England's Summer of Cricket 2023, Featuring The Ashes

First topic message reminder :

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.

Pal Joey wrote:

Afro wrote:
Green has to come in with what he has offered in the field, but really not sure where. The only suggestion I have heard that makes sense is Warner out, and Marnus. Smith, Head and Marsh all move up one.

Smith averages 67 at number 3!

The daggers are really out for Warner here. Quite a few disparaging remarks about him in the comments section of a SMH article about his performances. A lot of up-voting him into retirement too! Question is, do they persevere with him one more time or tap him on the shoulder?

If so, then how best to shuffle the order and bring a specialist opener in. Harris or Renshaw? I hope not. I'd rather they move Marnus up a notch but have Marsh at 3 (as sacrificial lamb or bully ibex) and Green at 6. Otherwise Smith at 3, Head 4, Marsh 5 and Green 6 as Afro says above.

As for the spinner conundrum, either stick with him or go without a specialist (if OT is another flat track similar to Lord's... I'm not sure?) and then go with a 4-pronged pace attack of Cummins, Starc, Hazlewood and Neser (if no Murphy) and call on part-time spinners if need be.

Interesting call on Kuhnemann, Olly. Not sure the selectors would be looking at that option given he's had only a little success in the 2nd Division. He seems to have dropped off the radar since India.

With Marsh and Green, you would only need Cummins, Starc and Hazlewood and have a bit of a luxury in picking a spinner anyway. I'd stick with Murphy. He's young and wasn't really given a chance to impress. Unless there is another good spinner who is also scoring runs

Duty - remember my recent question of where is Dom Bess these days?

Well, it appears he has made a short term return to Taunton and is in our side playing Hampshire today!

Only just realised that Boland scored no runs and took no wickets in the Test. Always good for any old cricket club hack to know they could've done no worse.

I wouldn't have picked Moeen but his contribution in the second Aussie innings was vital; 2/34 off of 17 overs, he got away with one dodgy over but aside from that showed surprising control. He enabled Broad, Woakes and Wood to rotate at the other end.

Pal Joey wrote:

Afro wrote:
Green has to come in with what he has offered in the field, but really not sure where. The only suggestion I have heard that makes sense is Warner out, and Marnus. Smith, Head and Marsh all move up one.

Smith averages 67 at number 3!

The daggers are really out for Warner here. Quite a few disparaging remarks about him in the comments section of a SMH article about his performances. A lot of up-voting him into retirement too! Question is, do they persevere with him one more time or tap him on the shoulder?

If so, then how best to shuffle the order and bring a specialist opener in. Harris or Renshaw? I hope not. I'd rather they move Marnus up a notch but have Marsh at 3 (as sacrificial lamb or bully ibex) and Green at 6. Otherwise Smith at 3, Head 4, Marsh 5 and Green 6 as Afro says above.

As for the spinner conundrum, either stick with him or go without a specialist (if OT is another flat track similar to Lord's... I'm not sure?) and then go with a 4-pronged pace attack of Cummins, Starc, Hazlewood and Neser (if no Murphy) and call on part-time spinners if need be.

Interesting call on Kuhnemann, Olly. Not sure the selectors would be looking at that option given he's had only a little success in the 2nd Division. He seems to have dropped off the radar since India.

What is your take on Warner, PJ? You think he's done at the top and its time to move on? As I wrote above, I am not really sure. Think people are getting carried away with the Broad-Warner thing. He has done just about OK for me.
And Marnus, struggling in the middle of an extended rough patch, what is your take on him opening? I feel that will be a rather unwanted pressure on him. And its not that Green's been setting things on fire with bat or ball so much so that the thought of him sitting out a couple of games is beyond the realm of possibility?

Thing I don't really get is how Woakes plays a responsible and composed second innings under immense pressure after throwing the bat at everything in the first innings.

sirfredperry wrote:I would NOT have brought Jonny back in any case. He needed more innings before being recalled. Have to wonder whether his sensational form last year was merely an average player having a particularly good run.

I think Bairstow is suited to, and has benefitted from, the new approach more than anyone else. Real shame the injury set him back. I'd prefer him to be used as a batsman, but I'm slightly concerned they're going to 'stick by him' like they have with Crawley.
Is there a case to be made for slotting Foakes in at three as an anchor and letting the rest hit around him?

Was listening to TMS at lunchtime yesterday and they were talking about Foakes v Bairstow.

They made the point that Foakes might not be Bazball enough for them, but actually they argued his keeping is the most Bazball around in that he is very positive behind the stumps and puts pressure on the batter.

Bairstows average at 3 is below the average 5-7, but its not terrible and is from far fewer innings. Its also better than Stokes did at 3. So I'd drop Moeen, move Bairstow to 3 and bring Foakes in the keep wicket and bat at 7

GSC wrote:Thing I don't really get is how Woakes plays a responsible and composed second innings under immense pressure after throwing the bat at everything in the first innings.

I dunno, if he snicks off that huge drive he attempted first ball hits the upper cut he attempted off Boland to third man I think the narratives look quite different!

