Cricket

[BigMick]

Through the ages you have highly successful batsmen who have been severely limited in strokeplay, Geoffrey Boycott perhaps the most notable example, I'm not saying Sibley is anything like as good as him and entirely agree on his inability to rotate being a huge problem, especially against spin, but powers of concentration and the right temperament can get you a long way, if they're exceptional. He needs to develop a shot and I'm sure Jonathon Trott will be helping him.

Burns has quicker feet than his partner and a better chance of adapting, I've seen more signs that his foot movements and use of the crease could help him adapt.
I haven't seen his average from before the ashes to now but it has to be fairly high. These two currently look the best openers, Crawley may move up but then we get our number three problem again.

Agree with this, Chris, but not on Geoffrey: he had all the shots (of the time) but chose not to use them, apart from in a Gillette Cup Final when he scored 146! A better example is probably Alistair Cook.

Incidentally, I'm just watching Cook bat in their exciting low scoring game with Sussex. Essex need 196 to win and Cook has decided to attack from the off, including trying to drive before he's really in, not a good idea for him and both have flashed past the slips. As I write he's just got one right, driving a half-volley through the covers.

 

[BigMick]

Just an update: Cook goes for a big drive through the covers and nicks the impressive left arm pace of Garton to Phil Salt at slip - out for 26.

 

[Chris O'Connor]

His average in that period is 39. So decent but not exactly brilliant. He's OK, Burns, he does a job. He's very much a stopgap for me though.

I would maintain that's good for an opener in England, especially in our last two summers - they're really reliant on making runs on tour, very few prosper at home and often have dry spells. He's improving at test level and certainly as good as any alternative

 

[Chris O'Connor]

Agree with this, Chris, but not on Geoffrey: he had all the shots (of the time) but chose not to use them, apart from in a Gillette Cup Final when he scored 146! A better example is probably Alistair Cook.

Incidentally, I'm just watching Cook bat in their exciting low scoring game with Sussex. Essex need 196 to win and Cook has decided to attack from the off, including trying to drive before he's really in, not a good idea for him and both have flashed past the slips. As I write he's just got one right, driving a half-volley through the covers.

Yes Mick tbf that's true, he always was reluctant to take any risks, let the bowler come to you not the other way around. Always was fond of his well worn clichés of not making any runs in the pavilion etc ...too

lol

 

[Lanolin]

I would maintain that's good for an opener in England, especially in our last two summers - they're really reliant on making runs on your, very few prosper at home and often have dry spells. He's improving at test level and certainly as good as any alternative

I'm not sure he is improving to be honest, that's very subjective. Again, I think he's doing an OK job at the moment and I don't think there's an obvious candidate to replace him, but neither his technical ability nor his run scoring/average make me believe he's anything more than decent. I totally agree with @catcherintherye that it's fine to accept that all openers will get the odd duck or low score, but they need to be balanced with match winning/saving innings too. He has 19 scores of 20 or less in 33 innings, and only 2 tons. That ratio just isn't balanced enough for me, he's got to go on and get big runs once he's survived that difficult opening period, and until he starts to do that regularly I will just see him as a placeholder.

 

[catcherintherye]

I'm not sure he is improving to be honest, that's very subjective. Again, I think he's doing an OK job at the moment and I don't think there's an obvious candidate to replace him, but neither his technical ability nor his run scoring/average make me believe he's anything more than decent. I totally agree with @catcherintherye that it's fine to accept that all openers will get the odd duck or low score, but they need to be balanced with match winning/saving innings too. He has 19 scores of 20 or less in 33 innings, and only 2 tons. That ratio just isn't balanced enough for me, he's got to go on and get big runs once he's survived that difficult opening period, and until he starts to do that regularly I will just see him as a placeholder.

Just a couple of points. Firstly as you say I don't see much improvement. He seems just as limited, and his limitations I think are so stark I would say at 25, having played 10+ tests he won't iron them out. Crawley has deficiences too, mainly concentration and application but I do think he will iron them out,

The other point is he's the best we've got. Again I'm not sure on that. I haven't seen enough. I'm watching Alex Davies on a stream for Lancashire, who plays on lively Lancs wickets and scores well. He's playing nicely here. There was a lad at Kent, a 19 year old- Cox who's just blasted a double hundred in about 300 balls. I've never seen him bart, but would be keen to keep an eye on him. The lad Lawence did very well on the A tour down under in Australia, as did Bracey and a couple of others. Fair enough not openers yet but I put more faith in going down to Australia, on their wickets, and scoring big against their A team attack than I do on County cricket. I think all of these will be better alternatives.

