The unimaginatively titled general cricket thread.

mercurydancer

LE
Book Reviewer
Another collapse. 36 for 4 at one point.

There is something deeply wrong with Cook's technique. I am no Geoffrey Boycott on analysis but waving your bat around when there is no need against a genuinely fast attack is a good way to get out. Cook must go soon.
 
Rather than trying to find an opening partner for Cook has anybody tried pointing out that he might actually be the problem. Apart from the 2 big scores on low and slow wickets which inflate his recent average he hasn't done anything. He does have the advantage of actually batting in his usual position unlike 5 or 6 members of his team.
 
Well done England for taking a 3-1 lead in the Test series against the No 1 side in the world. However, it doesn’t paper over the cracks of probably one of the worst top 6 we have had for years.
In my opinion, Jennings has had his chance - they need to bring in someone like Burns from Surrey or perhaps Hildreth from Somerset, who have both consistently scored runs over the years. Cooke has to be in the last chance saloon as well - I just wish he would announce his own retirement, he has earned the right to do that, but if he doesn’t do it soon, it will be taken out of his hands.
I would also consider giving Pope a shot at number 6 - number 4 was much to high for him. Trouble is, who goes to make room?
Thankfully, the bowling looks fine, particularly when Woakes is fit again, but I think the Rashid experiment has run its course.
Great advert for Test cricket, this series.
 
Great game and a well engineered win from England. There once was a time when teams full of allrounders always got stuffed; England seem to be making a success of it. Every England player has a test 50 and only Curran and Anderson don't have tons. They're always likely to fight back.

Root used seven bowlers and didn't bowl himself. If Woakes had been fit, he could have had an 8 man attack and strengthened the batting! Pretty much angle available except real pace; Jamie Overton is fit again.

So, sort out the batting and they've got great potential. I'd like to see them give Burns a go at The Oval. Drop Jennings; he's had too many chances. Persuade Cook to retire and not go to SL so he gets an appropriate send off in London. Promote Bairstow to open which should stop him shimfing about loosing the gloves. And play Ian Bell at 3 for year or so.

First test in SL:

Burns
Bairstow
Bell
Root
Moeen
Stokes
Buttler
Woakes
Curran
Rashid
Broad
Anderson
 
Great game and a well engineered win from England. There once was a time when teams full of allrounders always got stuffed; England seem to be making a success of it. Every England player has a test 50 and only Curran and Anderson don't have tons. They're always likely to fight back.

Root used seven bowlers and didn't bowl himself. If Woakes had been fit, he could have had an 8 man attack and strengthened the batting! Pretty much angle available except real pace; Jamie Overton is fit again.

So, sort out the batting and they've got great potential. I'd like to see them give Burns a go at The Oval. Drop Jennings; he's had too many chances. Persuade Cook to retire and not go to SL so he gets an appropriate send off in London. Promote Bairstow to open which should stop him shimfing about loosing the gloves. And play Ian Bell at 3 for year or so.

First test in SL:

Burns
Bairstow
Bell
Root
Moeen
Stokes
Buttler
Woakes
Curran
Rashid
Broad
Anderson
Good selection, similar to my own views. If they are going to keep going back to previous selections (Ballance, Vince, Malan, Jennings) in order to try and solve the upper order malaise, then Bell is an excellent short term choice and he is bang in form.
The only choice I would take issue with is Rashid. I don’t rate him at this level - young Parkinson at Lancashire would be my choice (but I am a Lancashire supporter).
 
Cook has announced his retirement- after the final test against India. I wouldn’t pick him:
1. He’s gone, he’s history, what’s the point of picking him?
2. It’s a dead rubber, we’ve won the series, what better time to give a new opener a chance with little/no pressure?
3. Great servant that he has been - and he has been a true great - he now no longer wants to play for his country, so why the hell should his country pick him to play?

Let’s start trying to find the new opening partnership now.
 
Cook has announced his retirement- after the final test against India. I wouldn’t pick him:
1. He’s gone, he’s history, what’s the point of picking him?
2. It’s a dead rubber, we’ve won the series, what better time to give a new opener a chance with little/no pressure?
3. Great servant that he has been - and he has been a true great - he now no longer wants to play for his country, so why the hell should his country pick him to play?

Let’s start trying to find the new opening partnership now.
I agree 100%

If they are thinking of blooding a newbie, why not do it on home soil, rather than SL?

I disagree with Bell though, we have to look forwards, not just a short term fix. I know we shouldn't plan our teams around Ashes series, but It's lurking and we need to think about it - I also believe Jimmy and Broady will hang up their boots after one last dig at the Aussies, so we need to be looking at their replacements also.

Edited to add - knowing how Cookie operates he'll probably bat at the Oval and score 150+

MB
 
Last edited:
Good selection, similar to my own views. If they are going to keep going back to previous selections (Ballance, Vince, Malan, Jennings) in order to try and solve the upper order malaise, then Bell is an excellent short term choice and he is bang in form.
The only choice I would take issue with is Rashid. I don’t rate him at this level - young Parkinson at Lancashire would be my choice (but I am a Lancashire supporter).
The fundamental difference between going back to Ballance et al is that they’ve all failed. Bell has 22 test centuries.