I will bow to our Surrey contingent, but I am sure Foakes has batted at 5 an awful lot for them. So he does have experience of batting in the top order, but I am never a fan of keepers batting too high as keeping wicket is a hard and tiring job - so pushing him to 3 is a stretch. Shame there is no footage of the alleged dolly catch he dropped off Jordan Cox in the CC, who added 100 runs after that…

Bairstow has only ever batted at 3 in the sub continent, so a completely different kettle of fish so again I am steering well clear of that. A nugget on YJB is he has never averaged between 35 and 58 in a calendar year of Test Cricket. So when he is hot he is hot and when he is cold he is cold.

Just bat Root there for two Tests, it’s the least worst option IMO. Stokes is one of the best ever at marshalling the tail so keep him at 6, and then Brook, YJB at 4/5.

JDizzle wrote:I will bow to our Surrey contingent, but I am sure Foakes has batted at 5 an awful lot for them. So he does have experience of batting in the top order, but I am never a fan of keepers batting too high as keeping wicket is a hard and tiring job - so pushing him to 3 is a stretch. Shame there is no footage of the alleged dolly catch he dropped off Jordan Cox in the CC, who added 100 runs after that…

Massive difference between 5 in FC cricket and Tests as well. 5/6/7 in FC cricket are very high averaging positions in general as FC attacks usually have less depth so lower quality change bowlers.

I can't put my finger on who but I remember a former Test batter saying that the difference between batting in the top order in the CC vs top order in Tests was big but not as vast as some may think. That being because the job is basically the same. You're facing the best bowlers with the new ball after all. The quality is far higher but the task the same.

Whereas the difference between batting middle order in FC vs middle order in Tests they found as big as the difference between batting in ODIs and Tests. The drop off from change bowlers is so much smaller. Bowlers are fitter. There isn't usually the same use of part timers.

Hence players such as Graeme Hick who smash change bowlers in domestic cricket sometimes haven't transferred those skills to Tests.

A great story about Mark Ramprakash. When Surrey got a new analyst in he came over to Ramps and said, "you know you have a ridiculously high boundary percentage in the last over before lunch and tea?" Ramps basically just went, "yeah, keep that quiet". Turned out he'd realised that lots of county pros switched off the over before getting food as they were just thinking about dinner. So Ramps would hurl the bat at anything remotely in his arc with relatively safety because fielders were switched off, bowlers a bit sloppy and generally captains wouldn't even bother with field changes so close to the interval even if successive boundaries had flown to the same fence.

Things like that shouldn't be happening against good Test sides!

JDizzle wrote:

GSC wrote:Thing I don't really get is how Woakes plays a responsible and composed second innings under immense pressure after throwing the bat at everything in the first innings.

I will bow to our Surrey contingent, but I am sure Foakes has batted at 5 an awful lot for them. So he does have experience of batting in the top order, but I am never a fan of keepers batting too high as keeping wicket is a hard and tiring job - so pushing him to 3 is a stretch. Shame there is no footage of the alleged dolly catch he dropped off Jordan Cox in the CC, who added 100 runs after that…  

Fortunately you know somebody who is sad enough to have clipped that onto his phone to share in various whatsapp groups, and has just uploaded it onto Youtube for the purpose of this comment

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:

JDizzle wrote:

GSC wrote:Thing I don't really get is how Woakes plays a responsible and composed second innings under immense pressure after throwing the bat at everything in the first innings.

I will bow to our Surrey contingent, but I am sure Foakes has batted at 5 an awful lot for them. So he does have experience of batting in the top order, but I am never a fan of keepers batting too high as keeping wicket is a hard and tiring job - so pushing him to 3 is a stretch. Shame there is no footage of the alleged dolly catch he dropped off Jordan Cox in the CC, who added 100 runs after that…  

Fortunately you know somebody who is sad enough to have clipped that onto his phone to share in various whatsapp groups, and has just uploaded it onto Youtube for the purpose of this comment  

This is absolutely tremendous badgering. Of the absolute highest order.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2023/jul/10/cricket-ashes-england-moeen-ali-harry-brook

Moeen taking extra net sessions as it looks increasingly likely that not only will Moeen retain his place, but he will return at number 3.

Virtually no chance of Foakes replacing Moeen.

Wonder what the long-term plan is with Moeen? Will he play in the India series in the winter?

msp83 wrote:

Pal Joey wrote:

Afro wrote:
Green has to come in with what he has offered in the field, but really not sure where. The only suggestion I have heard that makes sense is Warner out, and Marnus. Smith, Head and Marsh all move up one.

Smith averages 67 at number 3!

The daggers are really out for Warner here. Quite a few disparaging remarks about him in the comments section of a SMH article about his performances. A lot of up-voting him into retirement too! Question is, do they persevere with him one more time or tap him on the shoulder?

If so, then how best to shuffle the order and bring a specialist opener in. Harris or Renshaw? I hope not. I'd rather they move Marnus up a notch but have Marsh at 3 (as sacrificial lamb or bully ibex) and Green at 6. Otherwise Smith at 3, Head 4, Marsh 5 and Green 6 as Afro says above.

As for the spinner conundrum, either stick with him or go without a specialist (if OT is another flat track similar to Lord's... I'm not sure?) and then go with a 4-pronged pace attack of Cummins, Starc, Hazlewood and Neser (if no Murphy) and call on part-time spinners if need be.

Interesting call on Kuhnemann, Olly. Not sure the selectors would be looking at that option given he's had only a little success in the 2nd Division. He seems to have dropped off the radar since India.

