England in India 2021

FlawlessThaw said:




Seemed like it was pre-agreed with Moeen but for some reason the ECB haven't outlined all their plans. I don't think Root is to blame here at all, the fault would be from the ECB who haven't always handled Moeen that well.
Click to expand...


Ah weird, weird management all round. For what it's worth I agree with the second paragraph of the second tweet at any rate.

Players need to get out of the bubble and we need to be comfortable with them doing that when they really need to, even if it means changing plans at the last minute.
 
FlawlessThaw said:




Seemed like it was pre-agreed with Moeen but for some reason the ECB haven't outlined all their plans. I don't think Root is to blame here at all, the fault would be from the ECB who haven't always handled Moeen that well.
Click to expand...


can someone explain how it's 5 months for Moeen? Which tours are getting added up here?

Does it assume he's in the IPL for 2 months - even though hes been released and may be unsold in 2 days time?
 
Shane Warne / KP / Michael Vaughan Twitter whinge and know it all fest is very boring isn't it.

Three cracking players, have some humility talking about the game FFS.
 
BR7 said:
As a neutral who enjoys watching his Indian brother in law suffer, I’d say it’s a shame, neither can most of the Indians
Click to expand...

India's top 6 is probably the best in world Cricket currently.
 
Am I the only one who thinks Burns, Sibley, Crawley is a good top 3 that should be persisted with?

Sibley and Crawley in particular in the home summer looked class. They may yet end up being bad sub continental players but you can’t teach raw talent and those 2 have them.

Short term some changes may be required for this series but all 3 — Burns looked the most settled player since Strauss retired as Cooks partner —should be given longer.
 
BR7 said:
Nah, no chance, they aren’t even good enough to get in the India line up when tendulkar, laxman, ganguly and The Wall we’re playing. Maybe kohli but that’s it
Click to expand...

Who has a better top 6 on paper then mate?

And what shame is there in not being as good as that top 6!?
 
zing said:
Am I the only one who thinks Burns, Sibley, Crawley is a good top 3 that should be persisted with?

Sibley and Crawley in particular in the home summer looked class. They may yet end up being bad sub continental players but you can’t teach raw talent and those 2 have them.

Short term some changes may be required for this series but all 3 — Burns looked the most settled player since Strauss retired as Cooks partner —should be given longer.
Click to expand...

No, I agree.

Burns's issues has been chucking it away when he's got in (reverse sweep against Ashwin last test a good example) and even yesterday I thought he looked very comfortable and used his feet well until he inexplicably played across the line.

He looks horrid though, so I can see why people don't have much patience for him if he doesn't have a weight of runs behind him.
 
zing said:
Am I the only one who thinks Burns, Sibley, Crawley is a good top 3 that should be persisted with?

Sibley and Crawley in particular in the home summer looked class. They may yet end up being bad sub continental players but you can’t teach raw talent and those 2 have them.

Short term some changes may be required for this series but all 3 — Burns looked the most settled player since Strauss retired as Cooks partner —should be given longer.
Click to expand...
I think Sibley and Crawley should be the opening bats (Crawleys from my home town so slightly biased maybe) but I think Burns has too many issues with his stance, I’d prefer to see Ollie Pope up there or Jonny Bairstow .... personally
 
zing said:
Am I the only one who thinks Burns, Sibley, Crawley is a good top 3 that should be persisted with?
Click to expand...

I don't think there is any thought within the England setup that this wont be persisted with bar maybe a slight temptation with Bairstow.

I'm not convinced on Sibley myself, but most seem more concerned with Burns - which surprises me.
 
Utd heap said:
Who has a better top 6 on paper then mate?

And what shame is there in not being as good as that top 6!?
Click to expand...
Well, the games changed, batsmen are a lot more aggressive today in test cricket matches due to their upbringings and the rise of limited overs cricket.

For me, a top test batsman has to be able to score heavily on every type of wicket and the current India side struggle with swing conditions whereas the boys I’m taking about didn’t struggle as much in England back in those days. Plus if you’re used to playing on doctored home wickets, how come so many Indian bats struggled in the two test matches? I’d have the England batting lineup ahead of the Indian line up if playing in England.
 
BR7 said:
Well, the games changed, batsmen are a lot more aggressive today in test cricket matches due to their upbringings and the rise of limited overs cricket.

For me, a top test batsman has to be able to score heavily on every type of wicket and the current India side struggle with swing conditions whereas the boys I’m taking about didn’t struggle as much in England back in those days. Plus if you’re used to playing on doctored home wickets, how come so many Indian bats struggled in the two test matches? I’d have the England batting lineup ahead of the Indian line up if playing in England.
Click to expand...

