Re: Cricket fred
Posted: Thu Aug 06, 2020 5:29 pm
quite.Digby wrote:Also our batters are chasing 300 in the 1st innings, just how much less pressure would they like?
quite.Digby wrote:Also our batters are chasing 300 in the 1st innings, just how much less pressure would they like?
jinx shhhGalfon wrote:Some nice touches from Pope -
50 up with no further loss..sorry start so it was.
We can but pray. He just needs to make sure he goes out and plays. No pontifficating. If he can amass enough runs, we’re in with a chance.fivepointer wrote:Stokes got a beauty. That can happen. The openers have serious footwork issues, while Root played a dreadful shot. Pope has looked very good but he needs to go on and score big if we are to get anywhere near the Pakistan total.
Very good. His nickname is Ricky Pontiff.Stom wrote:We can but pray. He just needs to make sure he goes out and plays. No pontifficating. If he can amass enough runs, we’re in with a chance.fivepointer wrote:Stokes got a beauty. That can happen. The openers have serious footwork issues, while Root played a dreadful shot. Pope has looked very good but he needs to go on and score big if we are to get anywhere near the Pakistan total.
Agreed on Buttler- really like him as a player, and as a poor mans Adam Gilchrist (which is not derogatory, Gilchrist was world class), but you can't afford three misses, two of which were simple for a test keeper. (Mind averaging 32 when coming it at 7 isn't the end of the world, but all of he, Root and Stokes are batting at least one place too high in this test.)Big D wrote:Pope really is Englands best hope here so watch him get out in the 1st over![]()
Butlter owes the team a score. Averaging 32 since he came back into the side doesn't really cut it IMO especially when he is now missing straightforwardish catches. I like Buttler as a one day player but he just doesn't do it regularly enough at test level.
I do wonder whether next time Stokes can't bowl whether it is worth the risk of giving the gloves to Pope and playing Crawley.
The 2nd point is more that England seem intent on playing the extra bowler is Stokes is playing. If they take that approach the batting needs to be as strong as possible and if chances are going to be shipped then the batting may as well be stronger. My solution would really be to play Foakes.Banquo wrote:Agreed on Buttler- really like him as a player, and as a poor mans Adam Gilchrist (which is not derogatory, Gilchrist was world class), but you can't afford three misses, two of which were simple for a test keeper.Big D wrote:Pope really is Englands best hope here so watch him get out in the 1st over![]()
Butlter owes the team a score. Averaging 32 since he came back into the side doesn't really cut it IMO especially when he is now missing straightforwardish catches. I like Buttler as a one day player but he just doesn't do it regularly enough at test level.
I do wonder whether next time Stokes can't bowl whether it is worth the risk of giving the gloves to Pope and playing Crawley.
Your second suggestion kind of runs against the thoughts in the first- Pope would almost certainly be shipping chances too, so its a similar hole you are digging.
But by placing keeping duties on Pope you almost certainly make his batting worse and ship chances too. Unfortunately given shaky openers and no settled 3, you can lengthen the batting without making it strong. I do take your essential point, that you need a genuine all rounder somewhere to have a properly balanced team if you have 5 bowlers. I guess Woakes and Bess are kind of half an all rounder eachBig D wrote:The 2nd point is more that England seem intent on playing the extra bowler is Stokes is playing. If they take that approach the batting needs to be as strong as possible and if chances are going to be shipped then the batting may as well be stronger. My solution would really be to play Foakes.Banquo wrote:Agreed on Buttler- really like him as a player, and as a poor mans Adam Gilchrist (which is not derogatory, Gilchrist was world class), but you can't afford three misses, two of which were simple for a test keeper.Big D wrote:Pope really is Englands best hope here so watch him get out in the 1st over![]()
Butlter owes the team a score. Averaging 32 since he came back into the side doesn't really cut it IMO especially when he is now missing straightforwardish catches. I like Buttler as a one day player but he just doesn't do it regularly enough at test level.
I do wonder whether next time Stokes can't bowl whether it is worth the risk of giving the gloves to Pope and playing Crawley.
Your second suggestion kind of runs against the thoughts in the first- Pope would almost certainly be shipping chances too, so its a similar hole you are digging.