What is your take on Warner, PJ? You think he's done at the top and its time to move on? As I wrote above, I am not really sure. Think people are getting carried away with the Broad-Warner thing. He has done just about OK for me.
And Marnus, struggling in the middle of an extended rough patch, what is your take on him opening? I feel that will be a rather unwanted pressure on him. And its not that Green's been setting things on fire with bat or ball so much so that the thought of him sitting out a couple of games is beyond the realm of possibility?

He's as good as done I think, msp. However, I think the selectors will almost certainly select him again for OT. He's averaged 14.75 in England since 2015 and in his 16 innings since then, he has scored under 11 runs 9 times. The Broad-Warner thing is significant and he was lucky to get a life on 22 when he went on to make 66 at Lord's... dropped off Broad of course. A lot of pundits were quite riled when he announced he'd hang up the boots back in Australia early next year; as if it was up to him and that it was a foregone conclusion that he'd selected for all 5 Ashes Tests. Thus far in the series, he's proven the pundits correct.

Also annoying is that smug smile he's displaying on many occasions. Give us a break! Sure, it's only a game and he's now good buddies with all of his England pals (especially Broad)... and come-what-may, he'll try and stick it out through all of the frequent rough patches... but he's not really doing many favours for the team at the moment, is he? OK, he's taken a couple of good catches but Australia has equally good (or better) slips fielders.

As for Marnus, I agree, he has struggled this series. He's playing at balls which he would have let go a year or so ago, so he needs to revert to that former more watchful approach. As for opening with Usman, it would be more pressure on him but he'd probably be best suited for that role (in the current side) as a left and right hand opening combo with his Qld partner. He's always up for a challenge and that might suit his quirky temperament. I do not think, however, that this will happen next week. Warner will be there again no doubt.

Green is an interesting one - his batting and bowling has definitely been below par this series but I just feel he adds so much to the fielding aspect of the team and he also seems to lift the team when he's out there on the field with them. I keep forgetting how young he is and sometimes it seems as though he's almost doubting himself - then we see him let loose with the bat on occasion and snatching a much needed wicket. He may not be setting things on fire at the moment but I'm pretty sure he'll thrive in the Test arena the more he plays.

I find it curious that Glenn Maxwell is suddenly playing for Warks effectively as a spinner. He went wicketless in 5 overs during Kent's 1st innings as the seamers ran amok. I thought he was with them for the Blast but not red ball duty. Australia seriously considered batting him at 8 as an extra spinner in India. Similar role to Jacks in Pakistan you'd presume. He's been working on his offies for the last three years now to that end.

With Murphy seemingly not trusted and off the back of Marsh having such a blistering return I just wonder if the Aussies have had a word in Maxi's ear there.

Re Marnus. He seems to be altering his tactics almost by the innings. Sometimes squarer on. Sometimes that left shoulder is coming right round and nearly pointing to mid-off.  Moving his guard. Leaving on length then playing at wider ones. He looks fidgety.

That said he has also faced some good spells. Two of Wood's quickest spells in T3. Then at Lords he ate up a lot of the best bowling conditions on D1, laid a foundation from which Head then went at more than a run a ball.

JDizzle wrote:

GSC wrote:Thing I don't really get is how Woakes plays a responsible and composed second innings under immense pressure after throwing the bat at everything in the first innings.

I dunno, if he snicks off that huge drive he attempted first ball hits the upper cut he attempted off Boland to third man I think the narratives look quite different!

I will bow to our Surrey contingent, but I am sure Foakes has batted at 5 an awful lot for them. So he does have experience of batting in the top order, but I am never a fan of keepers batting too high as keeping wicket is a hard and tiring job - so pushing him to 3 is a stretch. Shame there is no footage of the alleged dolly catch he dropped off Jordan Cox in the CC, who added 100 runs after that…

Bairstow has only ever batted at 3 in the sub continent, so a completely different kettle of fish so again I am steering well clear of that.  A nugget on YJB is he has never averaged between 35 and 58 in a calendar year of Test Cricket. So when he is hot he is hot and when he is cold he is cold.

Just bat Root there for two Tests, it’s the least worst option IMO. Stokes is one of the best ever at marshalling the tail so keep him at 6, and then Brook, YJB at 4/5.

I'm not going to make any attempt to beat the Straight Flush that Carlos has put down in response to JD's post and most definitely not Olly's Royal Flush either. However, just to confirm - Foakes virtually always bats at 5 for Surrey in the Championship.

Saw him do so today at the Oval against Notts. So many of the Oval regulars constantly sing his praises at full volume and, yes, he is good with the bat and gloves but I'm a little weary of it and so tend to pick up on frustrations. He made 46 today which I regard as rather typical. A reasonably useful score and handy partnerships along the way with Jacks and Clark, batting 6 and 7 respectively. However, it wasn't game changing and it was those other two who scored most of the partnership runs. Foakes didn't welly it like them or rotate the strike enough.

IF Foakes were to be recalled by England (and I don't believe he will be for next week), putting him at the keeper's usual number of 7 is not ideal as he's unlikely to be able to farm the strike to protect the tail or go up a gear to hit runs when the last 'proper' batter is out. Admittedly, he would be a fine companion to ride side saddle with Stokes when the skipper is on a blitz. Furthermore, Woakes now batting at 8 is beneficial for England and would probably also sit better for Foakes if he did bat 7.

