Cricket fred

Post Reply
Big D
Posts: 5608
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:49 pm

Re: Cicket fred

Post by Big D »

Banquo wrote:
Big D wrote:
Banquo wrote: They are only averaging 30 ish in CC, but so was Trescothick when picked! Burns was picked when scoring heavily in fairness too, and Denly is a red baller by trade.

Have to say though, for all the rants about get the red ball batsmen in.....there have been a huge number tried, too many with not enough time maybe, over the last 4 or 5 years.
But Sibley particularly is averaging 60odd this season approaching 1000 runs to get his overall average to 40. Not sure another season of averaging 50plus would make too much of a difference. With tours of SA and NZ on the horizon I think they are as well giving him a run now and giving him time to bed I'm rather than having Denly wander on for a few more games.

At 23, he is the perfect age to get in at 4 in place of Denly with a view to moving up (or open from the start). If it doesnt work there is time to go away and work on issues and come back if need be. Don't think England would be losing anything by making that change bar Denlys slow bowling.
I'm not arguing about Sibley to be clear (hence the tres point). But the general notion that we don't try and put form CC red ball players in doesn't stack up, and in fact you are replacing another :). I've lost track of the number of Westleys, Pope's, etc that've had a go.
My point is more that because they have had failures doesn't mean they should stop looking. Particularly when arguably bar Root none of the recognised incumbents are particularly consistently good.

Ben Foakes has shown some good stuff, so there could be an arguement for Foakes to come in for someone and taking the gloves. Might even free YJB up despite his desire to keep.
Banquo
Posts: 19354
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:52 pm

Re: Cicket fred

Post by Banquo »

Big D wrote:
Banquo wrote:
Big D wrote:
But Sibley particularly is averaging 60odd this season approaching 1000 runs to get his overall average to 40. Not sure another season of averaging 50plus would make too much of a difference. With tours of SA and NZ on the horizon I think they are as well giving him a run now and giving him time to bed I'm rather than having Denly wander on for a few more games.

At 23, he is the perfect age to get in at 4 in place of Denly with a view to moving up (or open from the start). If it doesnt work there is time to go away and work on issues and come back if need be. Don't think England would be losing anything by making that change bar Denlys slow bowling.
I'm not arguing about Sibley to be clear (hence the tres point). But the general notion that we don't try and put form CC red ball players in doesn't stack up, and in fact you are replacing another :). I've lost track of the number of Westleys, Pope's, etc that've had a go.
My point is more that because they have had failures doesn't mean they should stop looking. Particularly when arguably bar Root none of the recognised incumbents are particularly consistently good.

Ben Foakes has shown some good stuff, so there could be an arguement for Foakes to come in for someone and taking the gloves. Might even free YJB up despite his desire to keep.
not sure there is evidence that they have stopped looking is my point. Burns and Denly are only recent entries. I agree YJB should be relieved of keeping, whether that's Buttler or Foakes is moot.
Banquo
Posts: 19354
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:52 pm

Re: Cicket fred

Post by Banquo »

Bollox, Archer looked in good nick. Might get about 20 overs at the aussies :(
User avatar
Galfon
Posts: 4297
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 8:07 pm

Re: Cicket fred

Post by Galfon »

If they clean Eng. out for under 260 on Day1, Aus will feel it's on track.If we could eke a few more out it may start to niggle 'em a bit. (New ball is just around the corner)
Not that 450-500 in breezy fashion won't put things in perspective - but Archer will be champing at the bit now..
User avatar
Galfon
Posts: 4297
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 8:07 pm

Re: Cicket fred

Post by Galfon »

258 a.o. - 120 from the last 4 wickets gives Eng a slight sniff.Not very impressive but the Lords pitch is unpredictable at the moment.Need a few breaks here.
Big D
Posts: 5608
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:49 pm

Re: Cicket fred

Post by Big D »

Banquo wrote:
Big D wrote:
Banquo wrote: I'm not arguing about Sibley to be clear (hence the tres point). But the general notion that we don't try and put form CC red ball players in doesn't stack up, and in fact you are replacing another :). I've lost track of the number of Westleys, Pope's, etc that've had a go.
My point is more that because they have had failures doesn't mean they should stop looking. Particularly when arguably bar Root none of the recognised incumbents are particularly consistently good.

Ben Foakes has shown some good stuff, so there could be an arguement for Foakes to come in for someone and taking the gloves. Might even free YJB up despite his desire to keep.
not sure there is evidence that they have stopped looking is my point. Burns and Denly are only recent entries. I agree YJB should be relieved of keeping, whether that's Buttler or Foakes is moot.
That's fair. Perhaps because it is the same people that are coming in that are being replaced rather than the established (in terms of wont be dropped) that make it look different from reality.
Big D
Posts: 5608
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:49 pm

Re: Cicket fred

Post by Big D »

Broad likes bowling ar Warner this series.
Banquo
Posts: 19354
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:52 pm

Re: Cicket fred

Post by Banquo »

Big D wrote:
Banquo wrote:
Big D wrote:
My point is more that because they have had failures doesn't mean they should stop looking. Particularly when arguably bar Root none of the recognised incumbents are particularly consistently good.

