**Official** Ireland in England 2019

[trundler]

Nah there's no need for Curran's batting. If Woakes plays he'll be batting at 9.

I agree with this, plus isn't the thinking that he's going to become more of a batsmen anyway?

Curran's batting has bailed England out plenty of times already. I know Woakes is a proper bat and all but Curran was the difference against India. Just accept that the top order will fail and squeeze runs from where you can. Not opposed to him batting 3. He's definitely not a troll.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Nah there's no need for Curran's batting. If Woakes plays he'll be batting at 9.

What if he'll be a better batsman than whoever you pick in the top 3 anyway. His bowling may be irrelevant.

I'd almost pick Curran & Woakes even if they couldn't bowl over spuds like Burns, Denly or Jennings

 

[Spintolose]

Leachy MOTM! Legend!

Could this be his swan song?

 

[Uppercut]

Yeah sorry was taking Anderson over Stone as a given. It's two of Broad, Woakes, Archer to complete the seam attack basically. I'd probably go Archer and Broad but not like it will be a disaster if they go another way.

I'd guess the plan is to rotate the bowlers a bit anyway. Can't see the same seam attack playing 5 straight tests.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

The thing is that such is the state of these two sides, we could potentially see a repeat of "bowled out for <100, still win the game".

Would not be at all surprised.

Think both sides will win a test by an innings too. 3-2 to England is my guess.

 

[Howe_zat]

I see it as, in bowling order:

1. Anderson
2. Broad or Archer
3. Woakes or Curran
4. Leach or Ali
5. Stokes

I find myself surprisingly ambivelent on all those decisions (I favour Broad) but they absolutely must resist picking more than five players from that list. We're never going to find a working batting order while picking fewer batsmen.

 

[Spintolose]

Pull your head in.

Christ! For your own safety I hope you didn't read some of the deleted stuff here - like the guy that posted it was "shorter than a Limerick" or it could well trigger your own head explosion.

 

[Meridio]

Tough on Ireland, this. Had the worst of the conditions, and tbh I was really impressed with them yesterday, when it looked like England were going to get well on top they pulled it back extremely well, and Adair et al kept their pace and discipline in really hot conditions. Bit unlucky in a way too in that they edged everything today, as opposed to playing and missing, but that's cricket I guess.

 

[ScottyMuser]

I don't want to see Archer near the Test team at least initially - I have zero confidence in him being able to bowl more than 4 overs in a spell/8-10 in a day, with his current injury, and that would put far too much on the rest of the line up, especially if Stokes is our 5th bowler and we only pick 2 other seam/pace bowlers. Pity the T20 is in progress, as he won't be able to show he is fit enough to be selected (even if he weren't to come in until the Third Test, he'd only have 6 pajama games with no more than 24 overs bowled in 3 weeks) - and he didn't bowl that much last year in the 4 day game either (he played in only 8 of Sussex's 14 games and bowling <275 overs in those games.

 

[Cabinet96]

I see it as, in bowling order:

1. Anderson
2. Broad or Archer
3. Woakes or Curran
4. Leach or Ali
5. Stokes

I find myself surprisingly ambivelent on all those decisions (I favour Broad) but they absolutely must resist picking more than five players from that list. We're never going to find a working batting order while picking fewer batsmen.

Yeah I'm really against the whole idea of picking 6+ bowlers and justifying it by saying most of them can bat a bit. We know whatever top order players we pick are likely to be mediocre but there's at least a chance of it leading to a competent XI somewhere down the line. I'd rather have the chance of a Burns or Denly type player getting one decisive score over the course of the series than having the added value of a 6th bowler which is basically minimal.

 

[Spark]

Christ! For your own safety I hope you didn't read some of the deleted stuff here - like the guy that posted it was "shorter than a Limerick" or it could well trigger your own head explosion.

They don't have the distinction of being the worst poster in the thread by a substantial margin, a dubious honour that goes to your attempts at "humour" in this thread.

So again: pull your head in.

 

[Howe_zat]

Yeah I'm really against the whole idea of picking 6+ bowlers and justifying it by saying most of them can bat a bit. We know whatever top order players we pick are likely to be mediocre but there's at least a chance of it leading to a competent XI somewhere down the line. I'd rather have the chance of a Burns or Denly type player getting one decisive score over the course of the series than having the added value of a 6th bowler which is basically minimal.

I kinda get it when it happens away and England want to have a bunch of variety and spin options, and they end up Rashid to try and conjure a wicket when there's nothing in the deck. But as we've seen today, if England want to win Tests at home we'll need to be taking wickets the way we do best. If it gets as far as the sixth bowler, we're already buggered.

 

[cnerd123]

This was crushingly disappointing

Also are gloating English posters going to be a thing now?

 

[Spark]

This was crushingly disappointing

Also are gloating English posters going to be a thing now?

One bloke doesn't constitute "posters".

 

[trundler]

One bloke doesn't constitute "posters".

Yeah, most **** English posters are long time regulars.


Sorry Adders.

 

[BSM]

Shame that it ended that way for Ireland tbh. Outplaying us in the previous two days only to collapse like that is disappointing. All a learning curve of course.

As far as victory goes, it's probably the least of ways that England would have liked to win. None of the top 3 scored runs (though I think Denly was a bit unlucky in the 2nd innings and would have made a sizeable contribution had he not be run out by Root), and victory was down to a freak innings by a no.11 (who probably won't play in the Ashes) and our bowlers who we had no real worries about anyway.

Think I'd stick with Denly at 3, or even open with him, as Burns has to go. Being out of form with that technique will just be disastrous against Australia. I agree with what Nasser was saying about Roy being better in the middle order but our middle order is already (theoretically) good so it's worth pursuing with him as an opener for the Ashes. Sibly or Vince have to be the front runners for the other opener in the team I guess.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Tough on Ireland, this. Had the worst of the conditions

From what I've heard they got pretty great bowling conditions handed to them on the first morning and generally had the better of the conditions.

 

[Spark]

Their chance was probably really on that first afternoon. At 2/130 you really have to put the foot down and make at least 300+, that would have probably killed the game.

 

[Flem274*]

why do england hate fun

 

[TheJediBrah]

Their chance was probably really on that first afternoon. At 2/130 you really have to put the foot down and make at least 300+, that would have probably killed the game.

I'm not saying it would have played out the same way, but how much more shattering would it have been if they'd been bowled out for 38 chasing 50 to win lol