[Cricket] England v New Zealand - 2nd Test - Edgbaston

Sid in the Sharknado

New member

Aug 13, 2020

1,482

Darlington

• Jun 10, 2021

• Thread starter
• #21

The Wizard said:

Root is our best batsman, I’ve always subscribed to having your best batsman at 3, tough one though I agree as his record is significantly better at 4 than 3 if I remember rightly.

Click to expand...

The "put the best batsman at 3" idea tends to be an Australian thing, since the ball doesn't move about as long down there so you're less likely to expose your best player to a miracle ball.

Certainly Ian Chappel is always banging on about this, despite the fact that he generally batted at 3 with his brother Greg (a significantly better batsman) at 4.

I think I'm right in saying that no.3 hasn't been the position with the highest average since the 30s, when it's skewed by Bradman (and Wally Hammond) batting there.

 

jakarta

Well-known member

May 25, 2007

15,639

Sullington

• Jun 10, 2021

• #22

Burns is OK as an opener, not a Cook or Strauss but OK. Really need Stokes and Buttler in the Engine Room.

 

Cowfold Seagull

Fan of the 17 bus

Apr 22, 2009

21,669

Cowfold

• Jun 10, 2021

• #23

jakarta said:

Really need Stokes and Buttler in the Engine Room.

Click to expand...

Yes, without those two in the side, we are decidedly average.

 

Scappa

Well-known member

Jul 5, 2017

1,386

• Jun 10, 2021

• #24

Pope not infallible. Going to be cross with that.

 

A1X

Well-known member

NSC Patron

Sep 1, 2017

17,971

Deepest, darkest Sussex

• Jun 10, 2021

• #25

The Wizard said:

I think Stokes gives more balance at 4/5, he can play defensive and also attacking so you want him to be able to come in at 27/3 or 250/3, not early all the time, which let’s be honest the majority of the time our number 3 is out there early.

Root is our best batsman, I’ve always subscribed to having your best batsman at 3, tough one though I agree as his record is significantly better at 4 than 3 if I remember rightly.

Click to expand...

The idea of putting your best batsman at 3 is a purely Australian invention, England have usually put their best batsman at 4 (most recently Root & Pietersen).

 

jakarta

Well-known member

May 25, 2007

15,639

Sullington

• Jun 10, 2021

• #26

Scappa said:

Pope not infallible. Going to be cross with that.

Click to expand...

Not very Christian of You...

 

maltaseagull

Well-known member

Feb 25, 2009

13,058

Zabbar- Malta

• Jun 10, 2021

• #27

Sid in the Sharknado said:

The traditional solution to this problem is to stick a spare opening batsman there.

Ah.

Click to expand...

The way our batsmen collapse like skittles these days, perhaps we need 6 openers?

 

vegster

Sanity Clause

May 5, 2008

27,907

• Jun 10, 2021

• #28

A1X said:

The idea of putting your best batsman at 3 is a purely Australian invention, England have usually put their best batsman at 4 (most recently Root & Pietersen).

Click to expand...

Tends not to matter too much where you put England's best batsman these days, he gets out in the middle far too quickly wherever.

 

Scappa

Well-known member

Jul 5, 2017

1,386

• Jun 10, 2021

• #29

jakarta said:

Not very Christian of You...

Click to expand...

In the immortal words of the demonstrably mortal Kurt Cobain: "Oh well, whatever, nevermind"

 

vegster

Sanity Clause

May 5, 2008

27,907

• Jun 10, 2021

• #30

It's looking like our cricketers have decided they want to focus on England v Croatia Sunday arvo.

 

Eeyore

Colonel Hee-Haw of Queen's Park

NSC Patron

Apr 5, 2014

23,678

• Jun 10, 2021

• #31

Pope seems to be the new Ramprakash sadly. One of the finest batsman there is but cannot get his round things on the top stage. I still think they need to stick with him.

 

Lower West Stander

Well-known member

Mar 25, 2012

4,753

Back in Sussex

• Jun 10, 2021

• #32

Looking at the England batting line up for this game, I simply do not believe there aren't significantly better players in the county game.

If we hadn't made the pathetic decision to let our players go to the IPL then we would at least have been competitive. But it does show how little strength in depth there is at the moment. Heaven only knows what Cummins will do to this lot in Australia....

 

jakarta

Well-known member

May 25, 2007

15,639

Sullington

• Jun 10, 2021

• #33

Burns suckered, should have had a big Century. 169-5 will be lucky to make 250 now.

 

Titanic

Super Moderator

Helpful Moderator

Jul 5, 2003

39,134

West Sussex

• Jun 10, 2021

• #34

Burns out chasing one well outside off

171-5 a pretty feeble effort

and I am finding the pissed up football-style singing irritating too. Test Match cricket should be watched with a hushed and respectful sense of awe and expectation.

 

Titanic

Super Moderator

Helpful Moderator

Jul 5, 2003

39,134

West Sussex

• Jun 10, 2021

• #35

WTAF was that? Bracey that was a shocker

175-6 and the lengthy tail is exposed.

 

jakarta

Well-known member

May 25, 2007

15,639

Sullington

• Jun 10, 2021

• #36

Utter Shite, where is Foakes?

 

Eeyore

Colonel Hee-Haw of Queen's Park

NSC Patron

Apr 5, 2014

23,678

• Jun 10, 2021

• #37

jakarta said:

Utter Shite, where is Foakes?

Click to expand...

Injured

 

vegster

Sanity Clause

May 5, 2008

27,907

• Jun 10, 2021

• #38

Lower West Stander said:

Looking at the England batting line up for this game, I simply do not believe there aren't significantly better players in the county game.

....

Click to expand...

Sussex usually manage to find themselves up against them.

 

Eeyore

Colonel Hee-Haw of Queen's Park

NSC Patron

Apr 5, 2014

23,678

• Jun 10, 2021

• #39

Felt sorry for Bracey there. Genuine 'WTF did I do that for ?' moment. All been there in cricket.

 

B

Billy in Bristol

Well-known member

Mar 25, 2004

1,426

Bristol

• Jun 10, 2021

• #40

Was in great form before being picked by England but boy is he shot now.