Clearly it was the time Bess spent in Adelaide grade cricket that helped him become the bowler he is now
He had a poor county season and unfortunately Ed Smith keeps trying to make Buttler happen as a red ball player.Foakes is the go. Solid keeper from what little I saw and a better batsman too than half the specialist bats England have picked.
Extra pace on a flat pitch. Which that ground usually is.What was the reasoning behind this? I've seen plenty talking about how bad the decision was, but very little on what the team management has given as a reason.
yea root's return really makes a big difference. west indies don't have a similar card to play at all and will need to pull their socks up with the bat to counter.I think I'm still confident of England winning in Manchester but they're going to have to bat convincingly better.
I think a lot of people will point to the missed chances this afternoon but it was always an uphill battle after how the first two and a half days went.
Archer maybe, Wood is definitely not '***eh'. Just speed doesn't make a bowler good to look at. Did you ever find Shaun Tait '***eh'? I didn't. Terrible action, looks filthy in the run-up and follow-through (even when he doesn't fall) tbh.Archer and Wood are ***eh though, so I get the temptation.
I did, pace is fun, I found Andre van Troost ***eh, but he was a good-looking man. Obviously Simon Jones is the benchmark.Archer maybe, Wood is definitely not '***eh'. Just speed doesn't make a bowler good to look at. Did you ever find Shaun Tait '***eh'? I didn't. Terrible action, looks filthy in the run-up and follow-through (even when he doesn't fall) tbh.
Completely agree, though quite how we do that I just don't know. I'd get Pooran playing FC and Test cricket but there's no guarantee he would do better than other excellent ODI players like Hope.Windies might be just couple of 40-45 averaging batsmen away from being a top 4 if not top 3 test team in the world.
Interestingly (or perhaps not, but we're here to talk about cricket, so that's what I'm going to do) Ben Gardner made the case for Denly's retention on the Wisden site yesterday.I think Denly has actually done a pretty good job for England in a spot where there are few alternatives. However he is 34, and clearly isn't good enough to be a test batsman. The stats tend to suggest he's been lucky to average as much as he has.
I mean, sure, balls faced is one of the metrics one looks at when assessing a batter's worth, but going one stage further and saying Denly earned Crawley's runs is a step too far, surely?Ben Gardner said:In the first innings, after coming in inside the second over, he (Denly) ensured Crawley didn?t have to come in until the 24th, weathering a testing period on the first day. In the second, it was 51.3 overs until Crawley entered, against part-time spinners, tiring quicks and a wearing ball. Sure, it was the younger man who top-scored with 76, but the England management will view some of those runs as effectively earned by Denly.
In a way, while Denly did his job, of blunting the new ball and laying the platform, Crawley didn?t do his, falling when he could have put the game out of sight and laid down an unanswerable marker. As it is, Denly may well keep his place when Root returns. And it might not be the worst decision either.
Yeah some textbook overthinking it there. The top three in that innings and in SA collectively did a good job despite not scoring all that many runs, and attempting to personify that into Denly is assigning him rather too much influence.Interestingly (or perhaps not, but we're here to talk about cricket, so that's what I'm going to do) Ben Gardner made the case for Denly's retention on the Wisden site yesterday.
Not entirely convincingly, in my estimation; the passage I really disagree with is this one:
I mean, sure, balls faced is one of the metrics one looks at when assessing a batter's worth, but going one stage further and saying Denly earned Crawley's runs is a step too far, surely?
One could equally argue Joe had done the hard work by playing himself in and then (once again) failed to convert a set start to a significant innings.
Every batsman starts at 0 and, yes, there are better times to come in than not, but Crawley's 76 was hardly downhill skiing from 500/2 was it?
Archer plays at Old Trafford though, but yeah, wouldn't be shocked if Woakes plays for him later on. There is just an huge problem with all this talk of change though, that in the end, no-one has match practice, so dropping people means you put in someone with less. Hence I fully expect Buttler to rock up, shouldn't have been picked in the first place, but possibly not good for Foakes to be thrown in now.I?d pick Crawley over Denly.
I?d also be dropping Buttler for Foakes. I would have picked Foakes for the last ten tests or so anyway so for me that isn?t a big step. Buttler has had too many chances for me.
And for me Broad plays over Wood next game. I?d also be tentative with Archer since he?s injury prone. Woakes could be a potential rotation option for him. Wood is injury prone too of course. Woakes and Broad have been very good in England so both strong options