RugbyRebels

Puja wrote:Feels like a poor decision not to promote Stokes and Buttler to 3 and 4. It was right to open with Sibley and Burns as we weren't far enough ahead that we could gamble, but they've done a fine job, got the lead over 270, taken the shine off the ball, wearied the bowlers, and now we need to take a chance to accelerate and try and beat the weather to get a result. It's overcautious captaincy from Root - looking to erase any possibility of defeat rather than looking at ways to win.

Puja

I disagree. Root is going at a run a ball and Burns is scoring well since Sibley left.

When one of these is out, we’ll have plenty of time for Stokes to go mad.

Stom wrote:

Puja wrote:Feels like a poor decision not to promote Stokes and Buttler to 3 and 4. It was right to open with Sibley and Burns as we weren't far enough ahead that we could gamble, but they've done a fine job, got the lead over 270, taken the shine off the ball, wearied the bowlers, and now we need to take a chance to accelerate and try and beat the weather to get a result. It's overcautious captaincy from Root - looking to erase any possibility of defeat rather than looking at ways to win.

Puja

I disagree. Root is going at a run a ball and Burns is scoring well since Sibley left.

When one of these is out, we’ll have plenty of time for Stokes to go mad.

If Monday's a washout, as every forecast seems to suggest, it's leaving us one day to bowl the Windies out. Granted, we'd fancy our chances on current form, but it only takes a rain shower or bad light or an obdurate partnership to thwart us. I'd've said come out after tea with instructions to go full T20 and give us an hour and a bit to bowl at them tonight.

May all be absolutely fine in the end, but it does feel like playing it safe to me.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Stom wrote:

Puja wrote:Feels like a poor decision not to promote Stokes and Buttler to 3 and 4. It was right to open with Sibley and Burns as we weren't far enough ahead that we could gamble, but they've done a fine job, got the lead over 270, taken the shine off the ball, wearied the bowlers, and now we need to take a chance to accelerate and try and beat the weather to get a result. It's overcautious captaincy from Root - looking to erase any possibility of defeat rather than looking at ways to win.

Puja

I disagree. Root is going at a run a ball and Burns is scoring well since Sibley left.

When one of these is out, we’ll have plenty of time for Stokes to go mad.

If Monday's a washout, as every forecast seems to suggest, it's leaving us one day to bowl the Windies out. Granted, we'd fancy our chances on current form, but it only takes a rain shower or bad light or an obdurate partnership to thwart us. I'd've said come out after tea with instructions to go full T20 and give us an hour and a bit to bowl at them tonight.

May all be absolutely fine in the end, but it does feel like playing it safe to me.

Puja

If it doesn’t rain tomorrow... they’re scoring well, it’ll be over soon.

Stom wrote:

Puja wrote:

Stom wrote:
I disagree. Root is going at a run a ball and Burns is scoring well since Sibley left.

When one of these is out, we’ll have plenty of time for Stokes to go mad.

If Monday's a washout, as every forecast seems to suggest, it's leaving us one day to bowl the Windies out. Granted, we'd fancy our chances on current form, but it only takes a rain shower or bad light or an obdurate partnership to thwart us. I'd've said come out after tea with instructions to go full T20 and give us an hour and a bit to bowl at them tonight.

May all be absolutely fine in the end, but it does feel like playing it safe to me.

Puja

If it doesn’t rain tomorrow... they’re scoring well, it’ll be over soon.

I think it's foolish to be relying on Manchester weather, especially when the forecast is rain rain rain.

Do we really think the Windies can get 357 in a 4th innings anyway? And if they do, it'll be because our attack fell apart, not because we didn't have enough runs on the board. We should be bowling at them now and, if we'd put in Stokes at 3, we could have been in this position and bowling at them 20 minutes ago.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Stom wrote:

Puja wrote:
If Monday's a washout, as every forecast seems to suggest, it's leaving us one day to bowl the Windies out. Granted, we'd fancy our chances on current form, but it only takes a rain shower or bad light or an obdurate partnership to thwart us. I'd've said come out after tea with instructions to go full T20 and give us an hour and a bit to bowl at them tonight.

May all be absolutely fine in the end, but it does feel like playing it safe to me.

Puja

If it doesn’t rain tomorrow... they’re scoring well, it’ll be over soon.

I think it's foolish to be relying on Manchester weather, especially when the forecast is rain rain rain.

Do we really think the Windies can get 357 in a 4th innings anyway? And if they do, it'll be because our attack fell apart, not because we didn't have enough runs on the board. We should be bowling at them now and, if we'd put in Stokes at 3, we could have been in this position and bowling at them 20 minutes ago.

Puja

Root scored plenty quick enough.

And that’s what I mean on the weather: you can’t trust it. If there’s 2 sessions tomorrow, that’s 5 sessions, plenty to bat through. England needed a good target.

Fair play to Burns, sacrificed an easy ton. Think the target and time are about right- guess they all remember Windies chasing 322 a couple of years ago.