He wasn’t given anywhere near the space that Cook has received. I thought he was dropped very harshly and given no way back.

Rashid I’m still not sure about either. But he’s the nearest to an attacking leggy we’ve had. I’d give him a good run, certainly the tours. We can afford two spinners if Mooen comes in as a batsman.
 
Every England player has a test 50 and only Curran and Anderson don't have tons.
Which makes it even more annoying to me that no two of them seem to manage to do it in the same innings.

Once upon a time I used to measure a good average Test innings by 50 for each of the first five wickets, 20 for the remaining five, total 350. That was by no means a winning innings, just good average, and it used to happen. If first wicket failed to deliver to that standard, the second did and a bit more, and so on through the order. At the moment it just ain't happening and every side, not just England, is relying on their bowlers to do the biz.
 
Which makes it even more annoying to me that no two of them seem to manage to do it in the same innings.

Once upon a time I used to measure a good average Test innings by 50 for each of the first five wickets, 20 for the remaining five, total 350. That was by no means a winning innings, just good average, and it used to happen. If first wicket failed to deliver to that standard, the second did and a bit more, and so on through the order. At the moment it just ain't happening and every side, not just England, is relying on their bowlers to do the biz.
Test cricket has changed beyond all recognition. We will never again see the kind of batsmen who built a long innings - Boycott, Tavare, Hussain, Atherton, Strauss. Everyone has to play “shots” nowadays. No test ever seems to last beyond 4 days. It’s all part of the dumbing down, short attention span, instant gratification generation and I strongly dislike it. For me you can’t beat the drama of the ebbs and flows of a well played five day test.

As for who is going to be our opening pair next - goodness alone knows!
 
Test cricket has changed beyond all recognition. We will never again see the kind of batsmen who built a long innings - Boycott, Tavare, Hussain, Atherton, Strauss. Everyone has to play “shots” nowadays. No test ever seems to last beyond 4 days. It’s all part of the dumbing down, short attention span, instant gratification generation and I strongly dislike it. For me you can’t beat the drama of the ebbs and flows of a well played five day test.

As for who is going to be our opening pair next - goodness alone knows!
Pujara’s first innings at Southampton was a throwback to long Test innings of old, but, you’re right, there are no obvious England candidates to produce that kind of innings. Our top order is crying out for a Pujara!
 
Cook has announced his retirement- after the final test against India. I wouldn’t pick him:
The fact he has announced his retirement after the Oval suggests to me he has been given an ultimatum he couldn’t refuse.
‘Alistair, you can have your final farewell at the Oval and we’ll pick you for that match, but we are looking elsewhere for the Winter tours and the Ashes next year. Thank you for your service’.
I like the fact he can bow out in front of an appreciative home crowd - he deserves that.
It may also buy Jennings a bit more time, despite his poor performances - have they ever replaced both openers at once?
 
The fact he has announced his retirement after the Oval suggests to me he has been given an ultimatum he couldn’t refuse.
‘Alistair, you can have your final farewell at the Oval and we’ll pick you for that match, but we are looking elsewhere for the Winter tours and the Ashes next year. Thank you for your service’.
I like the fact he can bow out in front of an appreciative home crowd - he deserves that.
It may also buy Jennings a bit more time, despite his poor performances - have they ever replaced both openers at once?
I understand that point of view, but I don’t agree with it. As for replacing both openers at once - the fact is that neither of them is producing at all at the moment, so what is the possible downside?

But the reality is that we can keep trying new players and new combinations but until clubs/counties go back to coaching long form cricket we are going to face an eternally changing number of new openers, none of whom will be equipped to provide the long innings that is required of them.

As I said above, the world has changed and we’re not going to see old style, proper test cricket again. And I, for one, am mourning it’s passing.
 
Test cricket has changed beyond all recognition. We will never again see the kind of batsmen who built a long innings - Boycott, Tavare, Hussain, Atherton, Strauss. Everyone has to play “shots” nowadays. No test ever seems to last beyond 4 days. It’s all part of the dumbing down, short attention span, instant gratification generation and I strongly dislike it. For me you can’t beat the drama of the ebbs and flows of a well played five day test.

As for who is going to be our opening pair next - goodness alone knows!
One 'like' is not enough.

What worries me more than a little is Cook retiring at 33, when the guys we seem to rely on more and more, Broad and Anderson, are one year younger and two years older respectively. In the past, wear and tear always affected the quicks sooner than the batsmen, for obvious reasons, but the huge amount of cricket played these days at the top, especially the one-day stuff, seems to wear out the batsmen earlier, but mentally rather than physically.
 
Cook is 33.
Boycott was 40 when he last played for England. As was Alec Stewart. Hussain was 36. Strauss was 35.
I recognise that there is a move towards retiring younger nowadays, but central contracts should sort out the amount of cricket played, shouldn’t they?
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top