Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

The Ashes 2019

Pringle had a distinctive bowling action. As a kid, I tried to copy distinctive bowling actions. I did impressions of Botham, Willis, Dilley, Imran Khan, Hadlee, Norman Cowans, even Graham Gooch. Was never tempted to do a Pringle.
 
littlebabyjesus said:
Foakes is a decent batsman. Has a test century. Is a considerably better keeper than Bairstow or Buttler. Depends if you want someone able to stand up to the spinners or not. B&B do and will miss chances standing up.
Click to expand...

Idaho said:
One part time spinner who usual picks up wickets from batters slogging the dog ball... Do we really need that much keeper finesse?
Click to expand...
I get really annoyed seeing the best keeper overlooked. It's the cricket equivalent of picking the goalkeeper who looks good with the ball at his feet. A difficult half-chance taken by the keeper can easily save 100 runs and a couple of hours in the field. Adam Gilchrist has a lot to answer for. And unlike Ben Cox of Worcestershire for example, Foakes is good enough to bat at 7 and do that job too.

I also dislike the way Bairstow seems to be indulged every time he throws a strop about not getting his own way. He's one of 7 or 8 players in the Test squad who have been associated with quite a lot of failures in recent years, particularly away from home. This established group has always done just enough often enough to keep their places while the other 3 or 4 places in the XI rotate among players who get thrown under a bus being asked to bat up the order, then discarded. Or in the case of Foakes, Curran and Leach dropped at the first opportunity after contributing significantly to several wins. (I'll accept that with other bowlers available Curran is probably more an alternative to Stokes as the all-rounder than someone who should be picked as one of three main seamers, and he really needs greater weight of runs in Championship cricket, but he's still only just turned 21.)

kabbes said:
What about Nick Browne? Essex are doing well and he’s always been able to put together a good knock as well as being quite consistent in terms of survival.

He’s obviously not going to set the world on fire but we’re scraping the barrel for openers here.
Click to expand...
It's basically Browne or Sibley for me if you want an old fashioned opener, but Sibley's the man in prime form this season and being several years younger but still reasonably experienced for his age probably has the greater long-term potential.

The turnover of openers since Strauss retired has been a big factor in England's decline over the last 5 or 6 years. I'm not totally convinced by Burns but having consistently scored 1,000+ Championship runs a season @ 40+ I think he at least deserves to play a few Tests in similar conditions on home soil given the shortage of obvious alternatives.
 
Agree on all counts except about Curran. I'm not convinced by him as a test player. Got off to a flying start, but many of his early wickets were Indian tailenders, and his early runs were good and important, but he's never scored a 1st class 100.

The most infuriating thing about BnB is how many stumpings they miss. But the argument will probably be lost, and it was lost before Gilchrist too. Stewart was, like BnB, very good standing back, clumsy standing up, but he got the nod over Russell. I never agreed with it, but they persisted even though Stewart's batting form was clearly affected. And Bairstow reminds me of Stewart - even though Stewart would have been in the team anyway, he seemed weirdly determined to keep the gloves. But yes, it is a false economy.
 
Last edited:
littlebabyjesus said:
Agree on all counts except about Curran. I'm not convinced by him as a test player. Got off to a flying start, but many of his early wickets were Indian tailenders, and his early runs were good and important, but he's never scored a 1st class 100.

The most infuriating thing about BnB is how many stumpings they miss. But the argument will probably be lost, and it was lost before Gilchrist too. Stewart was, like BnB, very good standing back, clumsy standing up, but he got the nod over Russell. I never agreed with it, but they persisted even though Stewart's batting form was clearly affected. And Bairstow reminds me of Stewart - even though Stewart would have been in the team anyway, he seemed weirdly determined to keep the gloves. But yes, it is a false economy.
Click to expand...
The trouble is that Curran's current role at Surrey is very much as an opening bowler and he's not yet mature enough to bat higher than 8 for England. I saw his Championship debut against Kent 4 years ago when he batted at 11 and took a five-fer. He never batted at 11 again and he's now worked his way up to 6, but hasn't achieved more than a lengthy catalogue of fifties. His first two seasons were really only half-seasons as he was still at school, then he struggled for consistency in 2017, so last year was his first really big season.

