England's Summer of Cricket 2023, Featuring The Ashes

If Pope can't play I'd probably prefer Foakes coming in, taking the gloves, myself. Maybe:

1.Crawley 2.Duckett 3.Brook 4.Root 5.Bairstow 6.Stokes (c) 7.Foakes (wk)

It means a rejigging of the order but gets better players in the XI than Lawrence at 3 IMO. Particularly when I'm not that convinced by Lawrence against higher pace. Given the 15 man squad that isn't on the cards though.

If Wood is genuinely fit I'd like his pace in the attack but would probably ere towards the seam heavy attack again if the 4  below are good to go:

8.Woakes 9.Broad 10.Wood 11.Tongue

If Wood isn't fit then:

8.Moeen 9.Woakes 10.Broad 11.Tongue

Which does have a lot of batting depth on the upside.

king_carlos wrote:If Pope can't play I'd probably prefer Foakes coming in, taking the gloves, myself. Maybe:

1.Crawley 2.Duckett 3.Brook 4.Root 5.Bairstow 6.Stokes (c) 7.Foakes (wk)

It means a rejigging of the order but gets better players in the XI than Lawrence at 3 IMO. Particularly when I'm not that convinced by Lawrence against higher pace. Given the 15 man squad that isn't on the cards though.

If Wood is genuinely fit I'd like his pace in the attack but would probably ere towards the seam heavy attack again if the 4  below are good to go:

8.Woakes 9.Broad 10.Wood 11.Tongue

If Wood isn't fit then:

8.Moeen 9.Woakes 10.Broad 11.Tongue

Which does have a lot of batting depth on the upside.

I agree with you with Foakes being the wicketkeeper. His average and Lawrence's is about the same and both have 2 hundreds so far this season. At least Bairstow will make more runs not keeping wicket and no dropped catches.

I would go for Ali to get rid of their left handers and I think Wood is fit.

The way I see selection is fairly simple - Wood comes in for Tongue if they deem him fit enough to play. Woakes will replace whoever of Broad/Anderson/Robinson is pulling up the worst from this test today.

I doubt they're going to play a spinner at Headingley. Will likely save that for Old Trafford and The Oval.

If pushed I'd say they go for Woakes, Wood, Broad, Robinson. Don't think Jimmy can have too many complaints if he is chosen to rest for a test/misses out, unfortunately he is yet again having a forgettable home Ashes summer (was Trent Bridge in 2013 his last *really* good home performance against Aus? Bizarrely considering his "Clouderson" moniker, I think he has a better away resume vs the Aussies than home one)

I see Smith was named MotM.

Hmm. Not sure about that. Need to sleep on it. Night all

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:The way I see selection is fairly simple - Wood comes in for Tongue if they deem him fit enough to play. Woakes will replace whoever of Broad/Anderson/Robinson is pulling up the worst from this test today.

I doubt they're going to play a spinner at Headingley. Will likely save that for Old Trafford and The Oval.

If pushed I'd say they go for Woakes, Wood, Broad, Robinson. Don't think Jimmy can have too many complaints if he is chosen to rest for a test/misses out, unfortunately he is yet again having a forgettable home Ashes summer (was Trent Bridge in 2013 his last *really* good home performance against Aus? Bizarrely considering his "Clouderson" moniker, I think he has a better away resume vs the Aussies than home one)

First name I would have is Tongue
His wickets Warner (2), Smith (2), and Khawaja - 5 top order batsmen.

Woakes last Ashes in England 4 Tests 10 wickets at 33.10

One thing I didn't like was Broad and Robinson were given the Pavilion End and Anderson and Tongue the Nursery End. I would have liked to see all of them bowling from both Ends.

Don't mind KC and Jetty's suggestion to have Foakes keep , Jonny at five and Brook to three : but not happening as he's not in the squad. Lawrence is in form , and can bowl spin too so probably the ideal replacement for Pope...would make four pace man selection easier.

But they'll probably pick Moeen just to annoy Duty

guildfordbat wrote:I see Smith was named MotM.

Hmm. Not sure about that. Need to sleep on it. Night all  

Got runs , on the winning team . Sort of choice that would be made by an AI

Starc three wickets both innings on a flat pitch ? But really if it weren't for this thing that the award has to go to a winner , you'd have to go for Stokes.

Will Eng avoid 5-0,  ? that's the only material question that remains for this series.

When Aus' best batsmen failed and Aus needed 75 odd with 3 wickets  hand
Eng could not close it out. (T1)

When Eng's biggest star delivered one of the greatest knockls  in a 4th inning chase in the history of game and Eng needed 70 odd from last 3 wickets
They still could not close it out. (T2)

Aus's batting stars are not likely to fail......and Eng's superstar is unlikely to produce another inning  of this magnitude in this series.

Can Eng avoid a 5-0
Or in other words can they draw or win a game?

Draw...Nope...this team lacks the hard-nosed play out for a draw character
( Unless facilitated by a rain washout)

Win...yes...if they clear cobwebs, shut noise from experts & critics...and go all-out bazballing.....with no half measures...they may be able to put one across to the Aussies.

Eng desperately need to add bowlers who can bat....such as Moeen, Woakes  will play I am sure and why is Curran not even in the squad?