Too late now but I'll try to give a few other thoughts from Sunday's play (when I away was on a family three line whip) tomorrow.

I'd been thinking Australia would stick with Warner ; but I wonder if Cummins' failure to make any encouraging noises when questioned and the likely availability of Green could suggest they are thinking about a change ? Not sure putting Marnus up to open - or moving Head or Marsh is really such a great idea ; though it would assist the bowling depth. And it was arguably the lack of support for Starc and Cummins that did for Australia on Sunday.

As Cummins said : options open. And time to consider.

PJ spot on with his observation about the importance of Green as a fielder : that giant condor wingspan is a huge asset in the gully area !

Duty281 wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2023/jul/10/cricket-ashes-england-moeen-ali-harry-brook

Moeen taking extra net sessions as it looks increasingly likely that not only will Moeen retain his place, but he will return at number 3.

Virtually no chance of Foakes replacing Moeen.

Wonder what the long-term plan is with Moeen? Will he play in the India series in the winter?

Whoever even for a moment thought Moeen will not play lives on a different planet.
The Ali is one of the pillars of this win. On the day (friday) when ball wasn't doing as much he bowled superbly to pluck out the 2 potential centurions
And then acted like a Day watchman to shield Cummins' new ball bunny Brooks  

It's a matter of time before he gets nominated VC
At 36 as a spinner Ali easily has 4 more years
In the subcontinent Leach will be readmitted as 2nd spinner

That really was the greatest 5 of all time

Duty281 wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2023/jul/10/cricket-ashes-england-moeen-ali-harry-brook

Moeen taking extra net sessions as it looks increasingly likely that not only will Moeen retain his place, but he will return at number 3.

Virtually no chance of Foakes replacing Moeen.

Wonder what the long-term plan is with Moeen? Will he play in the India series in the winter?

Same team with Anderson in for Robinson is probably the thinking, if Moeen at 3 frees the rest up to bat in their favoured spot then it's doing a useful enough job I suppose.
I'd guess they'll pick Rehan Ahmed for India instead, not quite the same spotlight pressure as here. Although, how long is Leach supposed to be out for?

KP_fan wrote:

Duty281 wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2023/jul/10/cricket-ashes-england-moeen-ali-harry-brook

Moeen taking extra net sessions as it looks increasingly likely that not only will Moeen retain his place, but he will return at number 3.

Virtually no chance of Foakes replacing Moeen.

Wonder what the long-term plan is with Moeen? Will he play in the India series in the winter?

Whoever even for a moment thought Moeen will not play lives on a different planet.
The Ali is one of the pillars of this win. On the day (friday) when ball wasn't doing as much he bowled superbly to pluck out the 2 potential centurions
And then acted like a Day watchman to shield Cummins' new ball bunny Brooks  

It's a matter of time before he gets nominated VC
At 36 as a spinner Ali easily has 4 more years
In the subcontinent Leach will be readmitted as 2nd spinner

You're an insufferable bore.

KP_fan wrote:

Duty281 wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2023/jul/10/cricket-ashes-england-moeen-ali-harry-brook

Moeen taking extra net sessions as it looks increasingly likely that not only will Moeen retain his place, but he will return at number 3.

Virtually no chance of Foakes replacing Moeen.

Wonder what the long-term plan is with Moeen? Will he play in the India series in the winter?

Whoever even for a moment thought Moeen will not play lives on a different planet.
The Ali is one of the pillars of this win. On the day (friday) when ball wasn't doing as much he bowled superbly to pluck out the 2 potential centurions
And then acted like a Day watchman to shield Cummins' new ball bunny Brooks  

It's a matter of time before he gets nominated VC
At 36 as a spinner Ali easily has 4 more years
In the subcontinent Leach will be readmitted as 2nd spinner

As we recently discovered, you didn't even watch the game (you thought Smith's dismissal was a defensive prod, when it was actually a flick to midwicket). Perhaps you don't watch cricket at all? It would explain quite a few things.

alfie wrote:I'd been thinking Australia would stick with Warner ; but I wonder if Cummins' failure to make any encouraging noises when questioned and the likely availability of Green could suggest they are thinking about a change ?  Not sure putting Marnus up to open - or moving Head or Marsh is really such a great idea ; though it would assist the bowling depth. And it was arguably the lack of support for Starc and Cummins that did for Australia on Sunday.

As Cummins said : options open. And time to consider.

PJ spot on with his observation about the importance of Green as a fielder : that giant condor wingspan is a huge asset in the gully area !

The Guardian talking about the possibility of Marsh opening in place of Warner. That would be an unorthodox move.

Lowlandbrit wrote:

Duty281 wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2023/jul/10/cricket-ashes-england-moeen-ali-harry-brook

Moeen taking extra net sessions as it looks increasingly likely that not only will Moeen retain his place, but he will return at number 3.

Virtually no chance of Foakes replacing Moeen.

Wonder what the long-term plan is with Moeen? Will he play in the India series in the winter?

Same team with Anderson in for Robinson is probably the thinking, if Moeen at 3 frees the rest up to bat in their favoured spot then it's doing a useful enough job I suppose.
I'd guess they'll pick Rehan Ahmed for India instead, not quite the same spotlight pressure as here. Although, how long is Leach supposed to be out for?

Not sure about Leach's injury duration, I don't think the series is until January, so hopefully he'll be fine for then.

