4th Test at Old Trafford, Manchester

[Arachnodouche]

Eight days is a decent enough break for Aus to regroup. Everyone said the momentum would be with Eng after Lord's yet see how the first three days panned out. Aus were beaten by one man's brilliance; other chinks in that English team remain.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I don't understand why Australia would be mentally ****ed? They weren't humiliated, they were beaten in an ATG test. When I lose a tight football match I don't play badly next time, if anything I'm more motivated than after a win. Is cricket different?

I can see them being mentally exhausted for sure, but that could equally affect England.

If you said at the start of the match that Australia were one wicket away from beating England in the Test, without Smith playing, and after losing the toss and having the worse of the conditions, you'd say they should be pretty happy with their effort.

But after the lead they had and the dominant position they were in for the whole last 2 days it will definitely hurt to have lost, especially for the multiple players who literally directly ****ed it up by misfielding and dropping catches when England were 9 down.

 

[wpdavid]

One thing we know from recent ashes series in England is that 'momentum' counts for little or nothing.

Beyond that, I don't understand how so many pundits are calling for Pope to replace Roy, unless they're saying that Denly should open.

 

[Uppercut]

If you said at the start of the match that Australia were one wicket away from beating England in the Test, without Smith playing, and after losing the toss and having the worse of the conditions, you'd say they should be pretty happy with their effort.

But after the lead they had and the dominant position they were in for the whole last 2 days it will definitely hurt to have lost, especially for the multiple players who literally directly ****ed it up by misfielding and dropping catches when England were 9 down.

Oh yeah it'll hurt for sure, but that's not always a bad thing. Especially when you have time to regroup.

If they come back and win the next 2 games they'll probably end up looking back on Headingley quite fondly.

 

[TheJediBrah]

One thing we know from recent ashes series in England is that 'momentum' counts for little or nothing.

Beyond that, I don't understand how so many pundits are calling for Pope to replace Roy, unless they're saying that Denly should open.

I wouldn't be surprised if there were calls for an inanimate carbon rod to replace Roy

 

[Lillian Thomson]

After Headingley 81 Australia were on top for a lot of the next Test before collapsing on the last day - 5 wickets for 1 run. The previous Test might have been a factor but you can't be sure. At Old Trafford it was even until another Botham century and they still made 400 chasing 500. At the Oval it was only late resistant that stopped Australia winning - England 7 wickets down at the end.

 

[DonnyBoy]

Sam Curran must surely be worth a game in this test, to replace either Woakes or Buttler who both look like walking wickets , and whose head's look like they've gone in regards to occupation of the crease.

 

[zaremba]

Sam Curran must surely be worth a game in this test, to replace either Woakes or Buttler who both look like walking wickets , and whose head's look like they've gone in regards to occupation of the crease.

Fitness permitting, Anderson will return, and I'm pretty sure he will replace Woakes. Woakes is class but he's done nothing with the bat, and hasn't been trusted with much bowling.

Curran's a talented all-rounder but you'd struggle to say he offers more with the bat than Buttler, and we just don't need a fifth seamer. For me, the question is whether Pope replaces Buttler - I think he should. He's a seriously talented young player and in excellent form in FC cricket.

I'd also bring in Foakes to keep, and strengthen the batting, and I'd keep Bairstow as a specialist batsman. I can't really see what Foakes has done wrong since he first came into the team. But I'm sure they won't change keepers mid-series, and Bairstow clearly enjoys the selectors' total loyalty.

Anyway, my team FWIW:

Burns
Denly
Root
Bairstow
Stokes
Pope
Foakes (w)
Archer
Broad
Leach
Anderson

 

[zaremba]

Anyone know if the OT pitch is likely to take spin?
And if so, any ideas as to whom they might consider as a second spinner, if they play one? I assume Moeen's still out of the picture? And what happened to Dom Bess? I liked the cut of his jib.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I don’t think Old Trafford in the autumn will be for spinners. But if is Abdul probably returns considering he was selected when he wasn’t even playing first class cricket.

 

[Uppercut]

Fitness permitting, Anderson will return, and I'm pretty sure he will replace Woakes. Woakes is class but he's done nothing with the bat, and hasn't been trusted with much bowling.

Curran's a talented all-rounder but you'd struggle to say he offers more with the bat than Buttler, and we just don't need a fifth seamer. For me, the question is whether Pope replaces Buttler - I think he should. He's a seriously talented young player and in excellent form in FC cricket.

I'd also bring in Foakes to keep, and strengthen the batting, and I'd keep Bairstow as a specialist batsman. I can't really see what Foakes has done wrong since he first came into the team. But I'm sure they won't change keepers mid-series, and Bairstow clearly enjoys the selectors' total loyalty.

Anyway, my team FWIW:

Burns
Denly
Root
Bairstow
Stokes
Pope
Foakes (w)
Archer
Broad
Leach
Anderson

Would probably have Pope at 4 and keep Bairstow down the order, which I think suits him much better.

I'm not sure you'd be doing Pope any favours by hiding him at 6. In a series like this by the time he got his eye in he'd almost definitely be batting with the tail.

Other than that I think that's probably the right selection.

 

[DonnyBoy]

Fitness permitting, Anderson will return, and I'm pretty sure he will replace Woakes. Woakes is class but he's done nothing with the bat, and hasn't been trusted with much bowling.

