RugbyRebels

Great game whatever.

Buttler did well today.

Woakes is such an unassuming guy but delivers for England regularly.

Banquo wrote:Great game whatever.

Indeed. Should be a good series.

Drama with 4 runs needed

Great win. Woakes and Buttler were fantastic. Woakes motm you’d think.

Yep. Top stuff this afternoon when it looked very grim when Pope was out.

That made for a very entertaining day. There’s not much in sport that can match the ebb and flow of a close test match.

Mellsblue wrote:That made for a very entertaining day. There’s not much in sport that can match the ebb and flow of a close test match.

Agreed - it's absolutely unique.

I'm still not sure Woakes is suited to anything but English conditions, but he's certainly earned the right to be given another go overseas after this summer. He's played excellently, with a match-winning innings to add the cherry on top.

Buttler somehow achieved the impossible and rescued his test place for the next game. I don't think he came out in credit vis-a-vis runs conceded after drops vs runs scored, but it showed a lot of minerals to put in that innings and the best argument to show his keeping won't lose us test matches is to be heavily involved in the winning of it.

Not sure where Pakistan go from here. Their heads dropped massively across the day and it'll be hard for them to pick back up. Now that Stokes is fit, we'll surely bring back Crawley (and drop Anderson to see if Archer is more effective with the new ball) which will stiffen our batting and remove the obvious weakness.

Puja

I remember one G. McGrath at Wuss saying it's much easier to bowl in defensive fashion to attacking fields than bowling in attacking fashion to defensive fields. And Pakistan have a group of seamers who go hunting wickets and 2 leggies who don't tie down an end, what they'd have given for a Hoggard or Giles today.

Not sure if Pakistan has an off spinner, but they don't use the 2nd leggie much, it might give them more control if they had a finger spinner, and it'd present a different threat from the ball going the other way and uses the footmarks left by the left arm seamer. Or maybe the next pitch will lead them to pick an extra seamer.

We fell around 100 runs short in the first innings, they maybe the same in their 2nd, but how they ended up with 5 men on the boundary whilst chasing a win I don't know, that's a captain not trusting his bowlers and/or his plans

I wonder if either side will rotate a seamer or two? If we had Curran that really would give Bess something to bowl at, not that Bess has bowled all that well when having something to bowl at

Whilst it was a brilliant partnership and run chase, need to bear in mind how green (:)) that Pakistani attack is- though they did have a holding bowler in Abbas to Digby's post, and Yasir had a decent economy rate as their attacking leggie. Buttler and Woakes were excellent- hitting boundaries early on (some from decent balls as well) and then just rotating the strike as Azhar started to panic a bit.

On our selection, we have an embarrassment of seam bowling riches- quite rightly, Anderson's place is under scrutiny- to me he has been pretty unlucky in his opening spells, and his pace is still well up there, but maybe he has lost the zip off the pitch which reduces his effectiveness, and he is 38, so...
Our top order is a problem; whilst Burns and Sibley are dogged, they just look technically iffy- both have a lot of moving parts. No nearer to solving 3 either. I'd like Root at 4 and Stokes at 6 (especially when he gets back to bowling) ideally.
On Bess, I think he is worth persevering with- he could do with a chat with Warne, whose commentary and insight is brilliant imo. Fielding needs a big improvement- I think Stokes should be in the gully area for the quicks.

Jimmy to retire rumour

Banquo wrote:Whilst it was a brilliant partnership and run chase, need to bear in mind how green (:)) that Pakistani attack is- though they did have a holding bowler in Abbas to Digby's post, and Yasir had a decent economy rate as their attacking leggie. Buttler and Woakes were excellent- hitting boundaries early on (some from decent balls as well) and then just rotating the strike as Azhar started to panic a bit.

Abbas could do the job of a holding bowler, but he's on a very full length for a holding bowler, I think he's looking to pick up wickets more than lock down an end, and even if he locks down an end he still needs help from his bowling partner. Doesn't seem to be a new thing that Pakistan are a little too aggressive in their style, it's what's so often made them a great team to watch, and such a frustrating team to coach

Banquo wrote:Jimmy to retire rumour

With a winter tour schedule ahead to SL and India it is likely he would be lightly used and perhaps he sees the writing on the wall before India come calling in the summer.

It would be sad to see him limp into retirement next summer if that's how it goes.

Intriguing selection dilemmas ahead in the winter. Which pace bowlers play. 2nd spinner - could Rashid come into contention? Buttler poor keeping to spin and you can't miss chances v India so does Foakes come in and Buttler play as a batsmen?

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:Whilst it was a brilliant partnership and run chase, need to bear in mind how green (:)) that Pakistani attack is- though they did have a holding bowler in Abbas to Digby's post, and Yasir had a decent economy rate as their attacking leggie. Buttler and Woakes were excellent- hitting boundaries early on (some from decent balls as well) and then just rotating the strike as Azhar started to panic a bit.