I'd like to see Ahmed play in India, I'd have liked to seen him play in this series, but I reckon they're still going to try and hold on to Moeen and his sky-high bowling average. The idea of him at 3 is a nonsense. If they want to put up some glorified day watchman to protect the rest of the order - not something I'm a fan of - they should pick someone who can hold a bat, like Woakes.

No change to the squad so no Foakes. Robinson is in it but can't imagine he's gonna play regardless

Would like to say I can't believe they're sticking with Bairstow with the gloves, but unfortunately I can because they've made so many selection blunders this summer. Are they going to have him keep in India as well? Oh well. I wonder if England had lost at Headingley if it would have forced a change, but because England won they think it's all rosy in the garden?

Probable team seems fairly clear - Crawley; Duckett; Moeen; Root; Brook; Stokes; Bairstow; Woakes; Wood (Tongue if Wood is unavailable); Broad; Anderson.

Duty281 wrote:

alfie wrote:I'd been thinking Australia would stick with Warner ; but I wonder if Cummins' failure to make any encouraging noises when questioned and the likely availability of Green could suggest they are thinking about a change ?  Not sure putting Marnus up to open - or moving Head or Marsh is really such a great idea ; though it would assist the bowling depth. And it was arguably the lack of support for Starc and Cummins that did for Australia on Sunday.

As Cummins said : options open. And time to consider.

PJ spot on with his observation about the importance of Green as a fielder : that giant condor wingspan is a huge asset in the gully area !

The Guardian talking about the possibility of Marsh opening in place of Warner. That would be an unorthodox move.

It would solve the Marsh/Green issue at least!

Duty281 wrote:Would like to say I can't believe they're sticking with Bairstow with the gloves, but unfortunately I can because they've made so many selection blunders this summer. Are they going to have him keep in India as well? Oh well. I wonder if England had lost at Headingley if it would have forced a change, but because England won they think it's all rosy in the garden?

Probable team seems fairly clear - Crawley; Duckett; Moeen; Root; Brook; Stokes; Bairstow; Woakes; Wood (Tongue if Wood is unavailable); Broad; Anderson.

I think they have set out their stall and need to stick with it. They had the prime opportunity to justify making the change when Pope was ruled out.

They decided against it, and whether we agree or not, to change it now would point to short term thinking and changing your mind after only 1 additional game.

Duty281 wrote:

As we recently discovered, you didn't even watch the game (you thought Smith's dismissal was a defensive prod, when it was actually a flick to midwicket). Perhaps you don't watch cricket at all? It would explain quite a few things.

We
How many humans are included in your We

Duty281 wrote:we recently discovered, you didn't even watch the game (you thought Smith's dismissal was a defensive prod, when it was actually a flick to midwicket).

You make opinion sound as if it were a verdict

Verdict if any comes from the endorsement of captain, coach , selector i.e establishment

JDizzle wrote:

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:

JDizzle wrote:

GSC wrote:Thing I don't really get is how Woakes plays a responsible and composed second innings under immense pressure after throwing the bat at everything in the first innings.

I will bow to our Surrey contingent, but I am sure Foakes has batted at 5 an awful lot for them. So he does have experience of batting in the top order, but I am never a fan of keepers batting too high as keeping wicket is a hard and tiring job - so pushing him to 3 is a stretch. Shame there is no footage of the alleged dolly catch he dropped off Jordan Cox in the CC, who added 100 runs after that…  

Fortunately you know somebody who is sad enough to have clipped that onto his phone to share in various whatsapp groups, and has just uploaded it onto Youtube for the purpose of this comment  

This is absolutely tremendous badgering. Of the absolute highest order.

Speaking of keepers JDizzle, I see Mr Rew has yet another hundred. What's his glovework like?

I think that Guildford and I are aligned in our views on Foakes. He's brilliant behind the stumps but I do think his own mistakes with the gloves have been ignored at times. I also think his struggles rotating the strike can be an issue with the bat. If you're trying to avert a collapse it can be very useful but if you're trying to cash in when the ball has softened (which is vital in England) then he can get bogged down easily by good bowlers. So as much as I enjoy his keeping he does have limitations.

I would've chosen Bairstow as keeper before the series. Contrary to many claims he was a decent keeper. I share Olly's fears that the injury has limited his agility though. In which case it might be that he just can't get back to the standard he was previously at with the gloves. As opposed to being out of form. Which does happen to WKs. It's never really talked about but gloveman do lose form. Batters and bowlers with credit in the bank get chances to recover form but WKs rarely get viewed that way.

At this stage I'd prefer YJB the batter over YJB the WK-batter. So I'd recall Foakes. Getting them both in the side without having a 4-man bowling attack isn't easy though now Stokes isn't an all-rounder. That has knock on effects given several of England's seamers have been in 4-man seam attacks for so long that they can struggle without that buffer. Realistically I don't think Anderson and Broad, for their brilliance, would have quite this longevity without regularly being in 4-man seam attacks for instance. As magnificent as Wood was at Headingley I'm not sure I'd want to pick him in a 3 man seam attack often.

Does anyone else feel that considering Tongue instead of Anderson as Robinson's replacement might be an idea? In Broad and Woakes we would still have two excellent opening bowlers with command of swing and the wobble seam who have out bowled Jimmy in this series. I can't help but wonder whether another slightly quicker 4th seamer in Tongue is the best option given what he added at Lords and Wood added at Headingley.

