Spark
Global Moderator
Ball-striking wise yeah he's as good as it gets. More to Test batting than whacking Pakistan and NZ bowlers through the line though.Extremely is an extreme word.
Ball-striking wise yeah he's as good as it gets. More to Test batting than whacking Pakistan and NZ bowlers through the line though.Extremely is an extreme word.
You need to have some semblance of a defensive game to be a medium-long term success in test cricket though, and I’ve barely see him play a defensive shot in the first two tests. The bloke is a terrific ball striker but three for **** all late day four with the ball moving around is a time to be compact. He’s as loose as a gooseHe's clearly extremely talented but he does have to deal with whatever's happened to him in this game with the short ball, because the real fear is that it messes up his footwork to the full balls too.
frightened to face the aussiesStokes you coward, have a go!
He’s just hit your premier spinner for six you oafStokes you coward, have a go!
Agreed. Barring an almost biblical recovery by England, the post-match interviews should be quite something to behold.Hopefully Robinson and Crawley shut the eff up now. Only trash talk if you can back it up.
Finally he listened to a knowledgeable cricket mindHe’s just hit your premier spinner for six you oaf
Foakes at six, have you been drinking?My side for the third Test, FWIW (absolutely nothing ftr)
Bairstow
Duckett
Pope
Root
Brook
Foakes
Dawson, possibly Ahmed
Woakes
Robinson
Broad
Wood
Stokes isn't bloody fit and Crawley is useless. But that side has much more balance. Tongue unlucky. may choose him over Robinson or Wood if he's not fit.
if Woakes bat 8 why notFoakes at six, have you been drinking?
Funny that with England being 71-4 chasing 371!Australia is actually playing more attacking cricket than england