Stom wrote:

Puja wrote:

Stom wrote:
If it doesn’t rain tomorrow... they’re scoring well, it’ll be over soon.

I think it's foolish to be relying on Manchester weather, especially when the forecast is rain rain rain.

Do we really think the Windies can get 357 in a 4th innings anyway? And if they do, it'll be because our attack fell apart, not because we didn't have enough runs on the board. We should be bowling at them now and, if we'd put in Stokes at 3, we could have been in this position and bowling at them 20 minutes ago.

Puja

Root scored plenty quick enough.

And that’s what I mean on the weather: you can’t trust it. If there’s 2 sessions tomorrow, that’s 5 sessions, plenty to bat through. England needed a good target.

Yeah, fair play to Root - he turned in a very useful innings indeed and you can't complain too much - Stokes could have been put in and then out first ball for all we know.

I still think we've been overcautious - every weather forecast says no play tomorrow and, while they've been wrong before, I wouldn't bank on 5 sessions. 330 seemed like a good enough target given this Windies batting lineup and this England bowling lineup. However, it may be a moot point on both our parts as they're already 1 down and wobbling!

Correction, 2 down.

Puja

Turned out very well for England. The late wickets completely vindicated the timing of the declaration. Broad has had a sensational match and there has been runs for 5 of the top 6.
Today looks very wet but even if they dont get on, its hard to see Windies holding out on day 5.

fivepointer wrote:Turned out very well for England. The late wickets completely vindicated the timing of the declaration. Broad has had a sensational match and there has been runs for 5 of the top 6.
Today looks very wet but even if they dont get on, its hard to see Windies holding out on day 5.

Had to also factor in bowler rest to the declaration, so think it was spot on.

I tend to be of the view just declare and get after them. But I can't really argue with declaring with a lead of 400 and over 2 days left in the match, if the rain does us from here on out so be it

Windies looking comfy.

Successful jinx, 500 for Broad who imo has somewhat prematurely been written off

Eng back on track - Woakes is well tailored for home conditions..it's changeable+ up in Manc. today.
Broad was heading for a write-off due to inconsistencies, but form is temporary of course; as long as you put the hard work in! He'll be chasing Jimmy's top spot now.
and a new gong of course

Galfon wrote:Eng back on track - Woakes is well tailored for home conditions..it's changeable+ up in Manc. today.
Broad was heading for a write-off due to inconsistencies, but form is temporary of course; as long as you put the hard work in! He'll be chasing Jimmy's top spot now.
and a new gong of course

It was a technical issue with Broad, which he sorted.

Bess is a good un, hope we keep the faith there. Shocking running though.

Rain not overly helping again- looks like on and off all day.

Woakes giving selectors a good problem to have.

Banquo wrote:Woakes giving selectors a good problem to have.

I'm not sure he has, tbh. He's always been a superb bowler when it's overcast in England. But as soon as you put him in a dry, sunny Aussie pitch, his average almost doubles.

I'm not so sure Archer is right yet, though, either. I mean, he has some wonderful disguised variations - perfect for short form cricket - but he goes for a lot of runs and doesn't seem to have the same ability to keep the pressure on that the best bowlers do.

I think he needs to do a lot of work before he's up to the standard we need, tbh. And I'm a big Wood fan, even though he's a bit of a one trick pony, he does that one trick well.

Banquo wrote: It was a technical issue with Broad, which he sorted.

maybe some of it, he was slowly becoming just 'good' and not as good as jimmy, or reliable with bat as Woakes.New real quickies arrived.. he has made his mark again and big plus for the squad.

Galfon wrote:

Banquo wrote: It was a technical issue with Broad, which he sorted.

maybe some of it, he was slowly becoming just 'good' and not as good as jimmy, or reliable with bat as Woakes.New real quickies arrived.. he has made his mark again and big plus for the squad.

No, it was a genuine issue- he changed to bowling cutters, and that changed his technique and he had to reverse out of that and rediscover his wrist action.

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote:Woakes giving selectors a good problem to have.

I'm not sure he has, tbh. He's always been a superb bowler when it's overcast in England. But as soon as you put him in a dry, sunny Aussie pitch, his average almost doubles.

I'm not so sure Archer is right yet, though, either. I mean, he has some wonderful disguised variations - perfect for short form cricket - but he goes for a lot of runs and doesn't seem to have the same ability to keep the pressure on that the best bowlers do.

I think he needs to do a lot of work before he's up to the standard we need, tbh. And I'm a big Wood fan, even though he's a bit of a one trick pony, he does that one trick well.

So its a good problem to have when selecting a side to play in England, nicht wahr.....which is the immediate question. If Stokes can bowl, who do you leave out of the next home tests v Pakistan? Archer....even though with nurturing and more red ball cricket he would be a big threat in Oz? I suspect others figures don't look as clever abroad, either.