GSC wrote:No change to the squad so no Foakes. Robinson is in it but can't imagine he's gonna play regardless

looks like tongue or anderson for robinsons spot. thought anderson was unlucky in first two tests at times. beat the outside edge hell of a lot without finding the nick. the pitches were that slow that sometimes is the difference. look at the the pitch and conditions, but if it looks like overhead conditions id be tempted with anderson coming back in. although cant argue with tongue coming back in, unlucky to be dropped in the first place

Regardless of his hundred last test, Mitch Marsh is a mediocre test bat, and his bowling at this level is pretty average too. Green has actual and potel numbers better than Marsh with bat, and he can bowl at 90 MPH and generate serious bounce. Either they bring him back for Murphy but insist on Smith, who is the best of their parttimers to bowl a lot more. Labuschagne can bowl a couple of overs here and there, Head can be used a bit more but he's quite pedestrian with the ball, can't be standing in for a regular spinner through a test. Don't think that'll be a smart move any which way, They are sure to lose points for slow overrates. Remember Australia missed the first WTC final because of points thus lost. Green for Boland is the only way I can see him coming in, unless they take the call of benching Marsh right after his ton as Green was the incumbent. For Marsh to open, Australia should call up the right one, the father or the elder one! Mitch isn't a test opener, particularly in English conditions!

The problem is msp83, England's bowling, fielding and batting against Marsh make him look like a world beater. He looks average against all other teams.

Afro wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Would like to say I can't believe they're sticking with Bairstow with the gloves, but unfortunately I can because they've made so many selection blunders this summer. Are they going to have him keep in India as well? Oh well. I wonder if England had lost at Headingley if it would have forced a change, but because England won they think it's all rosy in the garden?

Probable team seems fairly clear - Crawley; Duckett; Moeen; Root; Brook; Stokes; Bairstow; Woakes; Wood (Tongue if Wood is unavailable); Broad; Anderson.

I think they have set out their stall and need to stick with it. They had the prime opportunity to justify making the change when Pope was ruled out.

They decided against it, and whether we agree or not, to change it now would point to short term thinking and changing your mind after only 1 additional game.

Yes, but I think changing their mind is justified after Bairstow had another shocker with the gloves, that very nearly cost England the test.

KP_fan wrote:

Duty281 wrote:  

As we recently discovered, you didn't even watch the game (you thought Smith's dismissal was a defensive prod, when it was actually a flick to midwicket). Perhaps you don't watch cricket at all? It would explain quite a few things.

We
How many humans are included in your We

Duty281 wrote:we recently discovered, you didn't even watch the game (you thought Smith's dismissal was a defensive prod, when it was actually a flick to midwicket).

You make opinion sound as if it were a verdict

Verdict if any comes from the endorsement of captain, coach , selector i.e establishment

The method of Smith's dismissal is a fact, not an opinion.

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:

JDizzle wrote:

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:

JDizzle wrote:

GSC wrote:Thing I don't really get is how Woakes plays a responsible and composed second innings under immense pressure after throwing the bat at everything in the first innings.

I will bow to our Surrey contingent, but I am sure Foakes has batted at 5 an awful lot for them. So he does have experience of batting in the top order, but I am never a fan of keepers batting too high as keeping wicket is a hard and tiring job - so pushing him to 3 is a stretch. Shame there is no footage of the alleged dolly catch he dropped off Jordan Cox in the CC, who added 100 runs after that…  

Fortunately you know somebody who is sad enough to have clipped that onto his phone to share in various whatsapp groups, and has just uploaded it onto Youtube for the purpose of this comment  

This is absolutely tremendous badgering. Of the absolute highest order.

Speaking of keepers JDizzle, I see Mr Rew has yet another hundred. What's his glovework like?

Six FC hundreds in 28 innings, but a slow strike-rate. Makes things interesting.

king_carlos wrote:I think that Guildford and I are aligned in our views on Foakes. He's brilliant behind the stumps but I do think his own mistakes with the gloves have been ignored at times. I also think his struggles rotating the strike can be an issue with the bat. If you're trying to avert a collapse it can be very useful but if you're trying to cash in when the ball has softened (which is vital in England) then he can get bogged down easily by good bowlers. So as much as I enjoy his keeping he does have limitations.

I would've chosen Bairstow as keeper before the series. Contrary to many claims he was a decent keeper. I share Olly's fears that the injury has limited his agility though. In which case it might be that he just can't get back to the standard he was previously at with the gloves. As opposed to being out of form. Which does happen to WKs. It's never really talked about but gloveman do lose form. Batters and bowlers with credit in the bank get chances to recover form but WKs rarely get viewed that way.

At this stage I'd prefer YJB the batter over YJB the WK-batter. So I'd recall Foakes. Getting them both in the side without having a 4-man bowling attack isn't easy though now Stokes isn't an all-rounder. That has knock on effects given several of England's seamers have been in 4-man seam attacks for so long that they can struggle without that buffer. Realistically I don't think Anderson and Broad, for their brilliance, would have quite this longevity without regularly being in 4-man seam attacks for instance. As magnificent as Wood was at Headingley I'm not sure I'd want to pick him in a 3 man seam attack often.

