RugbyRebels

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:

Big D wrote:
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.

I guess you’re right in that he needs to play red ball cricket, I just never like to see players learning their trade at the top level, he should be doing that in county cricket.

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:
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.

I guess you’re right in that he needs to play red ball cricket, I just never like to see players learning their trade at the top level, he should be doing that in county cricket.

Its certainly a problem- it also used to be where fast bowlers built up their stamina. But even Anderson has only played 250 f/c games, of which 153 are tests- Broad's are 225 and 140 respectively. Jofra's ratio is better but has still only played 38 f/c games...very respectable figures to be fair.

Nice to see YJB in the runs. His ODI record is excellent- personally, I think he should give up keeping if he wants to get his test batting form back- that said, after 70 tests and an average of 34, maybe his time has gone, unless its replacing Buttler

He’s test quality but needed to be a middle order batsman or not in the team. Not sure whether the moves around the batting order were him, selectors or a bit of both but it hasn’t helped him. From what I’ve heard and read, the desire to be wk stemmed from a lack of self belief that his batting alone was good enough to keep him in the team. If true, it obvs didn’t work out for him.

Mellsblue wrote:He’s test quality but needed to be a middle order batsman or not in the team. Not sure whether the moves around the batting order were him, selectors or a bit of both but it hasn’t helped him. From what I’ve heard and read, the desire to be wk stemmed from a lack of self belief that his batting alone was good enough to keep him in the team. If true, it obvs didn’t work out for him.

He also developed a flaw in his game, was told to go away and work on it and came back with the same flaw. Remind you of another Yorkshire batsman who had a wonderful average fit a while before falling off a cliff?

Stom wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:He’s test quality but needed to be a middle order batsman or not in the team. Not sure whether the moves around the batting order were him, selectors or a bit of both but it hasn’t helped him. From what I’ve heard and read, the desire to be wk stemmed from a lack of self belief that his batting alone was good enough to keep him in the team. If true, it obvs didn’t work out for him.

He also developed a flaw in his game, was told to go away and work on it and came back with the same flaw. Remind you of another Yorkshire batsman who had a wonderful average fit a while before falling off a cliff?

What was the flaw? Did it manifest whilst keeping?

Stom wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:He’s test quality but needed to be a middle order batsman or not in the team. Not sure whether the moves around the batting order were him, selectors or a bit of both but it hasn’t helped him. From what I’ve heard and read, the desire to be wk stemmed from a lack of self belief that his batting alone was good enough to keep him in the team. If true, it obvs didn’t work out for him.

He also developed a flaw in his game, was told to go away and work on it and came back with the same flaw. Remind you of another Yorkshire batsman who had a wonderful average fit a while before falling off a cliff?

He had previously fixed one flaw when rejected first time round, and came back with a new very successful technique; I think there is a different issue now. Its unlike Ballance, who just lost his bottle against pace. But I suspect YJB's time may have gone.

this shows selection dilemma well

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/53636915

Best players Vs best team.

Banquo wrote:this shows selection dilemma well

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/53636915

Very interesting point of the variety bringing better results out of the other bowlers. I wouldn't want to be the selector at the moment - some very tough calls.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote:this shows selection dilemma well

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/53636915

Very interesting point of the variety bringing better results out of the other bowlers. I wouldn't want to be the selector at the moment - some very tough calls.

Puja

Just as having an accurate and dangerous bowler like Anderson brings results at the other end. Think I'd rather be a selector with these problems than a selector with no choices

For me it is Broad plus one of Anderson and Woakes and one of Archer and Wood. With the caveat that Stokes is fit to bowl.

I respect Anderson a lot and half expect him to prove me wrong (good!) but in his last 20 innings he hasn't taken a wicket in 9 of them and has only taken more than one 7 times. In 20 innings the only 3 times Woakes chipped in with 0 were ones he bowled 10, 7 and 3 overs.

The time is coming where Root and the selectors will need to make a big decision.

Stokes not being fit to bowl is huge. Pressure on the batting line up.

Still think Buttler at 6 is too high, as is Root at 3. Stokes being able to bowl or not makes a huge difference. Solid start from Pakistan.

Banquo wrote:Still think Buttler at 6 is too high, as is Root at 3. Stokes being able to bowl or not makes a huge difference. Solid start from Pakistan.

They can perform in those roles if they apply themselves. I’m a bit more worried about the bowling attack being a little one paced with broad, Anderson and woakes together.

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote:Still think Buttler at 6 is too high, as is Root at 3. Stokes being able to bowl or not makes a huge difference. Solid start from Pakistan.

They can perform in those roles if they apply themselves. I’m a bit more worried about the bowling attack being a little one paced with broad, Anderson and woakes together.

They are the wrong places for them to bat; Pakistan also have a pretty tasty pace attack. Ill balanced unless Stokes bowls (also batting one place higher than ideal imo, though he has done Ok there ).

Also, when was the last England test where the commentators could not say:

England have bowled a little bit too short.

It’s a plague upon our bowlers.

Stom wrote:Also, when was the last England test where the commentators could not say:

England have bowled a little bit too short.

It’s a plague upon our bowlers.

Not sure its reflected in our home record, where its the bowlers who consistently....erm...deliver. They usually sort it out at home.

Banquo wrote:

Stom wrote:Also, when was the last England test where the commentators could not say:

England have bowled a little bit too short.

It’s a plague upon our bowlers.

Not sure its reflected in our home record, where its the bowlers who consistently....erm...deliver. They usually sort it out at home.

I know, but still...

It's not easy to bowl a fuller length, and if you want to pitch it up you need to have some shorter stuff in there anyway. Very hard to pitch it up every ball unless you're getting enough seam movement to keep the batters honest

Digby wrote:It's not easy to bowl a fuller length, and if you want to pitch it up you need to have some shorter stuff in there anyway. Very hard to pitch it up every ball unless you're getting enough seam movement to keep the batters honest

I know that. Considering the state of my bowling, keeping your length consistent is tough. But these are the cream of the crop, they should be able to keep it relatively consistent. They're just scared of being hit, so drop their length back a bit.

got the lengths sorted Babar is the big wicket they need now.

Stom wrote:

Digby wrote:It's not easy to bowl a fuller length, and if you want to pitch it up you need to have some shorter stuff in there anyway. Very hard to pitch it up every ball unless you're getting enough seam movement to keep the batters honest

I know that. Considering the state of my bowling, keeping your length consistent is tough. But these are the cream of the crop, they should be able to keep it relatively consistent. They're just scared of being hit, so drop their length back a bit.

Mechanically it is harder, even for the very best. And then if you make a mistake with your release you are much easier to score off which makes it harder again. Also if everyone pitches it up how do you push the batters back? there has to be some shorter stuff even before you might want some out and out short pitched stuff.

Pretty poor from Butler there. Ball didn't deviate a lot.

notwithstanding how difficult being a bowler is they were sh*t in that period after lunch.

jimmy on the money, Broad unlucky imo