Foakes was sent home after the Lions tour.Just papering over the cracks.
Still did not score 300.
Well done Crawley.Hameed im sorry not up to it.Bairstow has guaranteed his spot for a few more games in which he will be bowled or Lbw.
Why are we getting Billings in?
The best keeper is Foakes.Consistent selection would give Bracey another go.
Muddled thinking Im sure Burns will be back in place of Hameed.
Burns is definitely not the future or the present.Foakes was sent home after the Lions tour.
Hameed turns 25 this month and with 19 innings averages 24.38.
Burns will be 32 in August and with 57 innings averages 30.92.
I agree that they’ll probably make the change, but I’m not sure Burns is the future and changing every couple of Tests won’t do Hameed any good. It really is a mess.
Normal schedule?
You’re suggesting this is a recent phenomenon. The last 3 tours of Australia, we’ve lost 12 out of 14. In 28 innings we’ve bowled them out 10 times and they’ve bowled us out 26 times (we’ve only batted 27 times!)
This century, in Australia, we’ve played 29 tests and lost 22. We’ve won 4 and 3 of those were in the winning series of 2010/11. The other win was when we were 4-0 down!
I think your right they probably wouldn’t have survived that seven overs but a least they showed a bit of grit to get that draw.Those lost overs to rain proved vital. Not sure they’d have survived seven more overs.
Which is one of the reasons why I would persist with Hameed. If he's sacrificed now after three atrocious Tests, then the likelihood is he won't tour the Caribbean. It would also mean he'd have future question marks over his ability to tour Australia in future. I appreciate that there are already question marks over his position in general, but that's arguably true of the whole team (save Root), so I'd persist with Hameed and Crawley at the top for now.Burns is definitely not the future or the present.
To be fair England were really undercooked with not playing any games before the Ashes began, not saying we would have won but I believe we would have preformed a lot better.What are you on about? Do you not understand what the word schedule means, because you've gone on about England's record.
On a normal schedule, ie every tour of Australia ever, there are 3 or 4 practice matches to get the players into 4 day/test match cricket.
England's first match was the first test, and it showed.
They were also the beneficiaries of some unusually sloppy fielding by the Australians and a slice or two of good fortune, though over the course of this series England have enjoyed precious little of that so probably deserved some. It is a draw of course, and that is certainly better than a defeat, but nobody should read too much into what happens in Sydney and Hobart, and any positives should not cloud the judgment when preparing for the surgery required.I think your right they probably wouldn’t have survived that seven overs but a least they showed a bit of grit to get that draw.
Too much one day, 20/20 and Hundred cricket being played and not enough 4 day cricket.They were also the beneficiaries of some unusually sloppy fielding by the Australians and a slice or two of good fortune, though over the course of this series England have enjoyed precious little of that so probably deserved some. It is a draw of course, and that is certainly better than a defeat, but nobody should read too much into what happens in Sydney and Hobart, and any positives should not cloud the judgment when preparing for the surgery required.
You're forgetting that Lions v England game in Brisbane.England's first match was the first test, and it showed.
No arguments from me on that. But it's not just the quantity played that is important. It needs to be played at the opportune time, be truly competitive, and be on pitches that help create Test players who can play in Test conditions.Too much one day, 20/20 and Hundred cricket being played and not enough 4 day cricket.