England's Summer of Cricket 2023, Featuring The Ashes

First topic message reminder :

June 1st-June 4th: One Test v Ireland (four days)
June 16th-July 31st: Five Tests v Australia
August 30th-September 5th: Four T20s v New Zealand
September 8th-September 15th: Four ODIs v New Zealand
September 20th-September 26th: Three ODIs v Ireland

England try to wrest the Ashes back from Australia, in a series which could be the greatest since 2005. Australia have currently held the urn for just over five years, which is the longest spell of urn-holding since the 1989-2005 period.

Ireland also visit for a test before that, and then there's some limited-overs games squashed into the last days of summer.

So no joy for the bowlers in that brief spell. Suppose many will say England threw away maybe forty runs by declaring. Maybe they did. And maybe Australia would have gone bang bang with the new ball ... we will never know.

I wouldn't have declared . But I won't complain Stokes did so. Didn't get them a wicket ; but you could see the Australian openers were nervous as , with some very dodgy and hesitant running. Reckon it was worth a try.

And they have to start again in the morning.

All up , a cracking day of cricket

Where to even start with that day. Sometimes the risks don't work, but bazball isn't just everyone trying to go at 5 an over regardless

Duty281 wrote:

No name Bertie wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

No name Bertie wrote:Now it is looking like an unnecessary desperate move to declare.

Ah, judging by hindsight, are we?

Always the best position to judge from in the final analysis.

The easiest position. Anyone is right in hindsight.

I didn't say right - I said "final analysis".

Cracking day of Test cricket
Crawley showed he deserves place and shut up a few critics.

Not entirely sure declaration was right decision but can't fault ambition.

From Cricviz - The average lateral movement (seam+swing) of 0.89° on offer for pace bowlers today is the lowest recorded in a day of Test cricket in England since records began in 2006.

Just goes to underline how short of par England were, and how tough it's going to be tomorrow with no real pace threat and no quality spinner against the three best in the world, plus Warner/Khawaja/Green/Carey.

We're just seeing so much idiocy with this Bazball nonsense. So many soft dismissals today out of a desire to blast 400 in a day, rather than play actual test cricket; the most brainless declaration you'll see when England were actually threatening 450, just so England could get four overs at Australia; and the desire to prepare these roads, negating England's natural seam advantage and giving Australia a second home to play at.

Weather should be fine for tomorrow, but day three might see a fair bit of rain.

mountain man wrote:Cracking day of Test cricket
Crawley showed he deserves place and shut up a few critics.

Not entirely sure declaration was right decision but can't fault ambition.

Disagree that Crawley showed he deserved his place based on one innings of 61 played on a road. He did get a good ball, but he should have been out before that in any case.

Come on, the pressure he's been under given the criticism he's received (yes some deserved) to perform in first Test of series was good. No matter how benign the wicket he still had to score the runs.
If anyone deserves criticism for his batting today it's Stokes. That was poor from him.

alfie wrote:... Suppose many will say England threw away maybe forty runs by declaring. Maybe they did. And maybe Australia would have gone bang bang with the new ball ... we will never know.

... but you could see the Australian openers were nervous as , with some very dodgy and hesitant running. Reckon it was worth a try. ....

I have to say alfie makes a great point.  The declaration was made when the new ball was due and with Root and two tail-enders left there was a risk-reward calculus to be made.

Duty281 wrote:From Cricviz - The average lateral movement (seam+swing) of 0.89° on offer for pace bowlers today is the lowest recorded in a day of Test cricket in England since records began in 2006.

Just goes to underline how short of par England were, and how tough it's going to be tomorrow with no real pace threat and no quality spinner against the three best in the world, plus Warner/Khawaja/Green/Carey.

We're just seeing so much idiocy with this Bazball nonsense. So many soft dismissals today out of a desire to blast 400 in a day, rather than play actual test cricket; the most brainless declaration you'll see when England were actually threatening 450, just so England could get four overs at Australia; and the desire to prepare these roads, negating England's natural seam advantage and giving Australia a second home to play at.