You've gone off on a tangent here. I wont even address some of the new points raised that i'd call wide of the mark.

I claimed the India top 6 is the current best in world cricket on paper.

Do you disagree? If so, whose is better?
 
BR7 said:
I think Sibley and Crawley should be the opening bats (Crawleys from my home town so slightly biased maybe) but I think Burns has too many issues with his stance, I’d prefer to see Ollie Pope up there or Jonny Bairstow .... personally
Click to expand...

Eugh, I really don't like either of these selections. Pope is still feeling his way in to test cricket and is a pretty quick scorer with all the pros and cons that come with it. He's perfect at 5/6 and MAY be ready to move up when he's established himself, but I don't think there's any convincing argument for why he's better off batting at 3/4 than he is at 5/6 now or who would be a better fit at 5/6 if you moved him.

Bairstow has spent several years being absolutely shit in test cricket and being bowled for fun. He averaged 18 (eighteen!) for a year before he was dropped. He might be a decent stop gap option to bat 3 in the subcontinent (and frankly, I think it's better to give Bairstow that fairly thankless task than someone like Lawrence who is at the other end of his career) but I can't really see where the confidence is that he can do it anywhere else or that he's solved those issues against swing bowling. He'll need more than a few starts against a pretty abject Sri Lanka side to convince my he's the answer there, at any rate.
 
Utd heap said:
I don't think there is any thought within the England setup that this wont be persisted with bar maybe a slight temptation with Bairstow.

I'm not convinced on Sibley myself, but most seem more concerned with Burns - which surprises me.
Click to expand...
It’s that stance, so many triggers for me personally
 
Utd heap said:
You've gone off on a tangent here. I wont even address some of the new points raised that i'd call wide of the mark.

I claimed the India top 6 is the current best in world cricket on paper.

Do you disagree? If so, whose is better?
Click to expand...
I gave my answer at the end I think
 
zing said:
can someone explain how it's 5 months for Moeen? Which tours are getting added up here?

Does it assume he's in the IPL for 2 months - even though hes been released and may be unsold in 2 days time?
Click to expand...

Yeah it will include IPL, he's back in India anyway in March for the T20s and ODIs (probably for the latter though I could see England go very weak for that).
 
NinjaFletch said:
Eugh, I really don't like either of these selections. Pope is still feeling his way in to test cricket and is a pretty quick scorer with all the pros and cons that come with it. He's perfect at 5/6 and MAY be ready to move up when he's established himself, but I don't think there's any convincing argument for why he's better off batting at 3/4 than he is at 5/6 now or who would be a better fit at 5/6 if you moved him.

Bairstow has spent several years being absolutely shit in test cricket and being bowled for fun. He averaged 18 (eighteen!) for a year before he was dropped. He might be a decent stop gap option to bat 3 in the subcontinent (and frankly, I think it's better to give Bairstow that fairly thankless task than someone like Lawrence who is at the other end of his career) but I can't really see where the confidence is that he can do it anywhere else or that he's solved those issues against swing bowling.
Click to expand...
I just don’t see any other no 3s there. I agree with Pope, but I see an Ian bell in the making so give him a chance now so he can settle in the role soon, that was my thinking. Lawrence is a 5 I think
 
BR7 said:
I gave my answer at the end I think
Click to expand...

Burns, Sibley, Crawley, Root, Stokes, Buttler
v
Gill, Rohit, Pujara, Kohli, Rahane, Pant

Fair enough if you'd take the England top 6. Not sure many would.

Give it a few years with Pant and Gill and it might not even be the slightest contest.
 
BR7 said:
I just don’t see any other no 3s there. I agree with Pope, but I see an Ian bell in the making so give him a chance now so he can settle in the role soon, that was my thinking. Lawrence is a 5 I think
Click to expand...

Well I think Bell's a cautionary tale in that regard. I never got the impression he cracked batting at 3, and I'm not sure his game really suited it. England, and Bell himself, did a lot better when we had a stodgy, unfashionable 3 in Trott than when we tried to shoe-horn Bell in up the order. I think Crawley's still a work in progress, but I think his range of abilities look more suited to that role than anyone else around the side at the moment.
 
Last edited:
Utd heap said:
Burns, Sibley, Crawley, Root, Stokes, Buttler
v
Gill, Rohit, Pujara, Kohli, Rahane, Pant

Fair enough if you'd take the England top 6. Not sure many would.

