RugbyRebels

FFS

This could get ugly. Classic England.

They always say, wait until the other side has batted........

Banquo wrote:They always say, wait until the other side has batted........

We don't need to when it's the first game of a season in England. We should probably just start awarding it to the visitors.

It's like we're incapable of playing well against "new" opponents, and need a match to get into it.

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote:They always say, wait until the other side has batted........

We don't need to when it's the first game of a season in England. We should probably just start awarding it to the visitors.

It's like we're incapable of playing well against "new" opponents, and need a match to get into it.

bloody daft given we have three tests under our belt already, and Pakistan....don't. Its almost like we are surprised that teams have some very good players and we don't do our homework (and I think we do, just the dog eats it). These two have serious gas and skill, but its hardly a surprise.

This is going to be very bad, St Ben goes.

Banquo wrote:

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote:They always say, wait until the other side has batted........

We don't need to when it's the first game of a season in England. We should probably just start awarding it to the visitors.

It's like we're incapable of playing well against "new" opponents, and need a match to get into it.

bloody daft given we have three tests under our belt already, and Pakistan....don't. Its almost like we are surprised that teams have some very good players and we don't do our homework (and I think we do, just the dog eats it)

I know I gave Eddie grief for trying to install some of "that Aussie dog" to England rugby, and thought we should play more like England...

Well, this England cricket team needs dog. There is none. Well, Stokes has some, but that's it. I mean, even Ian Bell had dog, ffs. And he was surrounded by players who could lift the team.

Meanwhile, we're 3 down against a very good Pakistan attack, bowling well in helpful conditions. And, yes, I know we collapse and it's the batsmen who should take the flak, but I really do feel like our lack of incision when bowling puts extra pressure on our batting. We regularly concede 50-100 more runs than we should and I don't think you can blame the individual bowlers: it's coming from the captain and the team.

luckily we've got good history against leg spinners

Also our batters are chasing 300 in the 1st innings, just how much less pressure would they like?

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Stom wrote:
We don't need to when it's the first game of a season in England. We should probably just start awarding it to the visitors.

It's like we're incapable of playing well against "new" opponents, and need a match to get into it.

bloody daft given we have three tests under our belt already, and Pakistan....don't. Its almost like we are surprised that teams have some very good players and we don't do our homework (and I think we do, just the dog eats it)

I know I gave Eddie grief for trying to install some of "that Aussie dog" to England rugby, and thought we should play more like England...

Well, this England cricket team needs dog. There is none. Well, Stokes has some, but that's it. I mean, even Ian Bell had dog, ffs. And he was surrounded by players who could lift the team.

Meanwhile, we're 3 down against a very good Pakistan attack, bowling well in helpful conditions. And, yes, I know we collapse and it's the batsmen who should take the flak, but I really do feel like our lack of incision when bowling puts extra pressure on our batting. We regularly concede 50-100 more runs than we should and I don't think you can blame the individual bowlers: it's coming from the captain and the team.

We don't have a 'lack of incision'. We have some periods where we seem to lose focus, and that's really the skipper dozing off.

Digby wrote:Also our batters are chasing 300 in the 1st innings, just how much less pressure would they like?

quite.

Some nice touches from Pope -
50 up with no further loss..sorry start so it was.

Galfon wrote:Some nice touches from Pope -
50 up with no further loss..sorry start so it was.

jinx shhh

In fairness to Stokes that's a beauty to get, you might get out to that when you're in and your feet are moving, the two openers did not cover themselves in glory

I wish we didn't keep binning Crawley. Better to bin Root, tbh.

Pope is looking seriously good. A very good find. But Buttler needs to stick around, something that's not been his forte. And Woakes and Bess then need to pile on runs, too.

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.

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.

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.

Have to say that whilst the ball that got Stokes was very good, he didn't help himself by both batting out of his crease and then coming out to meet it, which turned an 80 mph delivery into a much more difficult proposition. Batting out of your crease to combat swing is not a bad plan, but you make life hard if you then add in what Stokes did.

We really need Root to get his world class batting back- 3 years ago, he was averaging north of 50. The openers remain unconvincing despite doing ok individually v the Windies, and the inability to sense and act on key moments in the field from time to time are odd, given the experience in the team; the two spinners after lunch before the new ball was verging on negligence; Buttler needs to hang around for a long time to partially redeem his poor keeping.

Stom wrote:

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.

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.

Very good. His nickname is Ricky Pontiff.

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.

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.

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.)
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.

Banquo wrote:

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.

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.

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.

Big D wrote:

Banquo wrote:

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.

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.

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.

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

Banquo wrote:

Big D wrote:

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.

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.

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

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.

Big D wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Big 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.

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

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.

what is Foakes form like? He didn't play for Surrey t'other day?

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.

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.