He's still 18 months younger than Ben Stokes was on Test debut (when I think he batted at 8 from memory) and being 7 years younger I still think he has the potential to fill that role at some point in the future. He's got a definite star quality in his knack of being able to turn a game in a short space of time with a belligerent counter-attacking innings, or by ripping out 3 or 4 wickets in as many overs.

My main worry is that if he starts getting lucrative offers for the IPL and gets into the England ODI squad he's not going to get many opportunities to develop as a batsman in the longer game.

The picking of Stewart over Russell as Test keeper infuriated me for years. There were times when we still picked only 4 frontline bowlers with a specialist batsman at 7. (Ian Ward in the 2001 Ashes, and both Hick and Ramprakash amongst others.) No wonder England sank to the bottom of the Test rankings in that era.

I don't think Stewart especially wanted that role, he just willingly did what was asked of him and missed out on a potentially stellar batting career as a result. Imagine if Alastair Cook had been asked to keep wicket for the best part of his Test career having already established himself as a batsman?
 
The insistence on playing Foakes simply because he is the best wicketkeeper is the type of short sightedness that cause England such problems in the 90s.

You have to consider the team as a whole, and on that basis what does Foakes bring? Is he a better keeper than Bairstow or Buttler, absolutely but it's not like either of them are terrible keepers, both are competent behind the stumps. Playing people in positions they are not suited to simply to squeeze in a better wicket keeper results in a worse team overall.

If England had a good top order then you might think about Foakes, but at the moment the simple fact is that there is a weak top order and are too many batting collapses, so weakening the batting even further is not the answer. If you really want Bairstow opening the better option would probably be giving Buttler the gloves and bringing in another full time middle order specialist (e.g. Ballance or Northeast). That's not a course I would recommend but it has more sense to it than playing Foakes because you want the best gloveman to be in the team regardless.
 
Bairstow should be told to forget about keeping and concentrate on batting. Think I'm right in saying he's never made a century after keeping wicket in a match. There surely are more runs there for him. The likes of Sangakkara, McCullum, both improved significantly when they gave up the goves. Stewart's stats are revealing in that regard - ave 35 with gloves, 47 without. tbh I'd rather give Buttler the gloves in tests over Bairstow, even if Foakes were not around.
 
redsquirrel said:
The insistence on playing Foakes simply because he is the best wicketkeeper is the type of short sightedness that cause England such problems in the 90s.

You have to consider the team as a whole, and on that basis what does Foakes bring? Is he a better keeper than Bairstow or Buttler, absolutely but it's not like either of them are terrible keepers, both are competent behind the stumps. Playing people in positions they are not suited to simply to squeeze in a better wicket keeper results in a worse team overall.

If England had a good top order then you might think about Foakes, but at the moment the simple fact is that there is a weak top order and are too many batting collapses, so weakening the batting even further is not the answer. If you really want Bairstow opening the better option would probably be giving Buttler the gloves and bringing in another full time middle order specialist (e.g. Ballance or Northeast). That's not a course I would recommend but it has more sense to it than playing Foakes because you want the best gloveman to be in the team regardless.
Click to expand...

Thing with that though, is Ballance or Northeast particularly a better bet with the bat than Foakes? Foakes has been on the fringes of selection just as a batter. We're not even in the Stewart/Russell situation here where Russell was never really a proper batsman. Foakes is a better batsman than Russell ever was. Man of the series v Sri Lanka, let's remember.
 
I have some sympathy with that, the problem with it is similar to the Root at 3/4 issue.

Yes in a lot of ways it makes sense but Root clearly has a psychological preference for playing at 4, how much is it worth disturbing him and possibly throwing his game off balance by insisting he play at 3? Likewise with Bairstow and the gloves, he clearly wants to keep wicket and giving the gloves to Buttler could well result in worse performance (especially if you are playing him in the top 3). How much that is worth I don't think anyone on this thread can be sure.
littlebabyjesus said:
Thing with that though, is Ballance or Northeast particularly a better bet with the bat than Foakes?.
Click to expand...
Yes, this year
Northeast 815 runs at an average of 63, 3 hundreds, 4 fifties
Ballance 850 runs at an average of 57, 5 hundreds 2 fifties
Foakes 481 runs at an average of 30, 0 hundreds, 5 fifties

Foakes is a decent batter but he's not in the same league as Ballance or Northeast.
 
Don't want Ballance anyway. He's had two gos at tests and failed. Same as if Jennings starts scoring CC runs again next season, say.
 