Weather should be fine for tomorrow, but day three might see a fair bit of rain.

I wouldn't say this is an Australian pitch at all. There's largely no bounce then occasionally one goes through. The defining characteristic that makes Aussie pitches different to everywhere else is their bounce. In that way it's more Pakistan in recent years or India in the Noughties than Aussie! It is however an absolute road.

As mentioned earlier to Olly I'm really worried that we're going to see that what little bounce and movement there was got extracted by the extra pace and height of the Aussie attack. Australia have a prime opportunity to make England's best three seamers bowl so many overs it has knock on effects across this compacted series.

Given we've seen the batters at England's disposal improve their fortunes incomparably with the more aggressive shot selection I struggle to criticise there as much. They are still a flawed batting side but a far better one than when they were being more defensive and just getting pinned LBW or nicking off rather than getting stumped.

The declaration I really disliked. My stream had cut out so I went on BBC and the headline was "England declare", I clicked on it and the thread hadn't updated so it said "Root pushing England towards 400". For a second I thought I'd hallucinated the declaration and felt better. Then it updated and I felt a lot worse.

Force the Aussie openers to come out tomorrow morning and they are still looking at coming off the field, then heading straight back out. Runs were flowing as the bowlers tired. Root was still there. It was still great batting conditions. It's more likely to be overcast tomorrow.

It feels England have allowed their selection and declaration to be heavily influenced by the Broad-Warner talk in the build-up. I don't think our best opening bowlers took the new ball and I'm very uncertain the best attack for the surface are in the XI.

I hope to be proved wrong but I fear D2 and D3 could be very long indeed unless there is drastically more movement in their air tomorrow with some cloud cover.

mountain man wrote:Come on, the pressure he's been under given the criticism he's received (yes some deserved) to perform in first Test of series was good. No matter how benign the wicket he still had to score the runs.
If anyone deserves criticism for his batting today it's Stokes. That was poor from him.

I'm not criticising Crawley, just saying I still don't think he's justified his spot based on today. And he didn't score enough today, you need centuries on this type of wicket, not a flashy 61.

Agree about Stokes. Not really sure he justifies a spot in the team based on his struggles for fitness, other than for the fact he's captain.

Duty281 wrote:

mountain man wrote:Come on, the pressure he's been under given the criticism he's received (yes some deserved) to perform in first Test of series was good. No matter how benign the wicket he still had to score the runs.
If anyone deserves criticism for his batting today it's Stokes. That was poor from him.

I'm not criticising Crawley, just saying I still don't think he's justified his spot based on today. And he didn't score enough today, you need centuries on this type of wicket, not a flashy 61.

Agree about Stokes. Not really sure he justifies a spot in the team based on his struggles for fitness, other than for the fact he's captain.

I'm very mixed on this one—I think he definitely demands his place if he's bowling, plus he's one of very few captains who has actually had a significant impact on the way his team plays. But if you're looking at him as a pure batter then I do think he's been under-performing for a good while, and would definitely be looking over his shoulder without the other strings to his bow.

The balance he brings is so valuable, his captaincy so fresh, and his old-ball bowling so important that I don't think he's under any actual threat but he really does need to start scoring more consistent runs.

king_carlos wrote: ...

The declaration I really disliked. My stream had cut out so I went on BBC and the headline was "England declare", I clicked on it and the thread hadn't updated so it said "Root pushing England towards 400". For a second I thought I'd hallucinated the declaration and felt better. Then it updated and I felt a lot worse.

Force the Aussie openers to come out tomorrow morning and they are still looking at coming off the field, then heading straight back out. Runs were flowing as the bowlers tired. Root was still there. It was still great batting conditions. It's more likely to be overcast tomorrow.

It feels England have allowed their selection and declaration to be heavily influenced by the Broad-Warner talk in the build-up. I don't think our best opening bowlers took the new ball and I'm very uncertain the best attack for the surface are in the XI.