Does anyone else feel that considering Tongue instead of Anderson as Robinson's replacement might be an idea? In Broad and Woakes we would still have two excellent opening bowlers with command of swing and the wobble seam who have out bowled Jimmy in this series. I can't help but wonder whether another slightly quicker 4th seamer in Tongue is the best option given what he added at Lords and Wood added at Headingley.

Agree on Foakes. Very useful but limited with the bat, very good but not once in a generation stuff with the gloves. Remember he did struggle with the gloves in the West Indies when he had a full series all to himself. With Stokes limited with the ball, and Root not quite there to bowl long spells throughout test matches, England do need a spinner. In a spin-dry country, you don't take 200 test wickets for nothing. Moeen's the practical option you have at the moment, stick with him. He hasn't done bad at all in the last test with the ball.
Again, I'd hope they pick Tongue rather than Anderson for Robinson. But if Wood is not likely to play the last test, they'd hope Tongue can offer some pace to the otherwise medium-paced attack, and might want to therefor play only one of them.

king_carlos wrote:Does anyone else feel that considering Tongue instead of Anderson as Robinson's replacement might be an idea? In Broad and Woakes we would still have two excellent opening bowlers with command of swing and the wobble seam who have out bowled Jimmy in this series. I can't help but wonder whether another slightly quicker 4th seamer in Tongue is the best option given what he added at Lords and Wood added at Headingley.

It's worthy of consideration, but I'd still favour Anderson. He's got a good record at Old Trafford, not The Oval, so I'd want to pick him for the fourth test. But it could be the last test for Jimmy if things don't go well.

Duty281 wrote:

king_carlos wrote:Does anyone else feel that considering Tongue instead of Anderson as Robinson's replacement might be an idea? In Broad and Woakes we would still have two excellent opening bowlers with command of swing and the wobble seam who have out bowled Jimmy in this series. I can't help but wonder whether another slightly quicker 4th seamer in Tongue is the best option given what he added at Lords and Wood added at Headingley.

It's worthy of consideration, but I'd still favour Anderson. He's got a good record at Old Trafford, not The Oval, so I'd want to pick him for the fourth test. But it could be the last test for Jimmy if things don't go well.

Depends on the pitch surely - if it's like Headingley then Jimmy has to come in I'd say, but if its like the first two tests then Tongue would seem to make more sense.

Complete change of subject and not relevant to the England Test make up for this Ashes series (unless an injury comes along) but someone batting very soundly this morning at the Oval is Haseeb Hameed. Playing with good control and timing the ball nicely, striking it harder than I remember.

Someone

Duty281 wrote:

KP_fan wrote:

Duty281 wrote:  

As we recently discovered, you didn't even watch the game (you thought Smith's dismissal was a defensive prod, when it was actually a flick to midwicket). Perhaps you don't watch cricket at all? It would explain quite a few things.

We
How many humans are included in your We

Duty281 wrote:we recently discovered, you didn't even watch the game (you thought Smith's dismissal was a defensive prod, when it was actually a flick to midwicket).

You make opinion sound as if it were a verdict

Verdict if any comes from the endorsement of captain, coach , selector i.e establishment

The method of Smith's dismissal is a fact, not an opinion.

That it cannot be classified as a Defensive Prod to Midwkt....but only called a flick to Midwkt.....and nothing else but that
is an Opinion

B*gg*r! Meant to add - Someone from the England past who might still have an England future opening or at number 3. Alfie likes him anyway.

Currently 32 not out off 73 at lunch.

KP_fan wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

KP_fan wrote:

Duty281 wrote:  

As we recently discovered, you didn't even watch the game (you thought Smith's dismissal was a defensive prod, when it was actually a flick to midwicket). Perhaps you don't watch cricket at all? It would explain quite a few things.

We
How many humans are included in your We

Duty281 wrote:we recently discovered, you didn't even watch the game (you thought Smith's dismissal was a defensive prod, when it was actually a flick to midwicket).

You make opinion sound as if it were a verdict

Verdict if any comes from the endorsement of captain, coach , selector i.e establishment

The method of Smith's dismissal is a fact, not an opinion.

That it cannot be classified as a Defensive Prod to Midwkt....but only called a flick to Midwkt.....and nothing else but that
is an Opinion

No, it's a fact. You would know this if you understood cricket. It's OK to admit you didn't watch the game.

https://youtu.be/wv-lvjALaV0?t=552

guildfordbat wrote: Complete change of subject and not relevant to the England Test make up for this Ashes series (unless an injury comes along) but someone batting very soundly this morning at the Oval is Haseeb Hameed. Playing with good control and timing the ball nicely, striking it harder than I remember.

Someone

It's massively infuriating that some players, complete no-hopers in the test arena, like Crawley or Buttler or current Moeen get given chance after chance after chance, with seemingly no consequence for their failings, but other players like Hameed get thrown on the scrapheap with little opportunity to prove themselves.

Duty281 wrote:

KP_fan wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

KP_fan wrote:

Duty281 wrote:  

As we recently discovered, you didn't even watch the game (you thought Smith's dismissal was a defensive prod, when it was actually a flick to midwicket). Perhaps you don't watch cricket at all? It would explain quite a few things.

We
How many humans are included in your We

Duty281 wrote:we recently discovered, you didn't even watch the game (you thought Smith's dismissal was a defensive prod, when it was actually a flick to midwicket).