I can't see Anderson and Robinson playing. This would be Anderson's third test in a row, and coming off a back-to-back one, which is a huge ask for a 41-year-old, as he now is. Besides fitness, he doesn't actually merit selection because he's taken just 3 wickets @ 75.

Robinson has somehow maneuvered his way into having the best bowling average of the series (both teams, excluding part-time Travis Head), but he's got through 91 overs in the series (joint-most with Broad) and I wouldn't want him to go through the rigours of another test. His pace will be permanently below 80 if he does. He needs a rest.

Broad, he might be able to get through another test, but his workload has been high, as noted. Tongue should be fine. Playing Wood will be a big risk. Could he get through 30 overs in a test without breaking down? Hasn't played a FC game since the one in Karachi before Christmas; he should have played a county game to prepare. Instead everyone will be unsure if he takes to the field.

Moeen will regain his place. I note his bizarre hold extends to the commentators. Taylor, on commentary, banging on about how Moeen will add extra depth to England's batting. Um, Taylor, in Moeen's last 17 tests he averages 16 with the bat. Not to mention his woeful bowling. It's rather miserable. England could be looking to the future and playing the exciting Rehan Ahmed, but no. Or they could be playing Liam Dawson, who took ten wickets and scored a ton in his most recent county game, but no. Moeen it is. Moeen's selection arguably cost England the first test. A better return than 3/204 from the main spinner may have turned a two wicket defeat into a 30-run win, but of course that wasn't the only error or selection issue made. After all, Crawley's retaining his place for no reason and Foakes is still nowhere to be seen.

England, getting it mostly wrong and paying the penalty as a result.

Jetty wrote:Ahmed and Potts released from the squad to play the 3rd Test. I think Lawrence will play as Pope could hardly throw. Ideal bowling would be Broad, Tongue, Wood, Stokes and Ali.

That would give the impression they got close enough that they feel they still have a chance; if they'd given up on the series you'd assume they'd give the younger guys a chance to stake a claim.

Duty281 wrote:
Moeen will regain his place. I note his bizarre hold extends to the commentators. Taylor, on commentary, banging on about how Moeen will add extra depth to England's batting. Um, Taylor, in Moeen's last 17 tests he averages 16 with the bat. Not to mention his woeful bowling. It's rather miserable. England could be looking to the future and playing the exciting Rehan Ahmed, but no. Or they could be playing Liam Dawson, who took ten wickets and scored a ton in his most recent county game, but no. Moeen it is. Moeen's selection arguably cost England the first test. A better return than 3/204 from the main spinner may have turned a two wicket defeat into a 30-run win, but of course that wasn't the only error or selection issue made. After all, Crawley's retaining his place for no reason and Foakes is still nowhere to be seen.

England, getting it mostly wrong and paying the penalty as a result.

Until Moeen's finger had gotten bust....Eng was holding the upper-hand in Ashes.
Won't  be surprised if the legendary Ali is named VC

PS* Eng missed Ali when closing T1 and all thru T2....Aus did not  miss Lyon

KP_fan wrote:

Duty281 wrote:
Moeen will regain his place. I note his bizarre hold extends to the commentators. Taylor, on commentary, banging on about how Moeen will add extra depth to England's batting. Um, Taylor, in Moeen's last 17 tests he averages 16 with the bat. Not to mention his woeful bowling. It's rather miserable. England could be looking to the future and playing the exciting Rehan Ahmed, but no. Or they could be playing Liam Dawson, who took ten wickets and scored a ton in his most recent county game, but no. Moeen it is. Moeen's selection arguably cost England the first test. A better return than 3/204 from the main spinner may have turned a two wicket defeat into a 30-run win, but of course that wasn't the only error or selection issue made. After all, Crawley's retaining his place for no reason and Foakes is still nowhere to be seen.

England, getting it mostly wrong and paying the penalty as a result.

Until Moeen's finger had gotten bust....Eng was holding the upper-hand in Ashes.
Won't  be surprised if the legendary Ali is named VC

PS* Eng missed Ali when closing T1 and all thru T2....Aus did not  miss Lyon

All of your points are false. England certainly didn't miss Moeen when closing test one, as Root came in and bowled better than Moeen. England also didn't miss Moeen in test two, a 50+ average bowler is never missed. Australia did miss Lyon, that is obvious, because as well as his wicket-taking threat and economy, they couldn't trust Head/Smith/Labuschagne to deliver overs in the second innings (contrary to your previous assertions) and that meant the seamers had to go through a higher than expected workload.

KP_fan logic

Lyon 9/264, not missed
Moeen 3/204, missed

I see Duty v KP_fan round three is going to kick off as Moeen returns to action

Just trim the quotes reposts , eh , chaps ?

A few thoughts -
Again, a tight Test match decided by some frailties from England (first innings wickets given away when in a strong position, and some missed chances). THere really isn't that much between the teams, although the Aussies probably deserved the win for the quality of their bowling at the top of the 4th innings - POpe, Root and Brook all got very good balls to get them out, while England's best balls were played and missed early in the 3rd innings.

