blockhseagull
Well-known member
You should be right but bearing in mind he has been brought in as England have very little in regards openers I wouldn’t be surprised to see him keep his place.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Cricket] England vs Australia Second Ashes Test - Lord's 14th-18th August 2019
- Thread starter jakarta
- Start date
You should be right but bearing in mind he has been brought in as England have very little in regards openers I wouldn’t be surprised to see him keep his place.
Both openers aren't out. As I said earlier, I think Burns looks like the real deal
The Wizard
Well-known member
- Jul 2, 2009
- 18,383
I’d have sent in Stokes, This just feels too early for Buttler, especially given the form he’s in. Bet he dreams of the day he can come in at 200/3 and play his strokes.
England 101-3 (33.4 overs, RR 3.0) 
I don't understand the logic of this either... Stokes has the better technique and seems more suited to no.5, and as you say, Buttler would be dangerous with a decent score on the board.
England 101-3 (33.4 overs, RR 3.0)
Still some way off Smith's first innings score. Then we can start chipping into whatever the rest of their batsmen might put on.
OzMike
Well-known member
You know what I mean
Bold Seagull
strong and stable with me, or...
I wonder if the logic is to do with it being Burns still in? We're now desperate for Burns to bat long, so don't really want scoring pressure on him. Burns is left hand bat as is Stokes, so perhaps Buttler as a right hander is seen as a) ensuring they don't have 2 left handers to bowl at, and b) a more freely scoring partner for Burns.
Bairstow is then right hand, so you're middle order is coming in R, L, R.
Paine spills one too from Burns off Siddle... 
pasty
A different kind of pasty
Burns dropped by Paine. Should have taken that.
Rory Burns 51* (119 balls, 7 fours)
England 109-3 (36 overs)
England 109-3 (36 overs)
- Apr 5, 2014
- 23,514
Have to differ with you there. He seems to play with an additional off stump. He plays and misses a lot.
He could land another 100-4 here. Two chances that should have been taken already.
Strong on the leg side. But the Aussies have worked that out.
Bold Seagull
strong and stable with me, or...
He does play and miss a bit, but unlike Roy, he plays the line, not the movement, so he is due a bit of luck in that regard.
There is also an element of Buttler being picked as a specialist batsman... and Stokes being expected to bowl quite a bit. But that would apply more if we were batting 2nd.
Rodney Thomas
Well-known member
Name me an opener who doesn't offer chances or play and miss a bit. They need luck more than more players (and that's coming from a former opening bowler).
As an aside, I don't think I've ever seen someone score a hundred without offering up a single chance throughout the innings.
That is a very sharp catch at short leg.
Burns seemed to get that off the middle (a bit high on the splice actually)... and it was very low and a good stretch from Bancroft.
116-4
RJ Burns c Bancroft b Cummins 53 (127b 7x4 0x6)
Burns seemed to get that off the middle (a bit high on the splice actually)... and it was very low and a good stretch from Bancroft.
116-4
RJ Burns c Bancroft b Cummins 53 (127b 7x4 0x6)
pasty
A different kind of pasty
Bloody fine catch.
The Wizard
Well-known member
- Jul 2, 2009
- 18,383
All out for under 200 again?
Tom Hark Preston Park
Will Post For Cash
- Jul 6, 2003
- 70,138
Same old England, sorely lacking in mental strength when it counts. Quite telling that the Aussies are pretty laid back about selecting Mitchell Starc. Prob introduce him in the third test for a bit of a run out and skittle England to win the Ashes with a couple of tests to spare. It's a bit of a rollover really.