As for the Boycott comparison, I didn't see Boycott so can't comment. I saw Atherton (particularly pre his back injury), Trott, Cook etc none of who's were particularly flambourant, but it would but am insult to all of them to compare Burns and Sibley to them. They all had much better techniques, much bigger scoring areas etc than Burns/Sibley and ultimately you got the sense with each of them, if they got in, they would punish the opposition.

We have got dragged into an idea, to be a top test team all you need to do is have openers who take up a lot of balls. It's not consistent with with any top team I've seen. The best players, in the best teams, have gears they can move through. They don't just play in gear 1 all the time, and hope to bat for 300+ balls to make a notable score.

Every team will be watching video footage of particular Sibley now, and will make it harder for him to score. It will become a major issue.

 

[Lanolin]

Just a couple of points. Firstly as you say I don't see much improvement. He seems just as limited, and his limitations I think are so stark I would say at 25, having played 10+ tests he won't iron them out. Crawley has deficiences too, mainly concentration and application but I do think he will iron them out,

The other point is he's the best we've got. Again I'm not sure on that. I haven't seen enough. I'm watching Alex Davies on a stream for Lancashire, who plays on lively Lancs wickets and scores well. He's playing nicely here. There was a lad at Kent, a 19 year old- Cox who's just blasted a double hundred in about 300 balls. I've never seen him bart, but would be keen to keep an eye on him. The lad Lawence did very well on the A tour down under in Australia, as did Bracey and a couple of others. Fair enough not openers yet but I put more faith in going down to Australia, on their wickets, and scoring big against their A team attack than I do on County cricket. I think all of these will be better alternatives.

As for the Boycott comparison, I didn't see Boycott so can't comment. I saw Atherton (particularly pre his back injury), Trott, Cook etc none of who's were particularly flambourant, but it would but am insult to all of them to compare Burns and Sibley to them. They all had much better techniques, much bigger scoring areas etc than Burns/Sibley and ultimately you got the sense with each of them, if they got in, they would punish the opposition.

We have got dragged into an idea, to be a top test team all you need to do is have openers who take up a lot of balls. It's not consistent with with any top team I've seen. The best players, in the best teams, have gears they can move through. They don't just play in gear 1 all the time, and hope to bat for 300+ balls to make a notable score.

Every team will be watching video footage of particular Sibley now, and will make it harder for him to score. It will become a major issue.

Yeah when I say an obvious candidate I mean somebody who is really making you stand up and say 'why is this lad not being picked?'. There are people who might do better than him, but I think it's fair to say there's nobody beating down the door just yet. I would hope serious thought is being put into it for the winter though.

I've liked Alex Davies since I first saw him playing for Lancs academy about 7/8 years ago and I was convinced for a long time that he'd play for England. I think when they picked the massive squad earlier in the summer and he wasn't in it, it was a sign that he probably isn't in the reckoning. He's a cracking player, but there's evidently something they aren't sure of with him.

 

[BigMick]

Yeah when I say an obvious candidate I mean somebody who is really making you stand up and say 'why is this lad not being picked?'. There are people who might do better than him, but I think it's fair to say there's nobody beating down the door just yet. I would hope serious thought is being put into it for the winter though.

I've liked Alex Davies since I first saw him playing for Lancs academy about 7/8 years ago and I was convinced for a long time that he'd play for England. I think when they picked the massive squad earlier in the summer and he wasn't in it, it was a sign that he probably isn't in the reckoning. He's a cracking player, but there's evidently something they aren't sure of with him.

Three things with Davies: 1. He had a persistent finger injury in the last two seasons which meant he didn't keep wicket - that problem seems to be over now.

2. Opening the batting and keeping wicket is difficult for anyone, even a superstar like Sangakarra, so his England ambitions would probably be enhanced if he dropped a little down the order. He doesn't want to do that.

3. He has a habit of scoring very attractive 30s, 40s and 50s but then giving it away. I see he's getting runs today when Lancs have to bat out the day to draw; his last hundred came against Northants last year when Lancs were facing a 450 deficit - to me those innings suggest he can maintain his concentration when he has to., just a shame he doesn't do it more often.

I am a big fan of him and love watching him bat, and he's a fine keeper too. For England, though, I think he would have to bat down the order.

 

[Chris O'Connor]

Tbh I don't even think the selectors are paying the slightest attention to the batting, it's not their major worry unless they have a humongous tail as they have all too often recently, and probably will the next one too. I would be amazed if they're pondering any change at all to the top six in the near or even mid term future (with Stokes back) and want that batting order to go forward. They're worried about shortcomings against spin of course and Sibley needs some serious work on developing a scoring shot against spin, but these worries are a long way down the list and I would be surprised if even on the radar. Tbh it's far too late to do much about it anyway with India coming up this Winter. (Unless cancelled - a massive possibility even maybe probable).