I hope to be proved wrong but I fear D2 and D3 could be very long indeed unless there is drastically more movement in their air tomorrow with some cloud cover.

I could understand the declaration but I also disliked it.

IF Australia had lost one of their openers in those 4 overs we would be rubbing our hands in glee and eagerly anticipating getting at 'em again in the morning. Even more so if they had used a night watchmam who would be there for us to knock over early.

Was it sensible to think we might get a wicket? It was always going to be a gamble (I'll come back to that) but I think it was - well, just about. The openers wouldn't have been expecting the declaration, wouldn't have been prepared for it and wouldn't have liked it. Furthermore, they would in all likelihood have been knackered after fielding all day in the very hot weather. Sometimes it turns out easier to take a wicket in a few overs than a lot.

However, it needs to be recognised that the gamble, as well as not paying off with a wicket, was one we did not need to take. I'm not convinced our first dig total is a par score and so I would have liked us to try and score as many more as we could tonight and, ideally, in the second morning. As Alfie posted, we don't know what would have happened if we had batted on. Australia might have gone bang, bang although I feel there was cause for more optimism than that given how Root and Robinson were doing, even with a new ball soon due. Also, whilst the openers wouldn't have been too chuffed about going out to bat tonight, I suspect their skipper Cummins was content that our first innings had come to an end on the first day, even if he needed some assistance from his English counterpart for that to happen.

Lastly, with the gamble not paying off, both openers walk to the crease in the morning with runs already to their name. That's always a much nicer feeling than being faced with having to get off the mark.

In addition to that boost of walking out in the morning having got off the mark I'd imagine the Aussie openers will also be sleeping better having seen just how innocuous it looked.

I commented early on that I kept thinking the Aussies weren't bowling at full tilt then I'd look at the speeds and they very clearly were. In fact their average speeds were impressive. It's just such a featherbed that it looked a lot slower. The odd one has leapt but they were few and far between even with the Aussies quicker attack.

With every ball of those 4 overs limply floating onto the openers bats I just felt less and less enthusiastic about D2.

I'd say I'm often one of the optimistic ones as well! 

king_carlos wrote:In addition to that boost of walking out in the morning having got off the mark I'd imagine the Aussie openers will also be sleeping better having seen just how innocuous it looked.

And in addition to that I'd imagine the bowlers will be feeling more relieved too, resting up and getting any minor first day aches ironed out on the massage table, even though the quicks only bowled 15 overs or so each. Lyon will feel quite lucky too, after bowling around 30 overs on that road, sitting back in the pavillion with a latte and a smile after his quick rub down.

Agree with most of the above sentiments. Bold as it may have seemed at the time (I noted some chuckles in the commentary booth just before the declaration and assumed they were only toying with the idea) it in fact proved to be a little rash and unnecessary move from Stokes. He should have let them stew out in the field for a little while more, get the scoreboard up and over the 400 run mark and (if they'd survived with wickets still intact - which was fairly likely... Joe was truly on a roll!) then make the Aussies wait a bit more in the morning and thereby giving them a slightly larger mountain to climb - with so much time still left in the match.

It was a strange first day really. England could have really made sure they were on top at the close of play. They probably still are as things stand but Australia will feel a bit like a fish that has wriggled off the hook. They toiled hard out there and it was only during that last hour or so (apart from the Root-Bairstow partnership), when things seemed to be moving away from their game plan and that they seemed to be getting punished a bit more than they deserved.

The declaration, brave and bold as it may have seemed, essentially left a small gap in the door for the Australians to sneak through. The fact that they withstood those 4 overs and can now better prepare for batting today after licking some wounds overnight puts them in a far better position than they could have been had Stokes not declared when he did.

Range of views (some very forthright !) about the declaration , and indeed the situation as it turned out at end of day. I've already noted that it was a bolder (wilder ?) move than I'd have made ; but that doesn't mean it was wrong. Didn't get a wicket - but might have. Might have cost useful runs - arguably did so because Root and Robinson were indeed on the charge and the Aussie bowlers were wilting a bit after a long day. On balance - full hindsight - better to have batted on , hopefully to the close.

However : seems a widely held view here from those most critical of the declaration that this is such a road that Australia will bat for two days against a one-dimensional English attack. May be true. But if they do , I would respectfully suggest that making another forty or fifty runs wouldn't be making much difference to England's chances in the match . So does that not , perversely , make the gamble more reasonable ?

No matter . Done is done. More importantly : what does the next day hold in store ? I see the general mood here is a little pessimistic from the England fans - an assumption that the conditions and the make up of the attack gives the home team very little chance of taking wickets. Certainly there was nothing in the four overs last night to alarm the batsmen - in fact I was a little disappointed particularly with Robinson's bowling (I'd have preferred to start with Jimmy) ; but it was only four overs. No question pitch is very good for batting so England will need to be clever : but they generally were , in Pakistan , for instance , so I'll wait and see before throwing the towel in. Bounce was a little variable at times even today and reverse certainly was in evidence with the older ball so at least something for the bowlers to work with. Plus of course the spinner - although expensive - has been the main weapon on day one which suggests batting last may not be a picnic (KP_fan will probably admit Moeen is not in Lyon's class but he can take wickets)

Have to take my hat off to Lyon. They went after him , as flagged in advance. He took some stick at times ; but he never panicked , just kept working away , confident in his own ability , and got the rewards With the pace bowlers largely neutered , and Boland in particular leaking runs at an alarming rate , Australia might have been looking at an even larger first day total had it not been for his efforts. Though I suppose Stokes would have declared at 400 anyway

We thought this clash of two systems would be entertaining. First day certainly was , whatever one may think of the tactics of each side. I for one await day two with the thought that anything might happen...

If England are not good enough here, they are not good enough.  The main failure of the England team on day one was that their batsmen were collectively not good enough such that at the end of the day when the new ball was due one end of the wicket was open.  

If the English bowlers are not good enough to bowl out the Australian side then Australia will likely end up as worthy winners.  

I am now of the view in the "final analysis" and having read all the comments to support Stokes bold decision, given he is best placed to make that decision, and under the circumstances when that decision was made

alfie wrote:However : seems a widely held view here from those most critical of the declaration that this is such a road that Australia will bat for two days against a one-dimensional English attack. May be true. But if they do , I would respectfully suggest that making another forty or fifty runs wouldn't be making much difference to England's chances in the match . So does that not , perversely , make the gamble more reasonable ?

I'd agree, wouldn't be surprised if they decided they would be 'happy' to be behind after the first innings given the way things were going.

Other thoughts:
Don't think the pitch is doing more than first thought, Australia just got an above average number of wickets.
Thought the big breakthrough was Brook, not Bairstow.
Thought the worst/most worrying dismissal was Moeen, not Stokes. Not looking forward to a summer of T20 cameos that will keep the discussion about him as frustrating as possible.
Share the concerns that Stokes could essentially already be approaching late stage Morgan; does too much to leave out, doesn't do enough to include.
I also can't shake the feeling that, for all the talk of losing it freeing him up, Root's best quality as captain was getting the best out of Joe Root. Strange to say after an unbeaten century, but I'm not entirely convinced by this version of him.

Also take my hat off (a beanie would be more appropriate given how cold it was outside last night) to Lyons... but also to Josh Hazlewood.

His selection was perceived as a bit of gamble as soon as the team was announced and Starc was left out. Most pundits were reminding us that he'd spent hardly any time in the Test arena over the last 2 years and it wouldn't be easy for him to just slot back in to the attack after so much time out.

I even suggested it would be better to rest him (due to fear of the unknown or the real extent of his injuries) and persevere with Starc - thinking that last game was a good warm up for him and that he might really hit his straps at Edgbaston. But what do I know....?

