RugbyRebels

Stom wrote:

Big D wrote:

Puja wrote:
Cheeky, but not exactly wrong...

Archer would be above Anderson in the batting order, no? He's viewed as an all-rounder. Hell of a deep batting order that though. Could be key.

Puja

Yes, Archer will probably bat higher, arguably above Ali given Ali's recent form.

I doubt it. Ali will bat 8. They'll back him.

They will back him. Not sure why they will have him ahead of Woakes who apparently averages 40 in England (that may be over a certain time period as I just caught that on radio). But that is probably what they will do.

Archer left out.

Stokes listed at 5 with YJB and Buttler at 6 and 7.

Big D wrote:Archer left out.

Stokes listed at 5 with YJB and Buttler at 6 and 7.

Makes sense - Archer's just back from injury and with little recent history of first class cricket. Combine that with Anderson only just back from injury and you can see why they didn't want to take a chance by having two half-fit fast bowlers. Broad looked in the mood against Ireland and he does raise his game for the Ashes.

Puja

Big D wrote:Archer left out.

Stokes listed at 5 with YJB and Buttler at 6 and 7.

Granuiad had it different: Buttler at 5, Stokes 6, Bairstow 7. I think that makes sense.

Stom wrote:

Big D wrote:Archer left out.

Stokes listed at 5 with YJB and Buttler at 6 and 7.

Granuiad had it different: Buttler at 5, Stokes 6, Bairstow 7. I think that makes sense.

I blame the twitter account of TMS and agree with you about it making sense.

Big D wrote:

Stom wrote:

Big D wrote:Archer left out.

Stokes listed at 5 with YJB and Buttler at 6 and 7.

Granuiad had it different: Buttler at 5, Stokes 6, Bairstow 7. I think that makes sense.

I blame the twitter account of TMS and agree with you about it making sense.

Apart from Burns, who is so far out of form he might as well be orbiting Neptune, I like that team. Denly at 4, though, means he needs runs. We've got 101 batsmen who play middle order. Not many top 3.

Sibley has been mentioned, what's happened to Livingstone?

Amyone else feel that, unless the pitch is screaming for another decision, that the correct call for both teams is to bowl first? Momentum is vital in an Ashes series and neither side will be keen to open with subjecting their batsmen to the other side's bowlers and losing the initiative.

Puja

Yes, there is always life in the pitch on the first morning and with some cloud knocking about and the relative strengths of bowlers over batters with both teams, this would be a good strategy to get one over early doors.
The rider would be it could only be a 3 day contest if the weather turns up, so to keep up the 11-up winning run at the Edge they'd need to get a move on.

good news for Root, the pressure of putting someone in often affects the bowling side! Plus Starc is out.

Banquo wrote:good news for Root, the pressure of putting someone in often affects the bowling side! Plus Starc is out.

Agreed. You can't help but think that's a tactical error by Paine - he's talking about what the pitch will do on day 5, but I'm not sure the test will go beyond lunch on day 4. First session is going to be utterly crucial - if Australia go in with less than 2 wickets down, then it'll break England's spirits early.

Siddle has a history of being annoyingly good in these conditions, but I am happy not to see Starc, given the weakness of our batting lineup to fast, aggressive bowling.

Puja

doh, good bowling,but golden chance to remove warner on review missed

Broad 0 for 2 on reviews, doh! jeez.

phew relief all round

lol no review by warner. Broad reaping benefit of JImmy being a miser.

Good start this.

Getting Smith soon would be massive.

Puja wrote:if Australia go in with less than 2 wickets down, then it'll break England's spirits early.

What about 4 down before lunch?

Big D wrote:Good start this.

Getting Smith soon would be massive.

yep. Though Head is no mug. Shame he isn't called Richard.

talk about letting em off the hook; Stokes and Moeen crap bowling. Suspect Anderson is struggling?

Which Tyler wrote:

Puja wrote:if Australia go in with less than 2 wickets down, then it'll break England's spirits early.

What about 4 down before lunch?

This has aged well.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:

Puja wrote:if Australia go in with less than 2 wickets down, then it'll break England's spirits early.

What about 4 down before lunch?

This has aged well.

Puja

Think Oz will be happy tbh; Stokes has been terrible. As Boycs says, going in with Jimmy looks like a bad risk to have taken if he can't bowl north of 15 overs.

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:

Which Tyler wrote: What about 4 down before lunch?

This has aged well.

Puja

Think Oz will be happy tbh; Stokes has been terrible. As Boycs says, going in with Jimmy looks like a bad risk to have taken if he can't bowl north of 15 overs.

And now he's gone off for a scan. It's a reasonable gamble to have made given his importance to the team, but with Ali and Stokes both looking toothless, it'll be a hard test.

Who was it who suggested dropping Burns and picking an extra bowler? We could use Curran right about now and he'd probably do better with the bat.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:
This has aged well.

Puja

Think Oz will be happy tbh; Stokes has been terrible. As Boycs says, going in with Jimmy looks like a bad risk to have taken if he can't bowl north of 15 overs.

And now he's gone off for a scan. It's a reasonable gamble to have made given his importance to the team, but with Ali and Stokes both looking toothless, it'll be a hard test.

Who was it who suggested dropping Burns and picking an extra bowler? We could use Curran right about now and he'd probably do better with the bat.

Puja

Clearly too big a risk on a calf- that's a really bad call. Suspect the team knew it, and that's when heads dropped. Stokes needs to get his act together big time now.

Phew.

doh. Close!

review city arizona