Two controversial decisions: the umpires were right in each case to the letter of the Law, but the Laws themselves are a bit at issue, as well as dozy cricket from Starc and Bairstow.
Starc's catch he clearly had the ball under control and pretty much had his body under control as well except there was still momentum from his slide - could easily have avoided grounding the ball with a little more thought / care. It's almost like he forgot that he couldn't just use his hands on the floor to stop his movement.
Bairstow - I suspect Carey had seen him go wandering earlier, as it was a strange thing for Carey to throw the ball at the stumps in that situation otherwise. Clearly Johnny thought the ball was dead and acted like the over was finished, but Carey did throw it immediately on taking the ball, so in the umpires opinion still live. If Carey had held the ball for a couple of seconds first, I'd be much more vexed by this one, as that would definitely have been gamesmanship.

So who does play the next Test ?

For Australia , I guess Murphy is like for like for Lyon ; maybe Boland back for Hazlewood , with three Tests to go ?

More tricky for England : Wood , surely , plays ; Woakes ? Moeen if they want a spinner - , but quite seriously , if Lawrence were to replace Pope they might feel he and Root have the spin requirements covered.

Batting hasn't been awful - just some silly patches which have proved costly. And if Pope were to be out with injury not sure it would be a big loss . True he has copped a couple of terrific balls ! But still : he does get bowled a heck of a lot ; and he is averaging 16 against Australia. Making him VC seems a bit premature...

Anderson and Robinson probably both need a rest. But honestly I have no idea what England will come up with. Just hope they take the main messages from these two games :

A/ Australia are good - but not fantastic. They get rattled when pressed.

B/ When you get into a good position - don't throw it away !

C/ All of the above.

With regard the Bairstow stumping - I don't know enough about the spirit of the game to comment on it. At face value it looked like Bairstow was oblivious to the possibility that this could happen. If I remember correctly after the ball goes past you if you tap your bat on the ground behind the line then that means you are "in" and can then go wandering off?

With regard to Moeen - surely his bowling finger will blister again if they pick him?

alfie wrote:Don't mind  KC and Jetty's suggestion to have Foakes keep , Jonny at five and Brook to three : but not happening as he's not in the squad. Lawrence is in form , and can bowl spin too so probably the ideal replacement for Pope...would make four pace man selection easier.

But they'll probably pick Moeen just to annoy Duty

Yep, Lawrence is in the runs atm although I can't ever give his bowling much credit. Too many loopy freebies. His action is like some sort of geeky windmill although Olly will probably love it!

No name Bertie wrote:With regard to Moeen - surely his bowling finger will blister again if they pick him?

That's a logical criticism.

But, remember, this is Moeen and logical criticisms don't apply. It doesn't matter that Moeen is a worse bowler than Root, it doesn't matter that his batting level is around Broad/Robinson's ability, it doesn't matter that his finger might blister again. None of this matters. It's Moeen and he will be picked because he's Moeen.

No name Bertie wrote:With regard the Bairstow stumping - I don't know enough about the spirit of the game to comment on it.  At face value it looked like Bairstow was oblivious to the possibility that this could happen.  If I remember correctly after the ball goes past you if you tap your bat on the ground behind the line then that means you are "in" and can then go wandering off?

That's normally how it's done but he didn't tap his bat, just wandered off for a chat.  Can't say I agree or disagree with the Aussies' actions, but I'm glad it's spiced up the series, this pally-pally b*llocks gets a bit nauseating.

No name Bertie wrote:With regard the Bairstow stumping - I don't know enough about the spirit of the game to comment on it.  At face value it looked like Bairstow was oblivious to the possibility that this could happen.  If I remember correctly after the ball goes past you if you tap your bat on the ground behind the line then that means you are "in" and can then go wandering off?

No, the ball is considered live, and so you cannot leave your ground until the umpires consider it dead. In this case, being the last ball of the over, they would call 'over' at that point. Generally, the ball would be considered dead once the keeper has collected the ball and not made any further move to play (such as a stumping) and if the batsmen are in their ground. This is why to me Carey did nothing wrong in immediately throwing the ball at the stumps - if he'd held it for a few moments and let Bairstow wander off, then it was clearly dead, but at the time he threw the ball Bairstow was actually in his ground and only left while the ball was still moving. Bairstow's fault that he was out, as he assumed the play was finished and the ball dead as he was tapping back in his ground.

I'm much more vexed by some of the mankad dismissals - the one against England's women in their final a few months ago was a bad example, as the backing up batsman didn't leave their ground until after the ball would normally have been released; the bowler went through her action and then made the run out, which to me is beyond gamesmanship. If the batsman has clearly gone early, remove the bails before the delivery stride , not after the action.

alfie wrote:So who does play the next Test ?

For Australia , I guess Murphy is like for like for Lyon ; maybe Boland back for Hazlewood , with three Tests to go ?

More tricky for England : Wood , surely , plays ; Woakes ?  Moeen if they want a spinner - , but quite seriously , if Lawrence were to replace Pope they might feel he and Root have the spin requirements covered.

Batting hasn't been awful - just some silly patches which have proved costly. And if Pope were to be out with injury not sure it would be a big loss . True he has copped a couple of terrific balls ! But still : he does get bowled a heck of a lot ; and he is averaging 16 against Australia. Making him VC seems a bit premature...

