English cricket thread

Root's comments on Archer yesterday were, again, interesting. It's very very clear they want him bowling fast and this pitch looks slow.
 
Great delivery, good catch. Got the early breakthrough.
 
Great delivery, good catch. Got the early breakthrough.
Yeah big time. Fair play to Shan for saying he wasn't sure though.

Btw - why do Pakistanis always go with the first part of their name, and not the second? Is the first part the surname?
 
Root's comments on Archer yesterday were, again, interesting. It's very very clear they want him bowling fast and this pitch looks slow.
I hope he doesn't turn into one of those enigmatic talents that were mismanaged and never fullfilled their potential.
 
Yeah big time. Fair play to Shan for saying he wasn't sure though.

Btw - why do Pakistanis always go with the first part of their name, and not the second? Is the first part the surname?

No, I don’t think so. Think it’s just personal choice.
 
Crawley looks in good touch. Played some lovely shots.
 
Root's comments on Archer yesterday were, again, interesting. It's very very clear they want him bowling fast and this pitch looks slow.

I don't know why this is such a big deal. Have we ever seen someone ever make such a fuss about some other bowler?

What England want is Jofra Archer to bowl well and take wickets. If they think he's going to do that for a given test, they should pick him. Or else, pick someone else.
 
Crawley looks in good touch. Played some lovely shots.
Yes looks he could become a very good counterattacking no3.

It’s going to be an unpopular opinion but when Ben Stokes wasn’t deemed fit to bowl he shouldn’t be in the team, can’t play cricket if you’re not 100% fit, and he’s not a no4
 
Yes looks he could become a very good counterattacking no3.

It’s going to be an unpopular opinion but when Ben Stokes wasn’t deemed fit to bowl he shouldn’t be in the team, can’t play cricket if you’re not 100% fit, and he’s not a no4

Of course it's going to be an unpopular opinion if you're going to argue you don't pick your best batsman when there's nothing stopping him batting.
 
I don't know why this is such a big deal. Have we ever seen someone ever make such a fuss about some other bowler?

What England want is Jofra Archer to bowl well and take wickets. If they think he's going to do that for a given test, they should pick him. Or else, pick someone else.

Have you seen Root's comments? I understand why they want Archer to "get the ball zipping around at 90-plus mph" in this attack but I do think they have mismanaged the situation by constantly conveying these messages directly to the media. This plus Archer's comment at Old Trafford about it not being a pitch to bend his back on just prolong debate on what Archer does when, as you said, he just needs to be taking wickets (he took as many as Shaheen and Naseem combined at Old Trafford and people were still going about his pace!).
 
When he’s been picked at a specialist batsman he’s averaging under 24.

What's your sample size? Either way it means very little, Stokes was clearly fine batting (hell he even got through a few overs and took crucial wickets which gave England a chance at the win in the first test) and he's got more than enough credit in the bank over the last few years.
 
What's your sample size? Either way it means very little, Stokes was clearly fine batting (hell he even got through a few overs and took crucial wickets which gave England a chance at the win in the first test) and he's got more than enough credit in the bank over the last few years.
It a bit smaller than I thought it was, I was sure there another match in their, anyway his scores have been
20, 67, 20, 0, 9. I would rather have a 100% fit Zak Crawley @3 than Stokes @4 and unable to bowl. If Stokes can’t bowl & a batsman has to miss out (which seems to be the case under Root) then it only makes sense for me to be Stokes.
 
It a bit smaller than I thought it was, I was sure there another match in their, anyway his scores have been
20, 67, 20, 0, 9. I would rather have a 100% fit Zak Crawley @3 than Stokes @4 and unable to bowl. If Stokes can’t bowl & a batsman has to miss out (which seems to be the case under Root) then it only makes sense for me to be Stokes.

Well as long as it makes sense to you ;)

Crawley's a decent player and he's making a good fist of establishing himself in this side, but I think you're in a group of one picking a guy without a test century over England's best batsman of the last few yesrs.
 
Well as long as it makes sense to you ;)

Crawley's a decent player and he's making a good fist of establishing himself in this side, but I think you're in a group of one picking a guy without a test century over England's best batsman of the last few yesrs.
Let’s say a bowler comes up to you and says, I’m unable to come out and bat but I can bowl would you still select him? I wouldn’t .
Yes he’s become more consistent with the bat, and when he’s 100% fit he is England’s best batsman no debate. Seen it plenty of times in football when players get picked who aren’t 100% fit put in sub par performances
 
Let’s say a bowler comes up to you and says, I’m unable to come out and bat but I can bowl would you still select him? I wouldn’t .
Yes he’s become more consistent with the bat, and when he’s 100% fit he is England’s best batsman no debate. Seen it plenty of times in football when players get picked who aren’t 100% fit put in sub par performances

I think it's an unlikely set of circumstances, but yeah I'd suspect if England's best bowler was fit to bowl but couldn't bat (not sure how it would happen, mind) you'd pick them. Even probably an easier choice when England's best bowler averages 8 with the bat.
 
Yes looks he could become a very good counterattacking no3.

It’s going to be an unpopular opinion but when Ben Stokes wasn’t deemed fit to bowl he shouldn’t be in the team, can’t play cricket if you’re not 100% fit, and he’s not a no4
Sorry pal, can't agree with you here.
 
What a ball!! Wow!! Excellent catch too. Been really impressed with Rizwan’s keeping.
 
Root might have still nicked it anyway but he has a tendency of getting out like that by getting stuck on the crease.

And on that subject....
 
I like this leggie. Takes enough wickets to tell him don't worry about the runs - the way a leggie should bowl as long as there aren't loads of buffet balls which in fairness he doesn't do often.
 
Btw - why do Pakistanis always go with the first part of their name, and not the second? Is the first part the surname?

It’s quite common for a child to be given their fathers first name as the child’s surname.

Father: Ali Iqbal
Son: Naseem Ali

Hence, some might choose to use their first name on the shirt. Not sure if that’s the reason but the surname being adopted from fathers forename is common.
 
On the subject of balance though, is anyone else a bit surprised that Mooen hasn't got a chance?

They clearly like Bess and want to give him a run, but he's played two tests this summer without bowling a ball. Mooen is probably the better spinner and he's a good enough batsman to bat 7 in a Stokesless England side, plus it gives them a look ahead of an India tour.
 
Excellent 100, well played.

I’ve been impressed with him. Looks to play on the front-foot as much as possible but has the patience/solid defence for Test cricket.
 
On the subject of balance though, is anyone else a bit surprised that Mooen hasn't got a chance?

They clearly like Bess and want to give him a run, but he's played two tests this summer without bowling a ball. Mooen is probably the better spinner and he's a good enough batsman to bat 7 in a Stokesless England side, plus it gives them a look ahead of an India tour.
I'm not. I like him but he's not shown enough for a very long time now.
 
Well played Crawley, yet people would prefer an injured Ben Stokes bite
only his 3rd test batting 3, but anyway im saying he’s already England’s best No3 since Trott
 
Last edited: