flibbertyjibber
Request Your Custom Title Now!
In all honesty the options not in the squad are crap anyway.Oh yes, him and Mo being the wrong way around is what was going so awfully wrong for them.
Trevor, you're a genius.
In all honesty the options not in the squad are crap anyway.Oh yes, him and Mo being the wrong way around is what was going so awfully wrong for them.
Trevor, you're a genius.
This has been dramatically disproven multiple times and you know it.He was picked because they know his game stands up really well at test/international level, perhaps better than anyone in Australia's bar Smith.
It's amazing that this actually needs to be stated.This has been dramatically disproven multiple times and you know it.
Poms are damned if they do, and damned if they don't with Bairstow. Realistically he's their best bat after Root atm. But maybe batting up the order would just bring him back to the sort of meh he's previously been at 4 or 5. He's definitely got a solid record at 6&7 and you wouldn't potentially weaken a strength unless you were really desperate. Missing Stokes is really killing the Poms in this regard as a Stokes/Bairstow/Ali 5/6/7 would make a massive difference to them.I think they need to bat him there because he can go big and has looked decent thus far, and to put more space between Lyon and the middle order lefties. He’s been owning them all series. The longer he has to bowl to right handers the better for England. If Bairstow and Root blunt him it also makes the quicks bowl more overs, especially in Perth where Lyon is likely to get less turn than elsewhere.
Lyon likely being less effective on this surface is also a reason for picking MMarsh imo.
So you'd bat Cook at six?I'd almost be tempted to go for the Bairstow at 3 thing that has been suggested and hide the **** bats away in the middle.
#FullCricSimIf Stokes/Balance/Ali are 5-7 are we batting Malan at 8?
But the sharp point being it has been contradicted at Adelaide where his innings set up a win to enable us to go 2 up to regaining the biggest prize in test cricket. That's atleast twice he's played defining innings in a day nighter at Adelaide and in hard conditions. The selectors most likely took that into account in their decision and its been completely vindicated.This has been dramatically disproven multiple times and you know it.
Actually, I doubt they took a single 49 into specific account.But the sharp point being it has been contradicted at Adelaide where his innings set up a win to enable us to go 2 up to regaining the biggest prize in test cricket. That's atleast twice he's played defining innings in a day nighter at Adelaide and in hard conditions. The selectors most likely took that into account in their decision and its been completely vindicated.
People can "understand" your view and yet still have the hide to disagree. That 49 won us the game. Therefore important knock and good evidence he can perform in the conditions given the scarce number of games played in them. So they may have taken the punt on his form at Adelaide just as they have done for others on even less evidence for the subcon. But now the selectors can crow twice. Their judgment has been vindicated and can now use 2 instances of evidence to pick him again.Actually, I doubt they took a single 49 into specific account.
And just because he's been successful doesn't mean that the logic behind his selection does was not flawed. How hard is this for you and a couple of others to understand?