However, I thought Josh bowled so well. As such a proven performer at this level, I shouldn't have been worried or surprised. He was very economical and his line and length was better than Boland's, who I thought was a little off his best lines yesterday. So we were also lucky The Bendemeer Bullet got the nod in that respect. It was a brave move made by the selectors. I'm sure Starc will come out firing (when he gets his opportunity again) after his rest from this match.

alfie wrote:Range of views (some very forthright !) about the declaration , and indeed the situation as it turned out at end of day. I've already noted that it was a bolder (wilder ?) move than I'd have made ; but that doesn't mean it was wrong. Didn't get a wicket - but might have. Might have cost useful runs - arguably did so because Root and Robinson were indeed on the charge and the Aussie bowlers were wilting a bit after a long day. On balance - full hindsight - better to have batted on , hopefully to the close.

However : seems a widely held view here from those most critical of the declaration that this is such a road that Australia will bat for two days against a one-dimensional English attack. May be true. But if they do , I would respectfully suggest that making another forty or fifty runs wouldn't be making much difference to England's chances in the match . So does that not , perversely , make the gamble more reasonable ?

No matter . Done is done. More importantly : what does the next day hold in store ? I see the general mood here is a little pessimistic from the England fans - an assumption that the conditions and the make up of the attack gives the home team very little chance of taking wickets. Certainly there was nothing in the four overs last night to alarm the batsmen - in fact I was a little disappointed particularly with Robinson's bowling (I'd have preferred to start with Jimmy) ; but it was only four overs. No question pitch is very good for batting so England will need to be clever : but they generally were , in Pakistan , for instance , so I'll wait and see before throwing the towel in. Bounce was a little variable at times even today and reverse certainly was in evidence with the older ball so at least something for the bowlers to work with. Plus of course the spinner - although expensive - has been the main weapon on day one which suggests batting last may not be a picnic (KP_fan will probably admit Moeen is not in Lyon's class but he can take wickets)

Have to take my hat off to Lyon. They went after him , as flagged in advance. He took some stick at times ; but he never panicked , just kept working away , confident in his own ability , and got the rewards     With the pace bowlers largely neutered , and Boland in particular leaking runs at an alarming rate , Australia might have been looking at an even larger first day total had it not been for his efforts. Though I suppose Stokes would have declared at 400 anyway  

We thought this clash of two systems would be entertaining. First day certainly was , whatever one may think of the tactics of each side. I for one await day two with the thought that anything might happen...

Hi Alfie - Alternatively, how about scoring as many runs as we can when we can? If we are to win this Test, we will still, of course,need to score more combined in the 1st and 3rd digs than Australia manage 2nd and 4th!

Fully with you about the Lyon. He might not have roared but he purred confidently and effectively. As Joey suggested, he will have slept the night.

I wouldn't have declared but then again I'm not capt or coach and unquestionably they know more than anyone here.

I think we have to reserve judgement until Aus have batted. If England take 5 wickets before lunch then it was an inspired decision to declare. If Aus are 100-0 then perhaps not. Thing is, never know how good a score is until both sides batted as Geoffrey used to say.

It's what makes sport and especially "Bazball" so enthralling. Can never say it's dull.

I didn't mind Moeen's dismissal. He's an aggressive tailender and, unless circumstances demand the opposite, he should just have a swing, as should Broad, Robinson and Wood (when he plays), to try and bag a quick 20/30. I thought Duckett's dismissal was the most concerning as he looked very tense and there was no authority behind a couple of his shots (one which he nearly dragged on; the other which got him out).

Anyway, chances of a draw steadily increasing as it's currently raining in Birmingham (that wasn't forecast) and days three and five presently look quite bleak on the forecast.

mountain man wrote:(paraphrased) I wouldn't have declared but then again I'm not capt or coach ....

I think we have to reserve judgement until Aus have batted .... If Aus are 100-0 before Lunch then perhaps it was the wrong decision ....

I am now of the view that even if Australia go on to smash England by an innings, it was still the correct decision.

It was the wrong decision no matter the outcome.

Have to say Birmingham is in need of some wet weather given fish dying in nearby park lakes because of the run of dry hot weather.