Anderson and Robinson probably both need a rest. But honestly I have no idea what England will come up with. Just hope they take the main messages from these two games :

A/  Australia are good - but not fantastic. They get rattled when pressed.

B/ When you get into a good position - don't throw it away !

The batting faults are probably sliding under the radar a little, but Pope hasn't had a good series. Four innings, 90 runs, high score of 42, and he's played on some pristine batting surfaces; albeit he has been victim to two delightful deliveries. Crawley/Bairstow/Brook, all with one half-century, but not much else. Brook's been getting plenty of starts but no big returns. All under the microscope as England's batting has been falling short.

Dryly amusing that in a series of attacking batting the one who sits top of the run pile is Khawaja, with 300 runs at a Boycott strike-rate of 38.7, the lowest strike-rate of anyone in the series.

Old Chinese saying: Old, steady and slow tortoise covers the longest ground.

dummy_half wrote:

No name Bertie wrote:With regard the Bairstow stumping - I don't know enough about the spirit of the game to comment on it ... If I remember correctly after the ball goes past you if you tap your bat on the ground behind the line then that means you are "in" and can then go wandering off?

No, the ball is considered live, and so you cannot leave your ground until the umpires consider it dead. ...

Okay so I hadn't fully remembered - the correct procedure would be to ground your bat behind the line, keep it there, and then look to the umpire to make a signal that the ball was dead. When he does you are then free to lift your bat and wander out if it is the end of the over.

Pal Joey wrote:Old Chinese saying: Old, steady and slow tortoise covers the longest ground.

Except it doesn't apply if the tortoise is not "steady" (accusations that the English lack quality batsmen for the labours of test cricket).

No name Bertie wrote:

Pal Joey wrote:Old Chinese saying: Old, steady and slow tortoise covers the longest ground.

Except it doesn't apply if the tortoise is not "steady" (accusations that the English lack quality batsmen for the labours of test cricket).

Joe Root could have provided the steady and patient innings England needed. Not necessary as slow as Uzzie though. He's done it many times before with great success. It's his natural game. A lot of us were surprised that he had been coerced into upping the ante as part of the new approach.

No name Bertie wrote:

dummy_half wrote:

No name Bertie wrote:With regard the Bairstow stumping - I don't know enough about the spirit of the game to comment on it ... If I remember correctly after the ball goes past you if you tap your bat on the ground behind the line then that means you are "in" and can then go wandering off?

No, the ball is considered live, and so you cannot leave your ground until the umpires consider it dead. ...

Okay so I hadn't fully remembered - the correct procedure would be to ground your bat behind the line, keep it there, and then look to the umpire to make a signal that the ball was dead.  When he does you are then free to lift your bat and wander out if it is the end of the over.

You are correct there , Bertie. But in practice , batsmen often move out once it is fairly clear real action has stopped. Bairstow didn't "tap his bat" ; just tapped his foot. And he really should have checked to see what the keeper was doing - in case he'd fumbled and given a run opportunity anyway ! So it was dozy of him. But he didn't expect what actually happened - as keepers do not usually throw the ball at the stumps when the batsman has never left his crease... And that is why I really hate this business : it has nothing to do with the actual contest between batsman and bowler ; just opportunistic - and apparently premeditated - gamesmanship.

Sorry to go on about this. But honestly ; while I was disappointed at Edgbaston that England lost , I enjoyed the game and was happy praise Australia. This time I was again ready to praise the Aussies until that happened. And I still give them full credit for the win.

My lament is for the fact that this match will not be remembered for Smith's hundred , Starc's bowling , or Stokes' near miracle : it will be irrevocably tainted by a , questionable at best , action. That really wasn't needed. I think that is rather sad.

OK that's it from me on this one . Promise

Galted wrote:

No name Bertie wrote:With regard the Bairstow stumping - I don't know enough about the spirit of the game to comment on it.  At face value it looked like Bairstow was oblivious to the possibility that this could happen.  If I remember correctly after the ball goes past you if you tap your bat on the ground behind the line then that means you are "in" and can then go wandering off?

That's normally how it's done but he didn't tap his bat, just wandered off for a chat.  Can't say I agree or disagree with the Aussies' actions, but I'm glad it's spiced up the series, this pally-pally b*llocks gets a bit nauseating.

He did scratch his guard again with his foot, which is the equivalent of I guess. But Carey did also sling it immediately. I do hope Broad carries on with his bit of extravagantly putting his bat in the crease at the end of every over for the entire series too, it’s just great physical comedy from Stu.

dummy_half wrote:A few thoughts -
THere really isn't that much between the teams,

That statement is as far away from Reality as North Pole is from South.
Eng is barely 1/3rd the strength of Aus.
They have competed and worked themselves into winning positions only because of bazaballing and the confident , courageous spirit of their leader.

alfie wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:I see Smith was named MotM.

Hmm. Not sure about that. Need to sleep on it. Night all  

Got runs , on the winning team . Sort of choice that would be made by an AI

Starc three wickets both innings on a flat pitch ?  But really if it weren't for this thing that the award has to go to a winner , you'd have to go for Stokes.