You make opinion sound as if it were a verdict

Verdict if any comes from the endorsement of captain, coach , selector i.e establishment

The method of Smith's dismissal is a fact, not an opinion.

That it cannot be classified as a Defensive Prod to Midwkt....but only called a flick to Midwkt.....and nothing else but that
is an Opinion

No, it's a fact. You would know this if you understood cricket. It's OK to admit you didn't watch the game.  

https://youtu.be/wv-lvjALaV0?t=552

Again you are passing an opinion as if it were a factual verdict

Duty281 wrote:

guildfordbat wrote: Complete change of subject and not relevant to the England Test make up for this Ashes series (unless an injury comes along) but someone batting very soundly this morning at the Oval is Haseeb Hameed. Playing with good control and timing the ball nicely, striking it harder than I remember.

Someone

It's massively infuriating that some players, complete no-hopers in the test arena, like Crawley or Buttler or current Moeen get given chance after chance after chance, with seemingly no consequence for their failings, but other players like Hameed get thrown on the scrapheap with little opportunity to prove themselves.

Always felt for Michael Carberry, who did better than most in the complete batting meltdown that was the 2013-14 Ashes, then never seen again

Duty281 wrote:

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:

JDizzle wrote:

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:

JDizzle wrote:

GSC wrote:Thing I don't really get is how Woakes plays a responsible and composed second innings under immense pressure after throwing the bat at everything in the first innings.

I will bow to our Surrey contingent, but I am sure Foakes has batted at 5 an awful lot for them. So he does have experience of batting in the top order, but I am never a fan of keepers batting too high as keeping wicket is a hard and tiring job - so pushing him to 3 is a stretch. Shame there is no footage of the alleged dolly catch he dropped off Jordan Cox in the CC, who added 100 runs after that…  

Fortunately you know somebody who is sad enough to have clipped that onto his phone to share in various whatsapp groups, and has just uploaded it onto Youtube for the purpose of this comment  

This is absolutely tremendous badgering. Of the absolute highest order.

Speaking of keepers JDizzle, I see Mr Rew has yet another hundred. What's his glovework like?

Six FC hundreds in 28 innings, but a slow strike-rate. Makes things interesting.

He’s a slow starter rather than a slow scorer I would say. You’ll see innings where he makes 20 off 70 - but when he gets in he is very fluent and most of his hundreds are around the standard 50 SR, but I would like to see him improve (like Foakes) that strike rotation early on. His conversion rate from 50 to 100 is also fairly unsustainable at the moment - 6 100s to 2 50s. He will revert to the mean to a degree.

This 100 vs Abbas, Abbott and Dawson and his one vs Lancs in the first innings vs Anderson are his best two knocks so far.

Re Glovework - it’s always hard to say without watching almost a whole day. As you only ever see the great takes in the highlights! All you want is your WK to be invisible and the general feeling from Somerset is he is a good, solid keeper but nothing outstanding. Which is more than fine when you bat like him.

He played a few 2s games whilst the T20 was on - and he couldn’t get the gloves off his 15 year old brother Thomas Rew who might even be a better talent allegedly!

JDizzle wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:

JDizzle wrote:

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:

JDizzle wrote:

GSC wrote:Thing I don't really get is how Woakes plays a responsible and composed second innings under immense pressure after throwing the bat at everything in the first innings.

I will bow to our Surrey contingent, but I am sure Foakes has batted at 5 an awful lot for them. So he does have experience of batting in the top order, but I am never a fan of keepers batting too high as keeping wicket is a hard and tiring job - so pushing him to 3 is a stretch. Shame there is no footage of the alleged dolly catch he dropped off Jordan Cox in the CC, who added 100 runs after that…  

Fortunately you know somebody who is sad enough to have clipped that onto his phone to share in various whatsapp groups, and has just uploaded it onto Youtube for the purpose of this comment  

This is absolutely tremendous badgering. Of the absolute highest order.

Speaking of keepers JDizzle, I see Mr Rew has yet another hundred. What's his glovework like?

Six FC hundreds in 28 innings, but a slow strike-rate. Makes things interesting.

He’s a slow starter rather than a slow scorer I would say. You’ll see innings where he makes 20 off 70 - but when he gets in he is very fluent and most of his hundreds are around the standard 50 SR, but I would like to see him improve (like Foakes) that strike rotation early on. His conversion rate from 50 to 100 is also fairly unsustainable at the moment - 6 100s to 2 50s. He will revert to the mean to a degree.

This 100 vs Abbas, Abbott and Dawson and his one vs Lancs in the first innings vs Anderson are his best two knocks so far.

Re Glovework - it’s always hard to say without watching almost a whole day. As you only ever see the great takes in the highlights! All you want is your WK to be invisible and the general feeling from Somerset is he is a good, solid keeper but nothing outstanding. Which is more than fine when you bat like him.

He played a few 2s games whilst the T20 was on - and he couldn’t get the gloves off his 15 year old brother Thomas Rew who might even be a better talent allegedly!

I'd like to echo this and add that his keeping has improved as the season has gone on. You can see he puts a lot of work in.

His strike rate is also a reflection of the pitches he has played on. If you look at the SRs of other Somerset batsmen its not dissimilar, including people like Lammonby or Abell, who aren't seen as slow scorers.

Also, got to his first FC 150 today!