Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

The Ashes 2023

It's a punt isn't it, probably because neither Root or Brook want to do it. I don't really like it in that it only works if he sticks around for a while and I suspect he'll be sent out with a 'have a swing and if you get out then fine' message.

Why don't they just tell Root to man up and bat at 3. The 'selfless' mantra stokes/baz keep banging on about doesn't seem to apply to him.
 
Root's rationale for not batting 3 - that he needed a mental breather after captaining in the field - was fair enough, but it is no longer valid. IMO he should have held his hand up for it. Think he owes the team something after his last four innings.
 
England has a weird history with the number 3 position going back years. In most teams, it's a privilege to bat there, often reserved for your best player. Williamson, Ponting, Lara, Bradman! Who wouldn't want to bat where Bradman batted?
 
It may have to do with the fact that No.3 is effectively an opener with England. However that's been getting a bit better of late. Root's got no excuses left. It's gonna be v interesting to see what happens though. Surely Mo will need to go out there and just swing from the start.
 
England has a weird history with the number 3 position going back years. In most teams, it's a privilege to bat there, often reserved for your best player. Williamson, Ponting, Lara, Bradman! Who wouldn't want to bat where Bradman batted?

Tbf England also have a recent history of piss poor openers. I don't know who opened when Bradman played but I guess he didn't come in within the first few overs quite that often.
 
It would be interesting to see a stat about how quickly No.3's come in across international cricket. Someone like Williamson has the luxury of capable openers, no idea about Bradman.

A quality batsman shouldn't be afraid of a new ball though regardless.
 
Dravid came in ahead of Tendulkar. Pujara came in ahead of Kohli. There's a case for a solid defensive player at 3 with your more expressive strokemaker at 4. England have gone for a pinch hitter instead. :D
 
so if you just ask, you can have a crack!
this style of management makes me pine for the old school style - someone who makes the decisions and tells them to get on with it!
 
I guess the old test of 'who would the opposition want to see walking out at three' is valid here. I think they'd say 'can we have Moeen, please?' One down likely soon to become two down.
 
I guess the old test of 'who would the opposition want to see walking out at three' is valid here. I think they'd say 'can we have Moeen, please?' One down likely soon to become two down.

Well yeh but potentially after 50-60 very quick runs. You'd hope they've thought this through.
 
Or he scratches around for a couple of overs before he's clean bowled by one that's too good for him. TBH that's what happened last match. Sadly with the bat, I think we've seen the best of Moeen in test cricket. He's underachieved certainly, but his heyday, when occasional glory was possible, was a few years ago.

I will be very happy to be proved wrong.
 
Or he scratches around for a couple of overs before he's clean bowled by one that's too good for him. TBH that's what happened last match. Sadly with the bat, I think we've seen the best of Moeen in test cricket. He's underachieved certainly, but his heyday, when occasional glory was possible, was a few years ago.

I will be very happy to be proved wrong.

Yeah I'd agree to be honest. Whatever the external factors were he's ultimately never shown that he was able to hold down a top six spot as a batsman and players showing sudden improvement at the age of 36 are rare aren't they. I think their calculation is that they're happy to have a number 8 type innings from the number 3 if it protects Root and Brook a little bit and enables them to get the extra bowler in, more than that they expect a high chance of a big score from him there.
 
Yeah I'd agree to be honest. Whatever the external factors were he's ultimately never shown that he was able to hold down a top six spot as a batsman and players showing sudden improvement at the age of 36 are rare aren't they. I think their calculation is that they're happy to have a number 8 type innings from the number 3 if it protects Root and Brook a little bit and enables them to get the extra bowler in, more than that they expect a high chance of a big score from him there.

So they're effectively sending in a nightwatchman on the first morning of a test? No - surely he's not there to protect the others, he's there to smash it over the rope.
 
Not sure about Anderson, maybe he'll summon one last hurrah, particularly with it being Old Trafford. While he's never been picked for his batting, there's the scenario of Stokes, Brook or someone else splattering the bowling all over only to have Anderson come in and be out 1st ball.
 