Banquo wrote:

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote:Woakes giving selectors a good problem to have.

I'm not sure he has, tbh. He's always been a superb bowler when it's overcast in England. But as soon as you put him in a dry, sunny Aussie pitch, his average almost doubles.

I'm not so sure Archer is right yet, though, either. I mean, he has some wonderful disguised variations - perfect for short form cricket - but he goes for a lot of runs and doesn't seem to have the same ability to keep the pressure on that the best bowlers do.

I think he needs to do a lot of work before he's up to the standard we need, tbh. And I'm a big Wood fan, even though he's a bit of a one trick pony, he does that one trick well.

So its a good problem to have when selecting a side to play in England, nicht wahr.....which is the immediate question. If Stokes can bowl, who do you leave out of the next home tests v Pakistan? Archer....even though with nurturing and more red ball cricket he would be a big threat in Oz? I suspect others figures don't look as clever abroad, either.

Has to be Archer or Jimmy IMO depending on conditions. Anderson hasn't picked up any wickets in the second innings in this series but keeps it tight enough and Archer hasn't picked up many wickets full stop.

I'd drop Archer but not against dropping Jimmy as he is at that age where his past heroics don't necessarily indicate future performance.

Big D wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Stom wrote:
I'm not sure he has, tbh. He's always been a superb bowler when it's overcast in England. But as soon as you put him in a dry, sunny Aussie pitch, his average almost doubles.

I'm not so sure Archer is right yet, though, either. I mean, he has some wonderful disguised variations - perfect for short form cricket - but he goes for a lot of runs and doesn't seem to have the same ability to keep the pressure on that the best bowlers do.

I think he needs to do a lot of work before he's up to the standard we need, tbh. And I'm a big Wood fan, even though he's a bit of a one trick pony, he does that one trick well.

So its a good problem to have when selecting a side to play in England, nicht wahr.....which is the immediate question. If Stokes can bowl, who do you leave out of the next home tests v Pakistan? Archer....even though with nurturing and more red ball cricket he would be a big threat in Oz? I suspect others figures don't look as clever abroad, either.

Has to be Archer or Jimmy IMO depending on conditions. Anderson hasn't picked up any wickets in the second innings in this series but keeps it tight enough and Archer hasn't picked up many wickets full stop.

I'd drop Archer but not against dropping Jimmy as he is at that age where his past heroics don't necessarily indicate future performance.

I'd agree on Jimmy, but for different reasoning. We want to eke as much out of Jimmy as we can and if that means playing him one test a series, I'm okay with that. I think Archer has to be invested in though - Woakes does the business in England, but we don't play all our games in England and I strongly suspect he would get laughed at on Australian pitches. Archer has the potential to be a real threat there.

Of course, base on this series, the obvious person to drop for the first test is Stuart Broad.

Puja

Banquo wrote: No, it was a genuine issue- he changed to bowling cutters, and that changed his technique and he had to reverse out of that and rediscover his wrist action.

That means it was probably a mental issue, possibly borne from general grind and slog from a long and successful career - bowlers never forget arm/wrist/finger technique that brings dividend I would say, if anything learn new tricks along the way.
He looks alot sharper and fired up, maybe the rest helped.

Galfon wrote:

Banquo wrote: No, it was a genuine issue- he changed to bowling cutters, and that changed his technique and he had to reverse out of that and rediscover his wrist action.

That means it was probably a mental issue, possibly borne from general grind and slog from a long and successful career - bowlers never forget arm/wrist/finger technique that brings dividend I would say, if anything learn new tricks along the way.
He looks alot sharper and fired up, maybe the rest helped.

He was our best bowler before the rest, statistically. It was described by Hussein as a technical issue- he learned a new trick, but it affected his action. Even high quality bowlers do lose their technique- see Gillespie.

Puja wrote:

Big D wrote:

Banquo wrote: So its a good problem to have when selecting a side to play in England, nicht wahr.....which is the immediate question. If Stokes can bowl, who do you leave out of the next home tests v Pakistan? Archer....even though with nurturing and more red ball cricket he would be a big threat in Oz? I suspect others figures don't look as clever abroad, either.

Has to be Archer or Jimmy IMO depending on conditions. Anderson hasn't picked up any wickets in the second innings in this series but keeps it tight enough and Archer hasn't picked up many wickets full stop.

I'd drop Archer but not against dropping Jimmy as he is at that age where his past heroics don't necessarily indicate future performance.

I'd agree on Jimmy, but for different reasoning. We want to eke as much out of Jimmy as we can and if that means playing him one test a series, I'm okay with that. I think Archer has to be invested in though - Woakes does the business in England, but we don't play all our games in England and I strongly suspect he would get laughed at on Australian pitches. Archer has the potential to be a real threat there.

Of course, base on this series, the obvious person to drop for the first test is Stuart Broad.

Puja

Quite. But he does need some advice imo, and again, hasn't played much red ball cricket really.