Give it a few years with Pant and Gill and it might not even be the slightest contest.
Click to expand...

I think gill won’t be as good as people think. Plus I did say I’d take the England line up against India in England not everywhere but that makes the further point that the India lineup are not all that when playing in England for example.

I’ll turn the question, would you take that India batting line up Against Englands in a test series in England, on a bet?
 
Utd heap said:
Burns, Sibley, Crawley, Root, Stokes, Buttler
v
Gill, Rohit, Pujara, Kohli, Rahane, Pant

Fair enough if you'd take the England top 6. Not sure many would.

Give it a few years with Pant and Gill and it might not even be the slightest contest.
Click to expand...
It's already not a slightest contest. Only Root & Stokes would get close.
 
NinjaFletch said:
Well I think Bell's a cautionary tale in that regard. I never got the impression he cracked batting at 3, and I'm not sure his game really suited it. England, and Bell himself, did a lot better when we had a stodgy, unfashionable, 3 in Trott than when we tried to shoe-horn him in up the order. I think Crawley's still a work in progress, but I think his range of abilities look more suited to that role than anyone else around the side at the moment.
Click to expand...
Yeah he looked a bit uncomfortable at three to begin with but I think grew into it, he preferred 5 by the looks of it. I did like Trotty, him and balance had incredible starts.

It’s a tough one, I love text book batsmen at three and Pope is as textbook as they come, with a brilliant ability to turn to one day mode when he needs to.
 
YAMS49 said:
It's already not a slightest contest. Only Root & Stokes would get close.
Click to expand...
Gill is still too young to call as well, nah not having it specially in England, gill would be lucky to have a 30+ average in tests in England. Pant over butler? Hrrrm not a straight easy choice either
 
BR7 said:
Gill is still too young to call as well, nah not having it specially in England, gill would be lucky to have a 30+ average in tests in England. Pant over butler? Hrrrm not a straight easy choice either
Click to expand...

I'd happily take a bet that Gill will average 30+ in England.
 
BR7 said:
I’m game bro, let’s say 25 quid, next test series in England v India, S Gill to not average over 30 by the end of the series (minimum 4 tests) you say he will.
Click to expand...

Yup - done.
 
BR7 said:
Nah, no chance, they aren’t even good enough to get in the India line up when tendulkar, laxman, ganguly and The Wall we’re playing. Maybe kohli but that’s it
Click to expand...

I'd take this top six over any of our previous ones and yes that include fab fours. They were the ones who lost 0-4 consecutively in England and Australia. They might be great individually but loads of tests we just folded in the last innings.

A full strength XI this team would beat that fab four team quite comfortably. The fab four folded under pressure in tests and that's the truth.
 
Last edited:
BR7 said:
So 2 out of six, one away from a 50/50 split and that’s a no contest?
Click to expand...

I don’t think he said 2/6. He said 2/6 were close.

Kohli was the top scorer from either team in the last series in England so it would be strange if you would 100% pick Root above him.
 
sport2793 said:
The relevant English players have arguably more IPL experience than Indian players of county cricket.
Click to expand...
Yeah but playing on flat pitches for 40 overs and playing on spinning tracks for five days are very different things aren't they.
 
What’s going on with ishan kishan,
YAMS49 said:
Would get close were the words I used I think. Root over Pujara who could then open instead & Stokes. The rest aren't even an argument imo.
Click to expand...
I’d still say it’s a lot closer than you’re making it. Pant over buttler is not an easy choice for me and probably others. I’d definitely take root and kohli first ahead of the rest and work from there
 
YAMS49 said:
It's already not a slightest contest. Only Root & Stokes would get close.
Click to expand...
You're not serious are you?

Root and Stokes would walk into the Indian team and Crawley has done more in test cricket than Gill so far. Pant and Buttler is a 50-50 call.
 
KM said:
I'd take this top six over any of our previous ones and yes that include fab fours. They were the ones who lost 0-4 consecutively in England and Australia. They might be great individually but loads of tests we just folded in the last innings.

A full strength XI this team would beat that fab four team quite comfortably. The fab four folded under pressure in tests and that's the truth.
Click to expand...
And how were your bowlers bowling during those matches. A match isn’t decided by just batsmen, if your bowlers aren’t taking wickets or are too expensive that does place strain in your batsmen. I don’t really recall any top Indian bowlers in England. Chetan sharna was ok, kapil dev was good, but it wasn’t really until Zaheer Khan (from when I started watching cricket) turned up on England that I really rated an Indian pace bowler
 
You must log in or register to reply here.