Ben Foakes has shown some good stuff, so there could be an arguement for Foakes to come in for someone and taking the gloves. Might even free YJB up despite his desire to keep.
not sure there is evidence that they have stopped looking is my point. Burns and Denly are only recent entries. I agree YJB should be relieved of keeping, whether that's Buttler or Foakes is moot.
That's fair. Perhaps because it is the same people that are coming in that are being replaced rather than the established (in terms of wont be dropped) that make it look different from reality.
yep. There are some horses that are being backed continually- YJB mostly, as Buttler had been out of the side for ages. Roy is another 'new' introduction I suppose, though based on white ball success positionally.
Banquo
Posts: 19354
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:52 pm

Re: Cicket fred

Post by Banquo »

crucial hour now
User avatar
Stom
Posts: 5846
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 10:57 am

Re: Cicket fred

Post by Stom »

Banquo wrote:crucial hour now
Lunch is that ;)

But yeah, if we can get Smith (or even Head) out, it's been our morning.
User avatar
Stom
Posts: 5846
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 10:57 am

Re: Cicket fred

Post by Stom »

I think it's definitely been our morning. What a difference it has made that Aus are scoring so slowly. They usually score quickly, which causes us problems, but we're keeping them in check, which makes a huge difference.

But we really could do with one more wicket. Smith's. But I'd settle for Wade.
Banquo
Posts: 19354
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:52 pm

Re: Cicket fred

Post by Banquo »

Shame, rains likely wrecked this one. Looked like being a cracker, even over 4 days.
Digby
Posts: 13436
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 11:17 am

Re: Cicket fred

Post by Digby »

We can lose from here, have faith
Banquo
Posts: 19354
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:52 pm

Re: Cicket fred

Post by Banquo »

Digby wrote:We can lose from here, have faith
fair
Banquo
Posts: 19354
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:52 pm

Re: Cicket fred

Post by Banquo »

Bloody Smith. He's really getting to the bowlers. Lets see what Leach can do, as Smith is relatively poor against SLA.
User avatar
Stom
Posts: 5846
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 10:57 am

Re: Cicket fred

Post by Stom »

Banquo wrote:Bloody Smith. He's really getting to the bowlers. Lets see what Leach can do, as Smith is relatively poor against SLA.
Woakes was poor, for me. I thought Archer was good and Broad decent, but Woakes let it get away from us.

Stokes is doing well with not much to work with. Paine is a walking wicket.
Banquo
Posts: 19354
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:52 pm

Re: Cicket fred

Post by Banquo »

Stom wrote:
Banquo wrote:Bloody Smith. He's really getting to the bowlers. Lets see what Leach can do, as Smith is relatively poor against SLA.
Woakes was poor, for me. I thought Archer was good and Broad decent, but Woakes let it get away from us.

Stokes is doing well with not much to work with. Paine is a walking wicket.
Woakes had one tremendous over but the rest wasn't great; he bowled a long hop that let the pressure off and its looked easier since then.
Leach isn't getting any turn unfortunately.

In fairness, they've not had much luck, with edges dropping out of reach etc.
Banquo
Posts: 19354
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:52 pm

Re: Cicket fred

Post by Banquo »

Liking Leach's control so far.

Feel missed a trick this morning, bowled too short. Now shipping runs from Archer's end.
Banquo
Posts: 19354
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:52 pm

Re: Cicket fred

Post by Banquo »

could be an arm breaker that
User avatar
Galfon
Posts: 4297
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 8:07 pm

Re: Cicket fred

Post by Galfon »

He'll need that chickin...not wearing arm-guard against Archer is a risk even for him.
Was going to say he has looked vulnerable in the 140's recently, but he'll find that tough now.
Banquo
Posts: 19354
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:52 pm

Re: Cicket fred

Post by Banquo »

Gutsy from Smith
Banquo
Posts: 19354
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:52 pm

Re: Cicket fred

Post by Banquo »

Just chinned him, nasty.

He's a hell of a bowler in full flight. Red ball game seems to suit him.
User avatar
Stom
Posts: 5846
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 10:57 am

Re: Cicket fred

Post by Stom »

Banquo wrote:Just chinned him, nasty.

He's a hell of a bowler in full flight. Red ball game seems to suit him.
Where did it hit him?

It's one way to get rid of him, that's sure!
Banquo
Posts: 19354
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:52 pm

Re: Cicket fred

Post by Banquo »

Stom wrote:
Banquo wrote:Just chinned him, nasty.

He's a hell of a bowler in full flight. Red ball game seems to suit him.
Where did it hit him?

It's one way to get rid of him, that's sure!
Neck I think- could have been really bad- Hughes type area.
User avatar
Stom
Posts: 5846
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 10:57 am

Re: Cicket fred

Post by Stom »

Banquo wrote:
Stom wrote:
Banquo wrote:Just chinned him, nasty.

He's a hell of a bowler in full flight. Red ball game seems to suit him.
Where did it hit him?

It's one way to get rid of him, that's sure!
Neck I think- could have been really bad- Hughes type area.
Just seemed to duck into it.
Post Reply