Cricket fred

[Puja]

Sibley only really offered the one drop I saw, there were some edges through/short of the slip with the bad one that Holder just didn't seem to pick up, and at best a half chance to short leg that didn't stick. It'd be tough to bat in Manchester when the ball swings a little and seams and spins without a little luck. On balance that's a decent effort, and he's meeting the ball much better than he used to.

Be interesting to see him up against bowlers going around or a left armer in another game, and he needs some scoring shots through the off side, but there's progress

I'd call the one to short-leg more than a half-chance - I'd say that sticks for about 6-7 times out of 10 and, really, giving that chance off Roston bloody Chase?! Plus there were a few play and misses where it was sheer luck that he didn't connect. I mean, you always need a bit of a luck, but he's had a *lot* this innings. Mind, he has made a good fist of it aside from those and hopefully this will be become big innings that he'll build his confidence around.

I can't believe people are criticising his style of play though. This is test cricket and he is a test opener. His job is the dull aggregation of runs and taking up miles in the fast bowler's legs. People sat and complained about Roy unleashing a few nice drives and getting out, and now they're sitting and complaining because an opener is occupying the crease and building a score? Get real.

Who's willing to bet that we go from 207/3 to 252 all out tomorrow morning though? This is a classic England collapse set-up, right here. Stokes goes second ball, Sibley follows suit 3 overs later and we end up 220/8 before the tail wags enough to take us over 250.

Puja

Because Cook or Strauss could play shots as well as stick around. Not a lot of shots but more than just a flick off the pads.

I like the look of Crawley, he’s allowed a couple of blips like today, let’s see how he gets on with it.

If we had Cook or Strauss, then we'd be in a very different situation altogether. We don't, and I don't see the value is castigating someone for crease-occupying (and scoring 80+runs, mind) when our major problem has been our incredibly fragile batting and its tendency to gift wickets.

Agreed on Crawley - he is definitely a player to invest in.

Puja

[Banquo]

I'd call the one to short-leg more than a half-chance - I'd say that sticks for about 6-7 times out of 10 and, really, giving that chance off Roston bloody Chase?! Plus there were a few play and misses where it was sheer luck that he didn't connect. I mean, you always need a bit of a luck, but he's had a *lot* this innings. Mind, he has made a good fist of it aside from those and hopefully this will be become big innings that he'll build his confidence around.

I can't believe people are criticising his style of play though. This is test cricket and he is a test opener. His job is the dull aggregation of runs and taking up miles in the fast bowler's legs. People sat and complained about Roy unleashing a few nice drives and getting out, and now they're sitting and complaining because an opener is occupying the crease and building a score? Get real.

Who's willing to bet that we go from 207/3 to 252 all out tomorrow morning though? This is a classic England collapse set-up, right here. Stokes goes second ball, Sibley follows suit 3 overs later and we end up 220/8 before the tail wags enough to take us over 250.

Puja

Because Cook or Strauss could play shots as well as stick around. Not a lot of shots but more than just a flick off the pads.

I like the look of Crawley, he’s allowed a couple of blips like today, let’s see how he gets on with it.

If we had Cook or Strauss, then we'd be in a very different situation altogether. We don't, and I don't see the value is castigating someone for crease-occupying (and scoring 80+runs, mind) when our major problem has been our incredibly fragile batting and its tendency to gift wickets.

Agreed on Crawley - he is definitely a player to invest in.

Puja

Yep. Sans Sibley we'd have been in deep doo da yesterday. He does have more shots (as shown when he got his ton) but is both playing to keep his place and it was tricky batting yesterday.

[Banquo]

Sibley only really offered the one drop I saw, there were some edges through/short of the slip with the bad one that Holder just didn't seem to pick up, and at best a half chance to short leg that didn't stick. It'd be tough to bat in Manchester when the ball swings a little and seams and spins without a little luck. On balance that's a decent effort, and he's meeting the ball much better than he used to.

Be interesting to see him up against bowlers going around or a left armer in another game, and he needs some scoring shots through the off side, but there's progress

I'd call the one to short-leg more than a half-chance - I'd say that sticks for about 6-7 times out of 10 and, really, giving that chance off Roston bloody Chase?! Plus there were a few play and misses where it was sheer luck that he didn't connect. I mean, you always need a bit of a luck, but he's had a *lot* this innings. Mind, he has made a good fist of it aside from those and hopefully this will be become big innings that he'll build his confidence around.

I can't believe people are criticising his style of play though. This is test cricket and he is a test opener. His job is the dull aggregation of runs and taking up miles in the fast bowler's legs. People sat and complained about Roy unleashing a few nice drives and getting out, and now they're sitting and complaining because an opener is occupying the crease and building a score? Get real.