The bowling is the major worry, more specifically their lack of preparation for abroad. Their fast medium seamers are perfectly suited to this country but not on hard flat wickets with a kookuburra where pace is the key. They started the summer with a plan, 'more a let's ignore the Windies in favour of the far bigger goal', namely the long term plan and the ashes in Australia, preparation of our true quicks, getting test match overs and experience under their belts was the original idea, rotate Broady and Jimmy and likewise with Mark and Jofra. As often happens their plan wasn't too well thought out, playing both Archer and Wood at the Ageas seemed a mistake, but they haven't played Wood since and Archer has been trundling in at 82-86 mph most of the time he's played, having a thoroughly disappointing summer. They needed their quicks bowling 3 or 4 over spurts, no more than 12 or 15 per day, but bowling at 90 plus and adding something the others couldn't not duplicating their pace but with an inferior model. Of course there's more than one string to their bow and they can operate at medium fast pace like Jimmy Anderson, but they're not picked for that and don't do it nearly as well. Wood tbf just hasn't even been picked after the first test of the summer, but Root should have rotated the two throughout no matter what, results now don't count for as much as the ashes - noone except statos take notice of dubious rankings which have so many variables and usually just reflect the percentage of home tests played. The World test championship is laughable and ridiculous in its unfairness. Just as Root insisted on playing Bess despite hardly being worth his place with the long term in mind so he had to prepare his quicker bowlers with the long term plan in mind.

On the spinning front, England haven't given up on Adil Rashid, possibly our best spinner, playing red ball and tests again in time for the Ashes, he's easily our best imo. He would have to operate as part of a five man attack but could be bowled selectively and a real weapon, he's also scored first class runs although only averages around 20 in tests so a useful late order contributor. The long term shoulder problems that do hampered his World Cup bowling seem to be sorted and the googly is coming out perfectly and he's far more consistent without as much dross.

 

[catcherintherye]

Yeah when I say an obvious candidate I mean somebody who is really making you stand up and say 'why is this lad not being picked?'. There are people who might do better than him, but I think it's fair to say there's nobody beating down the door just yet. I would hope serious thought is being put into it for the winter though.

I've liked Alex Davies since I first saw him playing for Lancs academy about 7/8 years ago and I was convinced for a long time that he'd play for England. I think when they picked the massive squad earlier in the summer and he wasn't in it, it was a sign that he probably isn't in the reckoning. He's a cracking player, but there's evidently something they aren't sure of with him.

I just watched him on a stream today, and thought he looked good to me.

I know it seems I'm hammering the two openers, but they have the worst technique out of our top 7.

 

[catcherintherye]

Three things with Davies: 1. He had a persistent finger injury in the last two seasons which meant he didn't keep wicket - that problem seems to be over now.

2. Opening the batting and keeping wicket is difficult for anyone, even a superstar like Sangakarra, so his England ambitions would probably be enhanced if he dropped a little down the order. He doesn't want to do that.

3. He has a habit of scoring very attractive 30s, 40s and 50s but then giving it away. I see he's getting runs today when Lancs have to bat out the day to draw; his last hundred came against Northants last year when Lancs were facing a 450 deficit - to me those innings suggest he can maintain his concentration when he has to., just a shame he doesn't do it more often.

I am a big fan of him and love watching him bat, and he's a fine keeper too. For England, though, I think he would have to bat down the order.

What you say makes sense, however theres more of an opening as a specialist batsman who opens than a keeper for England currently. I think it's a sensible move to focus on the batting, and try to make a tonne of runs.

 

[Lanolin]

Tbh I don't even think the selectors are paying the slightest attention to the batting, it's not their major worry unless they have a humongous tail as they have all too often recently, and probably will the next one too. I would be amazed if they're pondering any change at all to the top six in the near or even mid term future (with Stokes back) and want that batting order to go forward. They're worried about shortcomings against spin of course and Sibley needs some serious work on developing a scoring shot against spin, but these worries are a long way down the list and I would be surprised if even on the radar. Tbh it's far too late to do much about it anyway with India coming up this Winter. (Unless cancelled - a massive possibility even maybe probable).