Abbas could do the job of a holding bowler, but he's on a very full length for a holding bowler, I think he's looking to pick up wickets more than lock down an end, and even if he locks down an end he still needs help from his bowling partner. Doesn't seem to be a new thing that Pakistan are a little too aggressive in their style, it's what's so often made them a great team to watch, and such a frustrating team to coach

His run rate is miserly in all tests, so does the job anyway; like Hoggard, also takes wickets. So you were making the point that they needed a holding bowler like Hoggard or Giles, and they had one. How he was used is another matter, and you now seem to be saying they needed two holding bowlers ; on a serious note, as I said before, the other two seamers are relatively new to test cricket, and as such did pretty well, as did Shah. I think the skipper missed some tricks more than their attack bowled poorly.

Big D wrote:

Banquo wrote:Jimmy to retire rumour

With a winter tour schedule ahead to SL and India it is likely he would be lightly used and perhaps he sees the writing on the wall before India come calling in the summer.

It would be sad to see him limp into retirement next summer if that's how it goes.

Intriguing selection dilemmas ahead in the winter. Which pace bowlers play. 2nd spinner - could Rashid come into contention? Buttler poor keeping to spin and you can't miss chances v India so does Foakes come in and Buttler play as a batsmen?

On Buttler as a batsman that would depend on whether Crawley and Pope seal the deal. If they do, no.

Still the top 3 is the elephant in the room.

Stokes out for rest of series- sounds like his Dad is very poorly still. All the best.

Banquo wrote:Stokes out for rest of series- sounds like his Dad is very poorly still. All the best.

That’s going to have big implications for our lineup.

So simply Crawley in, right? I would probably bring in Curran or Wood.

Firstly, must be bad news for the Stokes family and he is absolutely doing the right thing. There will be some arseholes abuse him for it no doubt.

Crawley in and gameday decision on who replaces Anderson for me. Curran or Leach, mayve even Foakes or Livingston if they feel adventurous and think 4 bowlers is enough (I don't).

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote:Stokes out for rest of series- sounds like his Dad is very poorly still. All the best.

That’s going to have big implications for our lineup.

So simply Crawley in, right? I would probably bring in Curran or Wood.

Crawley seems logical and it’s only the same imbalance but without the quality Stokes brings.

Not sure about bowling changes- depends on how they see the pitch. Pakistan won’t be worried about any spin bowlers we can field though Rashid has been looking tasty- is he in the bubble?

Banquo wrote:

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote:Stokes out for rest of series- sounds like his Dad is very poorly still. All the best.

That’s going to have big implications for our lineup.

So simply Crawley in, right? I would probably bring in Curran or Wood.

Crawley seems logical and it’s only the same imbalance but without the quality Stokes brings.

Not sure about bowling changes- depends on how they see the pitch. Pakistan won’t be worried about any spin bowlers we can field though Rashid has been looking tasty- is he in the bubble?

If we do drop Anderson for Curran, then that would stiffen the tail a bit as well. With Broad back in form, you could argue that we'd bat all the way down to 11.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Stom wrote:
That’s going to have big implications for our lineup.

So simply Crawley in, right? I would probably bring in Curran or Wood.

Crawley seems logical and it’s only the same imbalance but without the quality Stokes brings.

Not sure about bowling changes- depends on how they see the pitch. Pakistan won’t be worried about any spin bowlers we can field though Rashid has been looking tasty- is he in the bubble?

If we do drop Anderson for Curran, then that would stiffen the tail a bit as well. With Broad back in form, you could argue that we'd bat all the way down to 11.

Puja

Pop gun Sam? Depends on conditions but I’d rather Wood than another bits and pieces all rounder

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:Whilst it was a brilliant partnership and run chase, need to bear in mind how green (:)) that Pakistani attack is- though they did have a holding bowler in Abbas to Digby's post, and Yasir had a decent economy rate as their attacking leggie. Buttler and Woakes were excellent- hitting boundaries early on (some from decent balls as well) and then just rotating the strike as Azhar started to panic a bit.

Abbas could do the job of a holding bowler, but he's on a very full length for a holding bowler, I think he's looking to pick up wickets more than lock down an end, and even if he locks down an end he still needs help from his bowling partner. Doesn't seem to be a new thing that Pakistan are a little too aggressive in their style, it's what's so often made them a great team to watch, and such a frustrating team to coach

His run rate is miserly in all tests, so does the job anyway; like Hoggard, also takes wickets. So you were making the point that they needed a holding bowler like Hoggard or Giles, and they had one. How he was used is another matter, and you now seem to be saying they needed two holding bowlers ; on a serious note, as I said before, the other two seamers are relatively new to test cricket, and as such did pretty well, as did Shah. I think the skipper missed some tricks more than their attack bowled poorly.

