*Official* Fourth Test (Old Trafford, Manchester) 19-23 July

[halba]

Stokes? Wood?

More than half of them do on current form
Bairstow makes in it as a batter - 4th test was crazy hitting.
Of course on career averages not many do, but on current form, Aus form is terrible, they should've lost that match by an innings
I have already written off Aus to either a defeat or a draw for the final test- reason being they are simple unable to play Wood and Woakes in the current form, and the bowlers are simply too expensive and panic too easily against bazball, and are poorly led by Cummins.

 

[loterry1994]

Harsh to say and all in hindsight now because the forecasts weren’t 100% clear but you can say Stokes declaration might of costed England. Brook and Stokes shut up shop day two for no reason after belting Australia for like 6 an over they should have had around a 120 lead the end of that day. Then come out day 3 and get a lead of like 170 and declared but they were worried about guys getting milestones.

They ended up getting four wickets day 3 imagine they had an extra 1.5-2 hours to bowl at Australia that day and had them 6-7 down coming into day 4 then it’s a whole different story.

 

[Skipper Pup]

Choice of Duckett is interesting because surely based on the four Tests you’d pick Crawley and Khawaja as the openers

If it was a Team of the Series so far then someone like Marsh is getting in.

The team I was alluding to was a literal best in their position, it was based on form over the last 2-3 years rather than being a career (hence no Warner/Anderson) or series thing (hence no Crawley/Wood/Woakes/Starc).

I picked Duckett over Crawley because he's quite clearly the better of the two right now - their record speak for themselves.

There's definitely a few conversations to be had and I think Hazlewood v Woakes is a good one. If Bairstow could catch then his h2h with Carey would have also been a good one.

 

[Spark]

If it's form over the last two or three years then Hazlewood is close to the last bloke you'd pick because he basically has none.

 

[Skipper Pup]

If it's form over the last two or three years then Hazlewood is close to the last bloke you'd pick because he basically has none.

If 40 wickets at 25.35 is the last bloke picked then I need to go lie down.

 

[Burgey]

Well would you look at that!

 

[Spark]

If 40 wickets at 25.35 is the last bloke picked then I need to go lie down.

Yeah, fortunately for him he was considered so completely ineffective in subcontinental conditions that he wasn't considered for selection after one game in those conditions. A very good thing for maintaining a superficially good record.

 

[Burgey]

No draws in 2001 IIRC. The 5th Test was an innings win for Aus, the game Langer came back in as opener to join Hayden for the first time after Slats was left out all, and Steve Waugh made 150 with a DVT

True this. My bad

 

[Skipper Pup]

Yeah, fortunately for him he was considered so completely ineffective in subcontinental conditions that he wasn't considered for selection after one game in those conditions. A very good thing for maintaining a superficially good record.

You could also add the context that the one game was his first back from injury. The entire attack got belted that test and there's no shame in being dropped for a second spinner in the subcontinent.

 

[Spark]

You could also add the context that the one game was his first back from injury. The entire attack got belted that test and there's no shame in being dropped for a second spinner in the subcontinent.

That doesn't explain why he was never considered for selection after that one game. It's not as if there weren't any spots available for fast bowlers after that.

It certainly doesn't explain why we should take his average at face value when it certainly would have looked much worse had he played those Test matches that Starc and Cummins played in those conditions. Or, to make more of a point, why he gets in over Robinson, who did play those games.

 

[Skipper Pup]

That doesn't explain why he was never considered for selection after that one game. It's not as if there weren't any spots available for fast bowlers after that.

It certainly doesn't explain why we should take his average at face value when it certainly would have looked much worse had he played those Test matches that Starc and Cummins played in those conditions.

My guess would be that they weren't going to drop the captain and Starc provides something different, for obvious reasons. Both their numbers that that series improved after the first test so there's no reason to just assume Hazlewood couldn't have done the same.

Regardless you seem to have a Hazlewood agenda. That same "superficially good record" is about to see him cruise past Hoggard and Swann.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

If it's form over the last two or three years then Hazlewood is close to the last bloke you'd pick because he basically has none.

If 40 wickets at 25.35 is the last bloke picked then I need to go lie down.

From 1 Jan 200
Worse average than Broad, Anderson, Cummins, Robinson, Wood, and Boland. Better average than Starc, but Starc has left-arm variety, more pace and is a decent 8/9 while Hazlewood is a poor 11.

 

[Spark]

My guess would be that they weren't going to drop the captain and Starc provides something different, for obvious reasons. Both their numbers that that series improved after the first test so there's no reason to just assume Hazlewood couldn't have done the same.

But they didn't. Because he wasn't picked. So therefore that average should not be taken at face value in comparison to bowlers who did have to play in unhelpful conditions and got the statistical whacking that resulted. It's particularly silly as an argument that he deserves to get in over the likes of Robinson and Anderson who by and large have actually played in those conditions and did okay (or in some cases really well).

Regardless you seem to have a Hazlewood agenda. That same "superficially good record" is about to see him cruise past Hoggard and Swann.

We're just talking about the last three years here, no? You know, the ones where he's barely strung two games together without getting injured or dropped?

 

[loterry1994]

Don’t think they’ll drop hazlewood mainly cause of loyalty but his 5fer was one the worse I’ve seen. England was in t20 mode all their first batting innings someone was bound to take a 5fer. That being said it won’t be easy for Neser or Murphy to come in also and not expect to get belted when they haven’t had much game time this series

 

[Skipper Pup]

From 1 Jan 200
Worse average than Broad, Anderson, Cummins, Robinson, Wood, and Boland. Better average than Starc, but Starc has left-arm variety, more pace and is a decent 8/9 while Hazlewood is a poor 11.

Well at first I thought suggesting Boland would have resulted in some hate but seems on reflection maybe I should have put him ahead of Hazlewood.

 

[Shri]

has this been posted already

 

[Redbacks]

This is a great series for both teams so far:

England greats feel like they have won the ashes, and we will actually have them, Win-Win

 

[CricAddict]

This is a great series for both teams so far:

England greats feel like they have won the ashes, and we will actually have them, Win-Win

Yeah. England lead 4-0 in the spiritual Ashes anyways.

 

[Spofforth]

Yeah. England lead 4-0 in the spiritual Ashes anyways.

Also in the lead for most spiritual centuries (1-0). We struggle with those, only count real ones.

 

[mr_mister]

has this been posted already

View attachment 36627

The boundary countback as a form of tiebreaker far more insulting to the cricket fan imo but I like the sentiment