The bowling is the major worry, more specifically their lack of preparation for abroad. Their fast medium seamers are perfectly suited to this country but not on hard flat wickets with a kookuburra where pace is the key. They started the summer with a plan, 'more a let's ignore the Windies in favour of the far bigger goal', namely the long term plan and the ashes in Australia, preparation of our true quicks, getting test match overs and experience under their belts was the original idea, rotate Broady and Jimmy and likewise with Mark and Jofra. As often happens their plan wasn't too well thought out, playing both Archer and Wood at the Ageas seemed a mistake, but they haven't played Wood since and Archer has been trundling in at 82-86 mph most of the time he's played, having a thoroughly disappointing summer. They needed their quicks bowling 3 or 4 over spurts, no more than 12 or 15 per day, but bowling at 90 plus and adding something the others couldn't not duplicating their pace but with an inferior model. Of course there's more than one string to their bow and they can operate at medium fast pace like Jimmy Anderson, but they're not picked for that and don't do it nearly as well. Wood tbf just hasn't even been picked after the first test of the summer, but Root should have rotated the two throughout no matter what, results now don't count for as much as the ashes - noone except statos take notice of dubious rankings which have so many variables and usually just reflect the percentage of home tests played. The World test championship is laughable and ridiculous in its unfairness. Just as Root insisted on playing Bess despite hardly being worth his place with the long term in mind so he had to prepare his quicker bowlers with the long term plan in mind.

On the spinning front, England haven't given up on Adil Rashid, possibly our best spinner, playing red ball and tests again in time for the Ashes, he's easily our best imo. He would have to operate as part of a five man attack but could be bowled selectively and a real weapon, he's also scored first class runs although only averages around 20 in tests so a useful late order contributor. The long term shoulder problems that do hampered his World Cup bowling seem to be sorted and the googly is coming out perfectly and he's far more consistent without as much dross.

I could hardly disagree more to be honest. I don’t think they’ll be worried about the bowling at all. For once they look like they might actually be realising that it’s worth having different options for different conditions. There’s no reason at all why we shouldn’t utilise people who will bowl teams out in English conditions for home tests and then use different bowlers for tours. Wood is suited to fast, bouncy pitches, why waste his energy and risk his knees asking him to bowl bouncers on wet wickets here? The bowling’s not perfect but we have loads of options. The batting will 100% be what they’re concerned about. I think you’re in for a shock if you think burns will get another 20 tests averaging low 30s, he’ll be lucky to get more than the next one If he doesn’t get a score.

 

[Chris O'Connor]

I think you’re in for a shock if you think burns will get another 20 tests averaging low 30s, he’ll be lucky to get more than the next one If he doesn’t get a score.

England won't go outside the cricketers who have been in the biosecure bubble for batting imo. Noone else has had a chance at test level and they're highly unlikely to look outside. Burns average was on an upward trajectory and has averaged almost 40 since before last year's ashes. I just don't agree theyll even look at all whatever happens on what could be another perilous surface for batting, there's not even any serious mention of it in the media - I think they'll take batting cover and perhaps Lawrence will go, but just as easily they'll take Handed or Jennings (I don't want either). I agree test and county levels are different games and it's hard to see any batter being given a debut completely untried and untested against India in India unless injury intervenes. (Alistair Cook took such an opportunity all those years ago).

There is merit in just keeping Mark Wood back, so being preserved primarily for overseas tours as his average at home on softer green wickets is far inferior, but the plan was altered after the defeat in the first test at Southampton. Wood has been bowling very fast and his ankle is fully healed, he's been developing the wobble seam ball in an effort to improve his statistics in home tests. If he's left out once again, he will have had four test matches in two years. This isn't any type of preparation and England need both him Archer, and Ollie Stone hopefully, to be able to rotate in the ashes at the end of next year. Pairing him with Archer for that first test seemed to indicate a shift in policy, one of looking ahead rather than just the present. Losing that first Test against West Indies was a setback, not just for the series, but also for plans to refresh England’s attack. Broad and Anderson were back in harness by the third Test against West Indies and their fingers are not going to be prised off the new ball anytime soon. They've played only two tests without one of them in the side since 2008, their dependency on the pair is as strong as ever. Neither has an outstanding record in Australia recently - their powers to be effective in Australia are likely to wane, although I think Broady being a lot younger should easily still be a first choice. Jimmy however will be nearing 40 when the ashes are played, age is just a number but he maybe able to use his free bus pass soon.

 

[Chris O'Connor]

Hameed not Handed (auto prediction nonsense on this phone) - he's made a couple of half centuries but they're harbouring back a few years if they go this route and hoping he's turned the corner. Jennings is just ignoring form on English wickets completely and thinking back to turning pitches in Sri Lanka wbere spin dominated. India however have some resly top class fast seamers and their wickets are no longer the dust bowls of old. Lawrence would be the better pick.

 

[BigMick]

What you say makes sense, however theres more of an opening as a specialist batsman who opens than a keeper for England currently. I think it's a sensible move to focus on the batting, and try to make a tonne of runs.

You mean Davies should just concentrate on his batting? If so, he had the majority of the last two seasons, when he didn't keep wicket, to do that and didn't churn out the big scores. He's only managed 2 centuries since 2017 - too many short but sweet 30s, 40s and 50s.