As I've said before, there's no good reason why a member of the losing side shouldn't get MotM. It used to happen a fair bit back in the day.

Stokes is clearly a strong call although he only came to the party - albeit spectacularly - on the last day. He also bowled far too many no balls. So perhaps not.

Duckett is another serious contender with 181 match runs although misses out on the award from me for not converting in either dig.

Maybe Smith although he made a howler when dropping Stokes and was fortunate it didn't prove more costly.

Starc for all his fine bowling on a flat deck and his 6 wickets - the most of any bowler - also shelled one.

Guess that only leaves Cary*? For all the controversy, he kept very well and effected some good dismissals (leaving that one aside). His positioning and take to get rid of Duckett yesterday was properly excellent.

* Not sure if I'm being serious or not here but am confident I've made worse suggestions.

Pal Joey wrote:Old Chinese saying: Old, steady and slow tortoise covers the longest ground.

You hear little else said in Guildford town centre.

alfie wrote:
...

My lament is for the fact that this match will not be remembered for Smith's hundred , Starc's bowling , or Stokes' near miracle : it will be irrevocably tainted by a , questionable at best , action.  That really wasn't needed. I think that is rather sad.

OK that's it from me on this one . Promise

Hi Alfie - but isn't that memory overly influenced by Bairstow being a top batsman? If someone like Robinson or Tongue had been dismissed in the same way, wouldn't the view just have been that he had been naive and dozy (as all the Sky commentators from both countries said at the time of Bairstow) and we would have quickly moved on?

If I had been dismissed in the same way as Bairstow when I played the game, I would have been furious with the opposition if it had occurred in a Sunday friendly.
If it had occurred in a Saturday league game, I would have been furious with myself.

What sort of game did Bairstow think he was playing in?

guildfordbat wrote:

alfie wrote:
...

My lament is for the fact that this match will not be remembered for Smith's hundred , Starc's bowling , or Stokes' near miracle : it will be irrevocably tainted by a , questionable at best , action.  That really wasn't needed. I think that is rather sad.

OK that's it from me on this one . Promise

Hi Alfie - but isn't that memory overly influenced by Bairstow being a top batsman? If someone like Robinson or Tongue had been dismissed in the same way, wouldn't the view just have been that he had been naive and dozy (as all the Sky commentators from both countries said at the time of Bairstow) and we would have quickly moved on?

If I had been dismissed in the same way as Bairstow when I played the game, I would have been furious with the opposition if it had occurred in a Sunday friendly.
If it had occurred in a Saturday league game, I would have been furious with myself.

What sort of game did Bairstow think he was playing in?

A Sunday friendly perhaps?

An interesting note on Duckett's second innings dismissal that I've just seen. Carey is actually standing down the leg side when the ball is released. He's basically standing where a WK would for a right-handed batter but to a leftie due to the short ball tactics. That's something seen incredibly rarely and sums up just how extreme the 'bodyline' tactics were that both attacks, successfully, bought into as that Test went on.

Pal Joey wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:

alfie wrote:
...

My lament is for the fact that this match will not be remembered for Smith's hundred , Starc's bowling , or Stokes' near miracle : it will be irrevocably tainted by a , questionable at best , action.  That really wasn't needed. I think that is rather sad.

OK that's it from me on this one . Promise

Hi Alfie - but isn't that memory overly influenced by Bairstow being a top batsman? If someone like Robinson or Tongue had been dismissed in the same way, wouldn't the view just have been that he had been naive and dozy (as all the Sky commentators from both countries said at the time of Bairstow) and we would have quickly moved on?

If I had been dismissed in the same way as Bairstow when I played the game, I would have been furious with the opposition if it had occurred in a Sunday friendly.
If it had occurred in a Saturday league game, I would have been furious with myself.

What sort of game did Bairstow think he was playing in?

A Sunday friendly perhaps?

We do seem to want it always. Robinson hurling abuse at Khawaja and then ''pally-pally b*llocks'' (@Galted 2023) the rest of the time.

Oh, in the words of the immortal Jimmy Cricket - ''and there's more'' - if it had been Head rather than Green bowling, would Bairstow have thought he had the right to immediately walk down the wicket? Should it really be any different for a paceman than a spinner?

king_carlos wrote:An interesting note on Duckett's second innings dismissal that I've just seen. Carey is actually standing down the leg side when the ball is released. He's basically standing where a WK would for a right-handed batter but to a leftie due to the short ball tactics. That's something seen incredibly rarely and sums up just how extreme the 'bodyline' tactics were that both attacks, successfully, bought into as that Test went on.

Hi Carlos - that's what I was referring to earlier in my slightly mischievous MotM post. This was commented upon on Sky at the time. The comms wondered if it had been pre-arranged as Cary wasn't standing down the leg side the ball before. From Hazlewood's reaction, I don't think the bowler was ''in on it'' - he just seemed impressed and delighted by the catch. Imo, excellent reading of the game by Cary resulting in perfect positioning and a very fine take.

A shame that the controversial stumping has overshadowed how extremely well Cary kept across England's two digs.