You look at that and think it's not so bad, but he had a flying start followed by a prolonged slump when he just looked awful. I really wouldn't go back there.
 
Foakes doesn't need to be considered on the keeping issue alone and, test-wise, I'd even go as far as to say he's a better long-term prospect than Bairstow with the bat. Foakes averages 40 after 5 tests on foreign soil, was man of the series and leading run scorer in Sri Lanka just a few months back etc. etc.. By comparison, Bairstow was farting along in the mid-20s at a similar stage. On top of that, Foakes doesn't throw tantrums to get his way and doesn't make a prick of himself in front of the media. His superior keeping ability has already been covered.

Root is ideally suited to bat a 3. He's the most technically correct batsman England has and can be patient when he needs to be - perfect for that position. No reason why he can't thrive there long term.

Pandering to the psychological foibles of a couple of players to the detriment of the team as a whole isn't the way forward.

Ballance? Very amusing.

Pink Panther had it spot on a few posts back.
 
Last edited:
England have been in a muddle over this issue for a while, imo. Bairstow's new status as World Cup Winning Hero doesn't help matters either.
 
Ah Wood's out. That's a huge shame. Nearly lasted the WC. Might mean a reprieve for Broad. Bit surprised to see Sam Curran in there. No Sibley anywhere. So CC runs don't count for that much then.
 
Bit confused by that. Obviously one of Moeen or Leach misses out. And who else? Why would you put Gregory, Curran and Stone in there if you aren’t going to play them? And presumably it’s going to be one of them. And I’d have thought they were going to look at Gregory in Stokes absence. And Curran will play because Surrey. So it’s Stone. Only just back from injury. Experience of ‘being around the squad’? Because he knows where they keep the drinks trolley at his home ground?
 
planetgeli said:
Bit confused by that. Obviously one of Moeen or Leach misses out. And who else? Why would you put Gregory, Curran and Stone in there if you aren’t going to play them?
Click to expand...
England do like this thing of players "being in/around the camp", like they like players to come up from the Lions rather than through the counties.

Anyway for Ireland it looks like Burns, Roy and Denly as the top three.
 
Last edited:
That squad has only got 5 batsmen in it???

Moeen, Woakes, Curran & Gregory may be decent all rounders, but unlike Stokes none would be considered on batting alone. Bit of a bits and pieces squad, partly down to injuries and fatigue left over from the white ball WC but does highlight a lack of established depth in places.

It all suggests that the Ashes line-up will be Burns, Roy, Denly, Root, Bairstow, Stokes, Buttler, Woakes, Moeen, Archer/Broad, Anderson.
 
Hard to say this without sounding rude about Ireland, but their team is county second division standard at best, in both batting and bowling. There are a few county stalwarts in there like Murtagh and Rankin, but they're past their best. The likes of Porterfield, Wilson have had patchy county careers.

My fear is that runs or wickets against them may give a false impression of a player's quality. It's a good warm-up for the Ashes, and I'm not discounting the possibility of England falling on their faces and Ireland springing an embarrassing shock, but it's not really comparable to facing Starc, Cummins and Hazlewood or bowling to Warner and Smith.
 
Last edited:
Wood has an injury and is out for 4-6 weeks. Archer also injured which we knew but he's likely to miss the first Ashes test (1st August).

I said yesterday neither would last the entire series. Didn't expect to be proved right so soon. It normally takes a bit longer.
 
littlebabyjesus said:
Pringle had a distinctive bowling action. As a kid, I tried to copy distinctive bowling actions. I did impressions of Botham, Willis, Dilley, Imran Khan, Hadlee, Norman Cowans, even Graham Gooch. Was never tempted to do a Pringle.
Click to expand...

Gooch did Willis - in a test match IIRC.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

WhyLikeThis
The Ashes 2023
68 69 70 71 72
Replies
2K
Views
46K
kabbes
K
RileyOBlimey
The Ashes 2021/22
45 46 47 48 49
Replies
1K
Views
27K
two sheds
two sheds
S
  • Poll
BBC Sports Personality 2019
Replies
23
Views
1K
stavros
S
Throbbing Angel
2019 Scottish Open (snooker)
Replies
7
Views
481
stavros
S
S
2019 UK Championship (snooker)
Replies
24
Views
986
Throbbing Angel
Throbbing Angel
Back
Top Bottom