Duty281 wrote:It was the wrong decision no matter the outcome.

In leadership once a decision is made it becomes the correct decision.

No name Bertie wrote:

Duty281 wrote:It was the wrong decision no matter the outcome.

In leadership once a decision is made it becomes the correct decision.

No, it doesn't. Otherwise Nasser's decision to put Australia in at Brisbane would be correct.

Duty281 wrote:It was the wrong decision no matter the outcome.

Not sure you can say if England win it was wrong decision. Runs/wickets aside, the pyschological affect it may have on Australia as they certainly weren't expecting declaration(niether were most of England team!).

Well I think any psychological effect will have disappeared by now. Warner and Khawaja may not have anticipated batting last night, but they got through it easily, and now they'll be fully cognisant of what they need to do.

5 minute delay. Hope England open with Anderson and Robinson. I understand why they opened with Broad, but similar to what Carlos said, you need your two best bowlers. With the overhead conditions, there might be a bit for England to work with early on.

Doing a bit more for England but fairly patient from Australia until Broad gets his favourite batter once more!

And Marnus!!!

What a catch by Foakes to get Labuschange, eh Olly? Bairstow would never have got that!

Warner was frustrated, but he needn't have been because he was doing a solid opener's job. But solid opener isn't really what he likes.

Then a superb outswinger to account for Labuschagne. Ball certainly doing more than yesterday and England starting to make it count.

Never under estimate the power of runs on board
Though from WTC final it was clear that Manus is struggling, Warner is too much messed up and reached a terminal end of his career.
Head is susceptible to short but does Eng have the fire power to bounce him out

Ha. I left the room for just four minutes...and returned to see Bairstow catching a right hander. Maybe should have delayed return for the hat trick attempt ...

Useful break, eh ? Broad getting his bunny : not by vast movement but by bowling twelve dots and inducing a false stroke , no ? Getting Marnus immediately a lovely follow up.

Pressure right on the tourists now. That 393 looking a bit better ; but the one they really want is Smith...

Anderson not quite on it with his first spell. Trying to force the length a little too full, perhaps.

Um...Brook? Ahead of Robinson, Stokes, Root, Moeen?

Duty281 wrote:It was the wrong decision no matter the outcome.

Sorry , Duty ; but you said the same thing in Pakistan : and England went on to win. That's just your opinion - to which you are entitled of course. But not sure too many people would agree .

There are no absolutes in cricketing decision making. Multiple choices , all the time. Some work , some don't. If a captain gets the majority right , he's a winner. So far , Stokes is well ahead on points...

1 over of Brooks before drinks? Might be big braining this now

Must admit Harry Brook first change baffles me !

Nice leg side take Bairstow

Majority of people actually thought the declaration was wrong, based on a BBC poll.

Interesting that Broad and Anderson got relatively long spells. Australia limited their seam bowlers to short spells to allow constant rotation. Frustrated that Robinson's had just two of the first 16 overs.

England have done the bare minimum so far, they need to keep it up in this second hour.

Robinson's on now. Not really sure what the point of Brook's over was.

Lowlandbrit wrote:
...
Other thoughts:
...
Thought the worst/most worrying dismissal was Moeen, not Stokes. Not looking forward to a summer of T20 cameos that will keep the discussion about him as frustrating as possible.
...

Hi Lowland - thought that was particularly astute. I saw Moeen make an impressive century at the Oval a few years back. Plenty of attacking shots but nonetheless interlaced with measured and sensible play. In contrast, yesterday his dismissal was like that of a modern nighthawk going for four or bust. Totally unnecessary. With Root alongside him, he should have been looking for a substantial partnership, a personal 50 and to go on from there.

Whatever the different views re Moeen's recall, the batting should be stronger for him replacing Leach. That bonus will be wasted if he continues like yesterday.