I think there's a difference in how you go about holding, you might choose to try and protect your wicket but there are runs there when the bowler is fuller and/or more at the stumps. Once the ball's that little bit shorter unless you're willing, and able, to drive or clip a ball on the up there's less chance to even look for a run unless it's a ball off line/length. Maybe I'm remembering too much what I struggled against at (much) lower levels, but it seems different to me, and the thinking isn't all mine anyway, it's a fair chunk of McGraths take on how you control a game as a bowler

And it does more generally look at issue for Pakistan as bowling unit, they're excellent as an attacking unit but they've some areas to work on when it comes to containing. They look good enough to learn, it depends if they want to, and what they do regarding the 2nd leggie, there seems little point in a 2nd leggie who only bowls 10 overs on a spinning wicket

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote: Crawley seems logical and it’s only the same imbalance but without the quality Stokes brings.

Not sure about bowling changes- depends on how they see the pitch. Pakistan won’t be worried about any spin bowlers we can field though Rashid has been looking tasty- is he in the bubble?

If we do drop Anderson for Curran, then that would stiffen the tail a bit as well. With Broad back in form, you could argue that we'd bat all the way down to 11.

Puja

Pop gun Sam? Depends on conditions but I’d rather Wood than another bits and pieces all rounder

Contrary to Beefeater's belief, there's more than sheer physical statistics to international sport. Wood might bowl faster, but Curran's a better bowler. Not to mention the point raised earlier in the thread about a left arm bowler creating more opportunities for the right arm attack by keeping the batsmen from getting in a groove.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:
If we do drop Anderson for Curran, then that would stiffen the tail a bit as well. With Broad back in form, you could argue that we'd bat all the way down to 11.

Puja

Pop gun Sam? Depends on conditions but I’d rather Wood than another bits and pieces all rounder

Contrary to Beefeater's belief, there's more than sheer physical statistics to international sport. Wood might bowl faster, but Curran's a better bowler. Not to mention the point raised earlier in the thread about a left arm bowler creating more opportunities for the right arm attack by keeping the batsmen from getting in a groove.

Puja

I was mildly pulling your chain, but replacing Anderson with Curran (a handy 4th seamer), even a less than prime Anderson, seems hardly likely to worry Pakistan. Whereas a couple of their batsman have definitely shown a weakness against fast short bowling.
By the way. Wood and Curran's test bowling records are quite similar, but Wood has a much better 1st class record with the ball.

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Abbas could do the job of a holding bowler, but he's on a very full length for a holding bowler, I think he's looking to pick up wickets more than lock down an end, and even if he locks down an end he still needs help from his bowling partner. Doesn't seem to be a new thing that Pakistan are a little too aggressive in their style, it's what's so often made them a great team to watch, and such a frustrating team to coach

His run rate is miserly in all tests, so does the job anyway; like Hoggard, also takes wickets. So you were making the point that they needed a holding bowler like Hoggard or Giles, and they had one. How he was used is another matter, and you now seem to be saying they needed two holding bowlers ; on a serious note, as I said before, the other two seamers are relatively new to test cricket, and as such did pretty well, as did Shah. I think the skipper missed some tricks more than their attack bowled poorly.

I think there's a difference in how you go about holding, you might choose to try and protect your wicket but there are runs there when the bowler is fuller and/or more at the stumps. Once the ball's that little bit shorter unless you're willing, and able, to drive or clip a ball on the up there's less chance to even look for a run unless it's a ball off line/length. Maybe I'm remembering too much what I struggled against at (much) lower levels, but it seems different to me, and the thinking isn't all mine anyway, it's a fair chunk of McGraths take on how you control a game as a bowler

And it does more generally look at issue for Pakistan as bowling unit, they're excellent as an attacking unit but they've some areas to work on when it comes to containing. They look good enough to learn, it depends if they want to, and what they do regarding the 2nd leggie, there seems little point in a 2nd leggie who only bowls 10 overs on a spinning wicket

To me, Abbas seems the very definition of a holding bowler- great line and length, bit of movement with the new ball; he pulls his length back in his second and third spells. Goes for less than 3 runs an over, and also has a very good strike rate- almost identical to McGrath in fact, albeit many fewer tests. You still claiming Abbas is not a holding bowler, because without the new ball he seems to be, and ships few runs when taking it? You referenced Hoggard, who was essentially a swing bowler pitching full with the new ball....and it shows in his economy rate.

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote: Pop gun Sam? Depends on conditions but I’d rather Wood than another bits and pieces all rounder

Contrary to Beefeater's belief, there's more than sheer physical statistics to international sport. Wood might bowl faster, but Curran's a better bowler. Not to mention the point raised earlier in the thread about a left arm bowler creating more opportunities for the right arm attack by keeping the batsmen from getting in a groove.

Puja

I was mildly pulling your chain, but replacing Anderson with Curran (a handy 4th seamer), even a less than prime Anderson, seems hardly likely to worry Pakistan. Whereas a couple of their batsman have definitely shown a weakness against fast short bowling.
By the way. Wood and Curran's test bowling records are quite similar, but Wood has a much better 1st class record with the ball.

Fair play - you got me!

I was thinking more rest and rotation for Anderson, rather than replacing on quality. Apart from anything else, I want to see Archer given the new ball and see whether he can do more there, cause we're not getting enough out of him by using him as first change.

Puja