Curran's a talented all-rounder but you'd struggle to say he offers more with the bat than Buttler, and we just don't need a fifth seamer. For me, the question is whether Pope replaces Buttler - I think he should. He's a seriously talented young player and in excellent form in FC cricket.

I'd also bring in Foakes to keep, and strengthen the batting, and I'd keep Bairstow as a specialist batsman. I can't really see what Foakes has done wrong since he first came into the team. But I'm sure they won't change keepers mid-series, and Bairstow clearly enjoys the selectors' total loyalty.

Anyway, my team FWIW:

Burns
Denly
Root
Bairstow
Stokes
Pope
Foakes (w)
Archer
Broad
Leach
Anderson

I would bat Stokes at 4 , Pope 5 Bairstow 6 and Curran at 7. He can provide some rough for Jack Leach to exploit in trying to solve the puzzle of getting Steve Smith out as well, should he need to of course.

 

[zaremba]

@uppercut and @DonnyBoy

Agree that the order isn't ideal, and I'd be OK will all sorts of tinkering to what I've suggested.

But I wouldn't move Stokes, and I don't think they will, because he's doing OK at 5.

@uppercut - where has Pope been batting recently? I read somewhere that when he made his Test debut he batted at 4, having never previously come to the crease for Slurrey earlier than the 20th over or something like that. If he's 4 for Slurrey now, then I agree with your tweak.

 

[Uppercut]

@uppercut and @DonnyBoy

Agree that the order isn't ideal, and I'd be OK will all sorts of tinkering to what I've suggested.

But I wouldn't move Stokes, and I don't think they will, because he's doing OK at 5.

@uppercut - where has Pope been batting recently? I read somewhere that when he made his Test debut he batted at 4, having never previously come to the crease for Slurrey earlier than the 20th over or something like that. If he's 4 for Slurrey now, then I agree with your tweak.

He seems to be batting 5 so, split the difference.

I haven't seen his technique tbf. I'm just assuming it's more suited to the top order than Bairstow's because, well, almost everyone's is.

 

[DonnyBoy]

@uppercut and @DonnyBoy

Agree that the order isn't ideal, and I'd be OK will all sorts of tinkering to what I've suggested.

But I wouldn't move Stokes, and I don't think they will, because he's doing OK at 5.

@uppercut - where has Pope been batting recently? I read somewhere that when he made his Test debut he batted at 4, having never previously come to the crease for Slurrey earlier than the 20th over or something like that. If he's 4 for Slurrey now, then I agree with your tweak.

No offence to you here, but that is the problem with cricket in general , in that players and selectors seem to be fixated on a player having a set number about where they bat in the order instead of getting the best players in regardless of number in the order.
What in reality is the difference between 4 and 5 , Kallis was the man at 4.. Ben Stokes should be there. Too good not to be and hence why having Sam Curran helps as well in not needing to overburden Stokes with ball in hand .

 

[zaremba]

No offence to you here, but that is the problem with cricket in general , in that players and selectors seem to be fixated on a player having a set number about where they bat in the order instead of getting the best players in regardless of number in the order.
What in reality is the difference between 4 and 5 , Kallis was the man at 4.. Ben Stokes should be there. Too good not to be and hence why having Sam Curran helps as well in not needing to overburden Stokes with ball in hand .

I do have some sympathy with the first half of your post, that the place in the order shouldn't matter, but I wonder whether there's a contradiction in insisting that Stokes bat at 4 not 5.

Overall though I do think that there is a difference between 3, 4 and 5. At 3 you're much likelier to face the new ball, at 5 much less. Stokes is prospering at 5. That's probably the only part of our order that currently ain't broke.

 

[DonnyBoy]

I do have some sympathy with the first half of your post, that the place in the order shouldn't matter, but I wonder whether there's a contradiction in insisting that Stokes bat at 4 not 5.

Overall though I do think that there is a difference between 3, 4 and 5. At 3 you're much likelier to face the new ball, at 5 much less. Stokes is prospering at 5. That's probably the only part of our order that currently ain't broke.

Fair point and once id press reply I realised I just made myself sound a tad hypocritical! But I just generally think there should be more flexibility in mindsets about the order.

 

[zaremba]

Oh and welcome to the forum, by the way @DonnyBoy. My advice: take long breaks every now and then to preserve your sanity.

 

[Uppercut]

No offence to you here, but that is the problem with cricket in general , in that players and selectors seem to be fixated on a player having a set number about where they bat in the order instead of getting the best players in regardless of number in the order.
What in reality is the difference between 4 and 5 , Kallis was the man at 4.. Ben Stokes should be there. Too good not to be and hence why having Sam Curran helps as well in not needing to overburden Stokes with ball in hand .

Maybe it matters less than people think, but there's logic to it - you want to see off the new ball up front and score quickly when the tail comes in. Stokes has mediocre defensive technique but is spectacularly good at batting with the tail. In a better team he'd be a 6, but he shouldn't ever bat higher than 5.

 

[zaremba]

I just generally think there should be more flexibility in mindsets about the order.

Completely agree. Particularly once a match is underway. It's very rare that teams ever think to change the batting order even though the match circumstances have changed, the new ball has been seen off, the outwsing bowler is knackered and an offspinner is on, the scoring rate needs a boost, etc.