Stokes is changing bowlers quickly
A. To assess who is getting what kind of help.
B. And hoping one such change will catch Aus by surprise

All gone a bit flat. The Aussies might have ridden out the worst of todays conditions

GSC wrote:All gone a bit flat. The Aussies might have ridden out the worst of todays conditions

Taylor's been moaning about the scoring rate, but I don't see why. The bowling conditions were at their best in the first hour, England did the bare minimum, but conditions will get progressively easier for batting, plus England's depth bowling isn't particularly strong, so Australia are taking the right approach.

alfie wrote:Must admit Harry Brook first change baffles me !

Nice leg side take Bairstow

It was and to this stage Bairstow is having a very good game.

I saw, Alfie, that you rightly praised Foakes' ton in Surrey's remarkable win against Kent on that thread. Foakes is a fine classical batsman, no question. However, and I think this is relevant to his non-selection for England (hence commenting here), Foakes batted number 5 in the Kent game as he nearly always does for Surrey. That works well for him and his county side. Foakes is at his batting best when he has a 'proper' batsman alongside him. No coincidence imo he had the rock solid Sibley partnering him on the last day at Canterbury and the supremely confident Stokes with him much of the time when he made his century against South Africa that you flagged.

In contrast to that and Bairstow's own batting, Foakes struggles at the crease when batting with the tail. Foakes has difficulty farming the strike and definitely lacks Bairstow's biffing prowess.

I've suggested before that Foakes' best batting position for England - IF in the side - would be at 5 or 6. However, with Brook and Stokes at 5 and 6 that doesn't seem feasible.

It's tough on Foakes but taking all that into the mix along with how well Bairstow has recovered from his broken leg and is now keeping, I - even as a strong Surrey supporter - believe the right man has been chosen by England to don the gloves.

These two digging in . They've weathered the new ball period , indeed. Playing patiently , in contrast to the England approach ; but doubtless planning to bat long and big.

Testing time for England now to find ways to keep taking wickets. Expect plenty more unusual tricks.

Here comes Stokes...

guildfordbat wrote:

alfie wrote:Must admit Harry Brook first change baffles me !

Nice leg side take Bairstow

It was and to this stage Bairstow is having a very good game.

I saw, Alfie, that you rightly praised Foakes' ton in Surrey's remarkable win against Kent on that thread. Foakes is a fine classical batsman, no question. However, and I think this is relevant to his non-selection for England (hence commenting here), Foakes batted number 5 in the Kent game as he nearly always does for Surrey. That works well for him and his county side. Foakes is at his batting best when he has a 'proper' batsman alongside him. No coincidence imo he had the rock solid Sibley partnering him on the last day at Canterbury and the supremely confident Stokes with him much of the time when he made his century against South Africa that you flagged.

In contrast to that and Bairstow's own batting, Foakes struggles at the crease when batting with the tail. Foakes has difficulty farming the strike and definitely lacks Bairstow's biffing prowess.

I've suggested before that Foakes' best batting position for England - IF in the side - would be at 5 or 6. However, with Brook and Stokes at 5 and 6 that doesn't seem feasible.

It's tough on Foakes but taking all that into the mix along with how well Bairstow has recovered from his broken leg and is now keeping, I - even as a strong Surrey supporter - believe the right man has been chosen by England to don the gloves.

I'd agree with all that , Guildford. It would have been nice to fit them both in to the side , given Foakes generally good batting form for both county and country ; but just not practical. Foakes a bit like Woakes : a good player often edged out of the side by a better one.

Wow, what a bonus that is for England, Smith misses one from Stokes right in line

Was a pretty even session edging Australia's way but England will be delighted going to lunch now.

Could be even happier mind...

England's session by some distance.

Australia trail by 315 with 3 back in the hutch.

And, at risk of getting too far ahead, don't forget that Australia have swapped a number 8 (Starc) for a number 11 (Hazlewood) ....

GSC wrote:Wow, what a bonus that is for England, Smith misses one from Stokes right in line

Ha. I did it again...

Nicked off for five minutes to watch the end of my Tigers football match ...and bingo ! Stokes strikes

Have to find a few more excuses to tune out briefly in the next session