Who's willing to bet that we go from 207/3 to 252 all out tomorrow morning though? This is a classic England collapse set-up, right here. Stokes goes second ball, Sibley follows suit 3 overs later and we end up 220/8 before the tail wags enough to take us over 250.

Puja

Our collective reverse jinxing has worked a treat here

[Digby]

I don't quite understand the Windies this match. Okay they want to be hard to beat, but some short pitch stuff, taking the new ball, these don't seem alarming things to do and you can always go back to being more conservative

[Banquo]

This is a helluva shot!

[Banquo]

Kudos to Sibley, but that must be the lowest 4 count in an innings of 120 surely? (5)

[Banquo]

Time for Joss to stick his hand up.

[Puja]

Kudos to Sibley, but that must be the lowest 4 count in an innings of 120 surely? (5)

I don't mind that at all. He's 24 years old and has plenty of time to add attacking shots to his game (he certainly needs training on sweeping the number of times he played and missed!), but an opener that can see off 300+ balls is invaluable in the test game.

He did exactly what I said he needed to yesterday - good job all around.

Puja

[Banquo]

Kudos to Sibley, but that must be the lowest 4 count in an innings of 120 surely? (5)

I don't mind that at all. He's 24 years old and has plenty of time to add attacking shots to his game (he certainly needs training on sweeping the number of times he played and missed!), but an opener that can see off 300+ balls is invaluable in the test game.

He did exactly what I said he needed to yesterday - good job all around.

Puja

as I said, kudos. It was a tangential point. And as I also said, he does have the shots, he's just choosing not to use them, though his technique will always make free front foot scoring on the off difficult. Ken Barrington was hugely successful as a batsman by eliminating risk from his game (free scoring as a young un), but earned the moniker 'Barnacle'.

[Digby]

Roach back in the game

[Banquo]

140 runs late on the collapse Puja . Mind Bess batting at 10 shows a pretty deep line up.

[Galfon]

Stokes is like having an extra player in the team, that's some score and not easy early on.
Roach deserves better - top work.

[Banquo]

decent knock from Buttler...but....he's better than this. Should have been getting to 500 + from Sibley and Stokes' partnership- 341-3 to 427-9 aint great.

[Digby]

Also are another 10-20 runs worth this time?

[Banquo]

Also are another 10-20 runs worth this time?

and then some given they got 42, cut Broad off just when getting into form . I like the cut of Bess's jib as a cricketer, just wish he was a leggie

[Digby]

I'd much rather have been bowling

[Banquo]

I'd much rather have been bowling

have to see what happens really, but given the rate of scoring 6 an over, not a bad call.

[Digby]

It swings a bit of emotion to England, but given the grinding nature of the earlier play it hasn't made much actual difference.

I'll be very interested to see what happens if we do skittle them cheap, Broad hates the follow on, but we could lose a lot of time tomorrow. Nonsense speculation given the wicket count, but I do wonder what the plans are right now

[Banquo]

It swings a bit of emotion to England, but given the grinding nature of the earlier play it hasn't made much actual difference.

I'll be very interested to see what happens if we do skittle them cheap, Broad hates the follow on, but we could lose a lot of time tomorrow. Nonsense speculation given the wicket count, but I do wonder what the plans are right now

I think a good old hit out when the oppo are tired does wonders for the hitters, and it cost 30 mins max, and left 16 overs ish which is a decent stint. Marginal call as always. Our attack looks a bit pop gun but we'll see.

[Puja]

Sam Curran is massively underrated, IMO. Yes, he's not lightning quick, but he's accurate, almost always gets movement, and he makes things happen. Plus, he's a change of pace to unsettle batsmen who are in the groove at 90mph. We've got a few good bowlers right now, but he's someone I'd try to keep in the XI.

Puja

[Banquo]

Sam Curran is massively underrated, IMO. Yes, he's not lightning quick, but he's accurate, almost always gets movement, and he makes things happen. Plus, he's a change of pace to unsettle batsmen who are in the groove at 90mph. We've got a few good bowlers right now, but he's someone I'd try to keep in the XI.

Puja

How is he 'massively underrated'? He is in the test team as of now, and a contracted player. Underrated by who? He averages 27 with the bat, and 31 with the ball after 17 tests- he's getting a pretty fair go I'd say.

Quite interesting comparing he and Woakes, as they are sort of competing for the same spot- Curran has similar averages in tests and first class, whereas Woakes has excellent all rounder stats in first class, whilst merely decent in tests.

But on Curran (or Woakes), when you have a top all rounder in Stokes, not sure you need a fourth seamer in Curran/Woakes, assuming you have three proven seamers (and in Anderson, Broad, Archer and Wood, you really do) its a tricky call.