Hopefully the wickets for the remaining Tests will offer a bit more pace or movement than the first two - I don't think the short ball tactics were pre-meditated, just that the Lords wicket turned out to be difficult to play horizontal bat shots on because of inconsistent pace and bounce. On a truer wicket, I think England would have just humped the ball over the boundary like Stokes did and like Bairstow did v NZ last summer when Wagner tried to bounce him out.

Anyway, definitely have to be changes for Headingley:
Pope likely to be out with his shoulder injury. I'd like to see Foakes recalled, but suspect the rumours of either Lawrence or Lees are more accurate.
Probably rely on Root and Lawrence to provide any needed spin bowling, so four front line seamers{it's Headingley after all - not noted for being a major spinning track. Give Moeen another week or so of healing before OT, where spin often does play a part)
Tongue and Broad played well, so stay in for me. Jimmy hasn't fired yet, and probably needs a rest, Woakes is the next best swing/seam exponent and strengthens the batting considerably.
Final spot between Robinson, who has looked down on pace, Potts who is a bit similar, or Wood if he's fit. I'd like Wood's extra pace generally, but is Headingley the best place for him to play? Tempted to say Potts for this week and Wood for OT.

Pal Joey wrote:

No name Bertie wrote:

Pal Joey wrote:Old Chinese saying: Old, steady and slow tortoise covers the longest ground.

Except it doesn't apply if the tortoise is not "steady" (accusations that the English lack quality batsmen for the labours of test cricket).

Joe Root could have provided the steady and patient innings England needed. Not necessary as slow as Uzzie though. He's done it many times before with great success. It's his natural game. A lot of us were surprised that he had been coerced into upping the ante as part of the new approach.

Alec Stewart has apparently told Pope to model his batting upon Root's natural game.

guildfordbat wrote:

alfie wrote:
...

My lament is for the fact that this match will not be remembered for Smith's hundred , Starc's bowling , or Stokes' near miracle : it will be irrevocably tainted by a , questionable at best , action.  That really wasn't needed. I think that is rather sad.

OK that's it from me on this one . Promise

Hi Alfie - but isn't that memory overly influenced by Bairstow being a top batsman? If someone like Robinson or Tongue had been dismissed in the same way, wouldn't the view just have been that he had been naive and dozy (as all the Sky commentators from both countries said at the time of Bairstow) and we would have quickly moved on?

If I had been dismissed in the same way as Bairstow when I played the game, I would have been furious with the opposition if it had occurred in a Sunday friendly.
If it had occurred in a Saturday league game, I would have been furious with myself.

What sort of game did Bairstow think he was playing in?

I rather doubt Carey would have come up with the trick for a rabbit. Yeah don't walk out too early ; but Carey threw before he had moved ; so it was a plan. And Bairstow just didn't see it coming - probably because he was looking the wrong way

I imagine Jonny is pretty annoyed with both himself and the Aussies !

JDizzle wrote:

Galted wrote:

No name Bertie wrote:With regard the Bairstow stumping - I don't know enough about the spirit of the game to comment on it.  At face value it looked like Bairstow was oblivious to the possibility that this could happen.  If I remember correctly after the ball goes past you if you tap your bat on the ground behind the line then that means you are "in" and can then go wandering off?

That's normally how it's done but he didn't tap his bat, just wandered off for a chat.  Can't say I agree or disagree with the Aussies' actions, but I'm glad it's spiced up the series, this pally-pally b*llocks gets a bit nauseating.

He did scratch his guard again with his foot, which is the equivalent of I guess. But Carey did also sling it immediately. I do hope Broad carries on with his bit of extravagantly putting his bat in the crease at the end of every over for the entire series too, it’s just great physical comedy from Stu.

He was on peak form yesterday - oscar worthy stuff from the great man. The perfect character to go into the situation and stoke it up x1000.

I hope he plays forever

dummy_half wrote:Hopefully the wickets for the remaining Tests will offer a bit more pace or movement than the first two - I don't think the short ball tactics were pre-meditated, just that the Lords wicket turned out to be difficult to play horizontal bat shots on because of inconsistent pace and bounce. On a truer wicket, I think England would have just humped the ball over the boundary like Stokes did and like Bairstow did v NZ last summer when Wagner tried to bounce him out.

Anyway, definitely have to be changes for Headingley:
Pope likely to be out with his shoulder injury. I'd like to see Foakes recalled, but suspect the rumours of either Lawrence or Lees are more accurate.
Probably rely on Root and Lawrence to provide any needed spin bowling, so four front line seamers{it's Headingley after all - not noted for being a major spinning track. Give Moeen another week or so of healing before OT, where spin often does play a part)
Tongue and Broad played well, so stay in for me. Jimmy hasn't fired yet, and probably needs a rest, Woakes is the next best swing/seam exponent and strengthens the batting considerably.
Final spot between Robinson, who has looked down on pace, Potts who is a bit similar, or Wood if he's fit. I'd like Wood's extra pace generally, but is Headingley the best place for him to play? Tempted to say Potts for this week and Wood for OT.

