 10 years and use that England team as a template, we had a top 3 (Strauss, Cook & Trott) who you could rely on to do the ugly work, batting for long periods, whilst still scoring runs which usually gave us a solid foundation. After that we had a middle order (Pietersen, Bell, Prior) who were all capable of upping the tempo and scoring quickly, whilst still playing 'proper cricket shots'. Even the bowlers you could usually rely on to get you a few quick runs, because they were usually given the license to come in and have some fun.

Unfortunately none of the above mentioned top 3 have been replaced adequately. Our top 3 is by far our biggest issue. They rarely bat time or score big runs and too often Root is coming in too early, which doesn't play to his strengths, likewise with the likes of Bairstow, Stokes & Buttler. I'm not trying to suggest that those 3 are as good as Pietersen/Bell/Prior but I genuinely believe that if they came in with a platform set up by the top 3 they'd be much more successful.

Sibley needs fucking off, he's got 1 shot and his inability to score puts pressure on his batting partner (I also think long-term he's bad for the cricket's appeal in general). I like Burns, though he's an awkward starter, once you get past that I think there's a good batsman in there. I think Crawley's long-term position will be opening but I don't think he's ready yet. Hopefully we can manage to talk Cook out of retirement in the meantime. Malan deserves another chance but shouldn't open - I believe he's capable of doing a good job at 3.
 
supercity88 said:
A 267 is a 267 though. Shows he has the ability. Players will always have runs of bad form. The Indian subcontinent destroys plenty of English players who generally can't play spin at all. Crawley and Pope are young enough to improve and you have to stick with them. They've shown they have the potential and that's all we have got at the moment.

I don't know what the answer is beyond them. I think Malan has shown some real class in the shorter format and almost plays with a test mentality in those games. He struggles with spin but might be someone we have to turn to... not ideal but again we don't have much to work with!

Sibley has to go. I would like Burns to as well but we probably have to stick with him for now.

We will be destroyed by the Aussies. They're in a lot better shape than us. And with Archer and Stokes out we are so weak to face an Ashes in Australia.

Woakes is another we are really missing in English conditions. A brilliant bowler and also good for 30 odd runs. Would have him over Sam Curran any day.
Click to expand...
Jason Gillespie got a double hundred. Didn’t make him a reliable batsman.
 
Alan Harper's Tash said:
Jason Gillespie got a double hundred. Didn’t make him a reliable batsman.
Click to expand...

Who knows...got it in his last test. Might have been the start of things to come!

My point on Crawley is that his age coupled with the fact he can play some shots means you have to stick with him. We don't have enough options out there to not give someone with a knock like that a bit of time.

Ideally he would be coming in at 3 after a good opening partnership to adapt to test cricket. At the moment our middle order are all playing the new ball more often than not! He has hit a few 50s but is so inexperienced still the jury is out. I just think he is someone we should stick with and Sibley should be binned.
 
Warner, Finch. Smith, Labuschagne. Marsh, Maxwell, Paine (c, wk)
and 4 from Starc, Pattinson, Hazelwood, Cummins, Lyon

Of those, only Marsh isn't centrally contracted, so there are plenty of others to bring in and out.

I'm baffled as to why that team is considered not much good in Australian conditions. The only thing against them is that they're ageing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.