[Puja]

Sam Curran is massively underrated, IMO. Yes, he's not lightning quick, but he's accurate, almost always gets movement, and he makes things happen. Plus, he's a change of pace to unsettle batsmen who are in the groove at 90mph. We've got a few good bowlers right now, but he's someone I'd try to keep in the XI.

Puja

How is he 'massively underrated'? He is in the test team as of now, and a contracted player. Underrated by who? He averages 27 with the bat, and 31 with the ball after 17 tests- he's getting a pretty fair go I'd say.

Quite interesting comparing he and Woakes, as they are sort of competing for the same spot- Curran has similar averages in tests and first class, whereas Woakes has excellent all rounder stats in first class, whilst merely decent in tests.

But on Curran (or Woakes), when you have a top all rounder in Stokes, not sure you need a fourth seamer in Curran/Woakes, assuming you have three proven seamers (and in Anderson, Broad, Archer and Wood, you really do) its a tricky call.

Sorry, to be clear - massively underrated by fans. I'd say mildly underrated by the selectors - personally I'd have a 4-man bowling attack of Stokes, Curran, Anderson, plus one of Broad/Archer/Wood, with the proviso that Curran would be swappable in case of particular tracks (a subcontinent pitch needing a second spinner or a hard pitch rewarding another paceman, etc). I value him higher than having another paceman and I think he's got the biggest potential to take over from Jimmy if we invest in him.

I'm not sure about your "three proven seamers" category. Broad, yes definitely, but he is on the wane. Archer is an utter weapon at his best, but doesn't produce that best often enough in Test cricket. Wood puzzles me as he's a good player, but goes missing on occasions, and he doesn't offer much with an older ball (which means he's got to open the bowling or nothing). Archer and Wood might have better averages than Curran, but I would question how much of that is due to new ball bowling at new batsmen. Curran bowls a lot of tireless work and often is the man to get out a set batsman. Plus, I think having him in would also free Stokes a bit more to be an attacking option with the ball.

YMMV and there are many reasons why I'm not a selector, but it's my take.

Puja

[Mellsblue]

Archer is an utter weapon
Puja

I know he’s pissed off a few people by breaking the bubble but this seems overly harsh.

[Banquo]

Sam Curran is massively underrated, IMO. Yes, he's not lightning quick, but he's accurate, almost always gets movement, and he makes things happen. Plus, he's a change of pace to unsettle batsmen who are in the groove at 90mph. We've got a few good bowlers right now, but he's someone I'd try to keep in the XI.

Puja

How is he 'massively underrated'? He is in the test team as of now, and a contracted player. Underrated by who? He averages 27 with the bat, and 31 with the ball after 17 tests- he's getting a pretty fair go I'd say.

Quite interesting comparing he and Woakes, as they are sort of competing for the same spot- Curran has similar averages in tests and first class, whereas Woakes has excellent all rounder stats in first class, whilst merely decent in tests.

But on Curran (or Woakes), when you have a top all rounder in Stokes, not sure you need a fourth seamer in Curran/Woakes, assuming you have three proven seamers (and in Anderson, Broad, Archer and Wood, you really do) its a tricky call.

Sorry, to be clear - massively underrated by fans. I'd say mildly underrated by the selectors - personally I'd have a 4-man bowling attack of Stokes, Curran, Anderson, plus one of Broad/Archer/Wood, with the proviso that Curran would be swappable in case of particular tracks (a subcontinent pitch needing a second spinner or a hard pitch rewarding another paceman, etc). I value him higher than having another paceman and I think he's got the biggest potential to take over from Jimmy if we invest in him.

I'm not sure about your "three proven seamers" category. Broad, yes definitely, but he is on the wane. Archer is an utter weapon at his best, but doesn't produce that best often enough in Test cricket. Wood puzzles me as he's a good player, but goes missing on occasions, and he doesn't offer much with an older ball (which means he's got to open the bowling or nothing). Archer and Wood might have better averages than Curran, but I would question how much of that is due to new ball bowling at new batsmen. Curran bowls a lot of tireless work and often is the man to get out a set batsman. Plus, I think having him in would also free Stokes a bit more to be an attacking option with the ball.

YMMV and there are many reasons why I'm not a selector, but it's my take.

Puja

Broad has been our best bowler statistically in the last year- even at 33 he is head and shoulders above Curran. Archer is a bowler no batsman would choose to face over curran. Wood is more of an enigma I grant you. All are quality new ball bowlers. Curran is a handy third or fourth seamer- I like him, but he' s a bowling all rounder until and if he gets a yard of pace- even Jimmy at 38 is at least 3-4 mph quicker, and Curran is quite short so doesnt bowl a heavy ball. Still young so may find summat.. my mileage does indeed vary.

[Banquo]

Unlucky this morning so far, but shipping runs. Should have opened with Curran

Seamers have bowled too many bad balls.