Surely Wood isn't that fragile that he couldn't manage two in a row ? This is a "must win" : just pick the best XI

dummy_half wrote:Hopefully the wickets for the remaining Tests will offer a bit more pace or movement than the first two - I don't think the short ball tactics were pre-meditated, just that the Lords wicket turned out to be difficult to play horizontal bat shots on because of inconsistent pace and bounce. On a truer wicket, I think England would have just humped the ball over the boundary like Stokes did and like Bairstow did v NZ last summer when Wagner tried to bounce him out.

Anyway, definitely have to be changes for Headingley:
Pope likely to be out with his shoulder injury. I'd like to see Foakes recalled, but suspect the rumours of either Lawrence or Lees are more accurate.
Probably rely on Root and Lawrence to provide any needed spin bowling, so four front line seamers{it's Headingley after all - not noted for being a major spinning track. Give Moeen another week or so of healing before OT, where spin often does play a part)
Tongue and Broad played well, so stay in for me. Jimmy hasn't fired yet, and probably needs a rest, Woakes is the next best swing/seam exponent and strengthens the batting considerably.
Final spot between Robinson, who has looked down on pace, Potts who is a bit similar, or Wood if he's fit. I'd like Wood's extra pace generally, but is Headingley the best place for him to play? Tempted to say Potts for this week and Wood for OT.

Yeah, the third test squad has already been named, and there's no Potts or Foakes in it, so they won't be playing at Headingley.

I'd like to believe England would go with four seamers again rather than Moeen, but it won't happen. Moeen would have probably played at Lord's if he were fit.

So, Pope/Lawrence at 3. Moeen at 8. Broad and Tongue will stay in. Wood probably rounds it off, presuming he's fit after another week of rest. I like Woakes, really like Woakes, but he doesn't seem to fit in with the new order for whatever reason.

Confirmed by ECB that Potts and Ahmed have been released from the squad for T3. No other changes, so no Foakes. Pope retained although that doesn't mean he'll be fit to play.

PS and Edit: as usual, Duty beat me to it.

Just seen the Bairstow incident and think that it should be not out....Bairstow wasn't looking to gain an advantage doing what he did so I don't see how he is out ??....

Granted I'm not a cricket expert but they seem stupid rules.......

guildfordbat wrote:We do seem to want it always. Robinson hurling abuse at Khawaja and then ''pally-pally b*llocks'' (@Galted 2023) the rest of the time.

I've found the idea the teams are too friendly quite odd even prior to this. There seems to be more than a bit of animosity during play regardless of Warner and Broad not trying to throttle each other during a brief break in play.

Then there's been the crowd first at Edgbaston and now at Lords. It took that runout for Lords to really ignite. But given the atmosphere there is usually more akin to nap time at a retirement home there was a fair bit of booing, chanting at Aussie fielders on the boundary, etc prior to that.

I wouldn't say it's been a pally series.

I also find the idea that teams being friendly in breaks in play or off the field is some new phenomenon that undermines competitiveness in our soft modern world. Keith Miller's cricinfo biography accurately refers to Denis Compton as, "his English soulmate". A kinship that started during the Second World War where Miller was fighter pilot. Hardly soft blokes yet somehow managed to be competitive during play whilst friends outside of it.

Not to mention all the players who were great friends from their acquaintance in county cricket. Botham of course left Somerset because he was so annoyed that two of his best friends in Viv Richards and Joel Garner were released. Murali had many close friends throughout the game but was a ferocious competitor. Warne captaining Hampshire of course, yet few were more competitive on the field.

alfie wrote:

dummy_half wrote:Hopefully the wickets for the remaining Tests will offer a bit more pace or movement than the first two - I don't think the short ball tactics were pre-meditated, just that the Lords wicket turned out to be difficult to play horizontal bat shots on because of inconsistent pace and bounce. On a truer wicket, I think England would have just humped the ball over the boundary like Stokes did and like Bairstow did v NZ last summer when Wagner tried to bounce him out.

Anyway, definitely have to be changes for Headingley:
Pope likely to be out with his shoulder injury. I'd like to see Foakes recalled, but suspect the rumours of either Lawrence or Lees are more accurate.
Probably rely on Root and Lawrence to provide any needed spin bowling, so four front line seamers{it's Headingley after all - not noted for being a major spinning track. Give Moeen another week or so of healing before OT, where spin often does play a part)
Tongue and Broad played well, so stay in for me. Jimmy hasn't fired yet, and probably needs a rest, Woakes is the next best swing/seam exponent and strengthens the batting considerably.
Final spot between Robinson, who has looked down on pace, Potts who is a bit similar, or Wood if he's fit. I'd like Wood's extra pace generally, but is Headingley the best place for him to play? Tempted to say Potts for this week and Wood for OT.

Surely Wood isn't that fragile that he couldn't manage two in a row ?  This is a "must win" : just pick the best XI

George Dobell, usually well informed with the England side, has reiterated several times in The Cricketers YouTube summaries of each days play at Lords that he's not convinced Wood will be fit for Headingley.

king_carlos wrote:

alfie wrote:

dummy_half wrote:Hopefully the wickets for the remaining Tests will offer a bit more pace or movement than the first two - I don't think the short ball tactics were pre-meditated, just that the Lords wicket turned out to be difficult to play horizontal bat shots on because of inconsistent pace and bounce. On a truer wicket, I think England would have just humped the ball over the boundary like Stokes did and like Bairstow did v NZ last summer when Wagner tried to bounce him out.