So they're effectively sending in a nightwatchman on the first morning of a test? No - surely he's not there to protect the others, he's there to smash it over the rope.
England do seem to be trying to solve one problem by moving people around and creating others. It was ever thus given you can only pick 11, but this feels like something set up to fail.
 
Not sure about Anderson, maybe he'll summon one last hurrah, particularly with it being Old Trafford. While he's never been picked for his batting, there's the scenario of Stokes, Brook or someone else splattering the bowling all over only to have Anderson come in and be out 1st ball.

Tbh though if you're relying on your number 11 you really are fucked.
 
Not sure about Anderson, maybe he'll summon one last hurrah, particularly with it being Old Trafford. While he's never been picked for his batting, there's the scenario of Stokes, Brook or someone else splattering the bowling all over only to have Anderson come in and be out 1st ball.
tbh the batting prowess of the number 11 really is the least of England's worries. :D

I fear Anderson's been picked on reputation over form. Hope he's shown something in the nets.
 
Tbh though if you're relying on your number 11 you really are fucked.
Yeah, of course, it's usually a case of relying on Stokes. It's just that he will need someone to play the Jack Leach role. But, I digress, the issue is that winding Anderson up for one more go doesn't really display any kind of strength in depth and, more importantly, doesn't really give you much confidence that they've put a match winner in. Might end up with Stokes having to bowl and knackering himself even further.
 
Anderson's record at OT is excellent. I'm all for horses for courses. To leave him out would be a bigger risk than having him there.

Mo at 3 is desperation but I'm ok with it as we haven't had a proper number 3 since Gower, and even he only played a quarter of his games there.

If someone replies Hick or Ballance you are automatically disqualified from this thread.
 
Bring back Trott

Had a horrible breakdown, one of the worst things I've seen on a cricket field. Warner said he had 'scared eyes'. He was actually crying while trying to bat.

Never forget that cunt Vaughan described this as 'a con'.

 
Yeah, of course, it's usually a case of relying on Stokes. It's just that he will need someone to play the Jack Leach role. But, I digress, the issue is that winding Anderson up for one more go doesn't really display any kind of strength in depth and, more importantly, doesn't really give you much confidence that they've put a match winner in. Might end up with Stokes having to bowl and knackering himself even further.

That seems a bit over the top tbh. It's playing down the contributions of Root (who's still comfortably England's best batsman), Brook and Duckett. There are some weak spots sure but it's not 'Stokes or nothing.'
 
Yeah I'd agree to be honest. Whatever the external factors were he's ultimately never shown that he was able to hold down a top six spot as a batsman and players showing sudden improvement at the age of 36 are rare aren't they. I think their calculation is that they're happy to have a number 8 type innings from the number 3 if it protects Root and Brook a little bit and enables them to get the extra bowler in, more than that they expect a high chance of a big score from him there.
I think his career was badly botched by England management. I think he could have been one of our great all rounders - if he'd been given the leeway of a Bell, Pope or Crawley
 
Once you've settled on the 11 but realise you have no number 3, the calculation should be 'who loses the most runs by moving from his best position?' With Mooen, the stats say that you're probably losing 10 runs per completed innings. Unfortunately, the same is also true of Root, and I get that Brook looked bad there. Stokes certainly has the technique to bat 3, but he'd leave a hole at the trouble-shooting position of 6.

So I get the decision. There isn't really a good answer, so they've chosen this particular bad answer.
 
I think his career was badly botched by England management. I think he could have been one of our great all rounders - if he'd been given the leeway of a Bell, Pope or Crawley
He's unlucky to have played his best years batting alongside Stokes and Bairstow, who had first dibs on 6 and 7. Moeen is a natural number 7 but hardly ever seems to get to bat there. It's a shame. He only averages 27 with the bat now. Should be up with Stokes on 35+.

But tbh I'm more worried by the awful form of Bairstow than by Moeen's prospects at 3. I don't think Moeen's prospects at 7 were all that either, not with the 2023 version.
 
Back
Top Bottom