Yeah as I said, I would pick Foakes. Starting next match.Banquo wrote:But by placing keeping duties on Pope you almost certainly make his batting worse and ship chances too. Unfortunately given shaky openers and no settled 3, you can lengthen the batting without making it strong. I do take your essential point, that you need a genuine all rounder somewhere to have a properly balanced team if you have 5 bowlers. I guess Woakes and Bess are kind of half an all rounder eachBig D wrote:The 2nd point is more that England seem intent on playing the extra bowler is Stokes is playing. If they take that approach the batting needs to be as strong as possible and if chances are going to be shipped then the batting may as well be stronger. My solution would really be to play Foakes.Banquo wrote: Agreed on Buttler- really like him as a player, and as a poor mans Adam Gilchrist (which is not derogatory, Gilchrist was world class), but you can't afford three misses, two of which were simple for a test keeper.
Your second suggestion kind of runs against the thoughts in the first- Pope would almost certainly be shipping chances too, so its a similar hole you are digging.
what is Foakes form like? He didn't play for Surrey t'other day?Big D wrote:Yeah as I said, I would pick Foakes. Starting next match.Banquo wrote:But by placing keeping duties on Pope you almost certainly make his batting worse and ship chances too. Unfortunately given shaky openers and no settled 3, you can lengthen the batting without making it strong. I do take your essential point, that you need a genuine all rounder somewhere to have a properly balanced team if you have 5 bowlers. I guess Woakes and Bess are kind of half an all rounder eachBig D wrote:
The 2nd point is more that England seem intent on playing the extra bowler is Stokes is playing. If they take that approach the batting needs to be as strong as possible and if chances are going to be shipped then the batting may as well be stronger. My solution would really be to play Foakes.
Edit: Admittedly I was musing based on reports that Pope is a decent keeper.
I'll ask again though, what is Foakes form like? I'm not sure he's played much; mind, I didn't think he should have been dropped anyway.fivepointer wrote:I've said before that Foakes should be recalled. If Buttler was averaging 45+ it would be different. Since the start of 2019 he averages 24.46 in 17 tests. He has not completed a stumping in test cricket.
Foakes is in the bubble I think. But I don't think Buttlers form makes it that big an issue that Foakes hasn't played a lot. Hopefully Buttler is 200* by the close and this discussion gets put on hold.Banquo wrote:what is Foakes form like? He didn't play for Surrey t'other day?Big D wrote:Yeah as I said, I would pick Foakes. Starting next match.Banquo wrote: But by placing keeping duties on Pope you almost certainly make his batting worse and ship chances too. Unfortunately given shaky openers and no settled 3, you can lengthen the batting without making it strong. I do take your essential point, that you need a genuine all rounder somewhere to have a properly balanced team if you have 5 bowlers. I guess Woakes and Bess are kind of half an all rounder each
Edit: Admittedly I was musing based on reports that Pope is a decent keeper.
Just read up on Buttler's keeping, as I've thought until yesterday that he was pretty under-rated as a keeper. He's had a bad couple of days, but he hadn't missed much for a long while (er...other than Blackwood)- he's clearly feeling the pressure I guess, but that's no excuse, performing under pressure is the job.
Fair on his (Buttler's)keeping v spin- its a consequence of playing very little red ball cricket outside tests I'd think. Foakes batting was terrible last season, which probably hasn't helped his cause. But there was a reason back in the day for specialist keepers.Big D wrote:Foakes is in the bubble I think. But I don't think Buttlers form makes it that big an issue that Foakes hasn't played a lot. Hopefully Buttler is 200* by the close and this discussion gets put on hold.Banquo wrote:what is Foakes form like? He didn't play for Surrey t'other day?Big D wrote:
Yeah as I said, I would pick Foakes. Starting next match.
Edit: Admittedly I was musing based on reports that Pope is a decent keeper.
Just read up on Buttler's keeping, as I've thought until yesterday that he was pretty under-rated as a keeper. He's had a bad couple of days, but he hadn't missed much for a long while (er...other than Blackwood)- he's clearly feeling the pressure I guess, but that's no excuse, performing under pressure is the job.
Buttler is awful against spin:
You can't be costing* that many runs and not scoring that many and be kept on.
*Not sure how they work it out.
yep. Pretty soft tbh. Hard to see us getting out of this, save the last 4 sticking a hundred on and Pakistan collapsing. All the Pakistan bowlers are looking dangerous and will be even more of a handful in a day or so.Big D wrote:Buttler does a lot of good in the morning session but ultimately it is another failure.