Anyway, definitely have to be changes for Headingley:
Pope likely to be out with his shoulder injury. I'd like to see Foakes recalled, but suspect the rumours of either Lawrence or Lees are more accurate.
Probably rely on Root and Lawrence to provide any needed spin bowling, so four front line seamers{it's Headingley after all - not noted for being a major spinning track. Give Moeen another week or so of healing before OT, where spin often does play a part)
Tongue and Broad played well, so stay in for me. Jimmy hasn't fired yet, and probably needs a rest, Woakes is the next best swing/seam exponent and strengthens the batting considerably.
Final spot between Robinson, who has looked down on pace, Potts who is a bit similar, or Wood if he's fit. I'd like Wood's extra pace generally, but is Headingley the best place for him to play? Tempted to say Potts for this week and Wood for OT.

Surely Wood isn't that fragile that he couldn't manage two in a row ?  This is a "must win" : just pick the best XI

George Dobell, usually well informed with the England side, has reiterated several times in The Cricketers YouTube summaries of each days play at Lords that he's not convinced Wood will be fit for Headingley.

But releasing Potts really limits the seamer options otherwise.
My comment above about Wood potentially not playing in Leeds was more to do with the fact that there isn't usually much for genuine quicks there (or for spinners) so might be a better match for a fast medium bowler who has a bit more control and can get some lateral movement, rather than a doubt as to his durability.

Duty281 wrote:I'd like to believe England would go with four seamers again rather than Moeen, but it won't happen. Moeen would have probably played at Lord's if he were fit.

So, Pope/Lawrence at 3. Moeen at 8. Broad and Tongue will stay in. Wood probably rounds it off, presuming he's fit after another week of rest. I like Woakes, really like Woakes, but he doesn't seem to fit in with the new order for whatever reason.

I actually wouldn't be surprised if England went all seam again at Headingley. I'd be more surprised if they did so at Old Trafford and The Oval.

On Woakes not being favoured. He has only just got fit enough to play Tests again for the first time in the McCullum reign. So the only real case of him not being favoured I'd say would be Potts and Tongue ahead of him against Ireland. Even then we can now see Tongue was them taking a chance to check out someone with slightly more pace ahead of the Ashes. Shrewdly so as well. So really Potts ahead of Woakes would seem the sole example and to be fair Potts has performed solidly enough for England.

I'd have picked Woakes at Lords as said repeatedly but I can't really see them sticking with the three frontline seamers as a case of Woakes not fitting in. Just backing their, when on form, most skilled bowlers. Jimmy did bowl very well on D1 I still maintain. Just without luck and so many balls beating the bat. The rate at which Anderson and Robinson have fallen off in how threatening they seem as the innings drag on is my bigger concern after T1 and 2.

dummy_half wrote:

king_carlos wrote:

alfie wrote:

dummy_half wrote:Hopefully the wickets for the remaining Tests will offer a bit more pace or movement than the first two - I don't think the short ball tactics were pre-meditated, just that the Lords wicket turned out to be difficult to play horizontal bat shots on because of inconsistent pace and bounce. On a truer wicket, I think England would have just humped the ball over the boundary like Stokes did and like Bairstow did v NZ last summer when Wagner tried to bounce him out.

Anyway, definitely have to be changes for Headingley:
Pope likely to be out with his shoulder injury. I'd like to see Foakes recalled, but suspect the rumours of either Lawrence or Lees are more accurate.
Probably rely on Root and Lawrence to provide any needed spin bowling, so four front line seamers{it's Headingley after all - not noted for being a major spinning track. Give Moeen another week or so of healing before OT, where spin often does play a part)
Tongue and Broad played well, so stay in for me. Jimmy hasn't fired yet, and probably needs a rest, Woakes is the next best swing/seam exponent and strengthens the batting considerably.
Final spot between Robinson, who has looked down on pace, Potts who is a bit similar, or Wood if he's fit. I'd like Wood's extra pace generally, but is Headingley the best place for him to play? Tempted to say Potts for this week and Wood for OT.

Surely Wood isn't that fragile that he couldn't manage two in a row ?  This is a "must win" : just pick the best XI

George Dobell, usually well informed with the England side, has reiterated several times in The Cricketers YouTube summaries of each days play at Lords that he's not convinced Wood will be fit for Headingley.

But releasing Potts really limits the seamer options otherwise.
My comment above about Wood potentially not playing in Leeds was more to do with the fact that there isn't usually much for genuine quicks there (or for spinners) so might be a better match for a fast medium bowler who has a bit more control and can get some lateral movement, rather than a doubt as to his durability.

I think Olly (I believe it was Olly who said this earlier in the thread!) might be right that even if Wood isn't fit they may look at:

8.Woakes 9.Broad 10.Robinson 11.Tongue

Presumably, on the basis that they feel Robinson is a better bowler than Potts even slightly down on pace. Robinson has frustrated me perhaps more than most but his odd ability to still end up with decent figures even below his best perhaps shouldn't be overlooked. He's got 10 wickets at 24.6 which is actually a better average than Broad's 11 wickets at 26.9 to be fair.