• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

*Official* Third Test (Headingley, Leeds) 6–10 July

Spark

Spark

Global Moderator
Starfighter said:
Pitch has been uncovered and is looking pretty green. Grass will probably be cut though. Would generally want to bowl first at Headingley unless it's looking dry as it's historically a great ground to chase on.
Click to expand...
Forecast is the big caveat to this though - if it's going to be murky and rainy the entire back half of the game then you don't want to be chasing under clouds and lights. Though of course you could just win by an innings instead.
 
A

Ashes81

State Vice-Captain
The pitches at Headingley have been pretty good in recent years and I'd be a surprised if it was a green top unless the forecast makes a result unlikely.

More than any other ground Headingley is all about the cloud cover. It can be batting like a toad but if it turns humid, the ball will start doing all sorts.
 
Burgey

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Adders said:
Now Pope is ruled out if they don't bring Foakes back in im really going to lose my ****.......its not going to happen is it so I may as well just get started now.
Click to expand...
Bottle of Respardo incoming to the Burge residence by next week…
 
A

Ashes81

State Vice-Captain
I'd have Foakes in my team all day long but once he was left out of the squad, why would they bring him in now when it's a batman who has been injured.

Lawrence is next in line, I don't agree with that but he is, so he is going to play.
 
Red_Ink_Squid

Red_Ink_Squid

Global Moderator
Spark said:
There does seem a weird element of contrarian stubbornness about this too though. Like, everyone saying x e.g. "Pick Foakes" makes team management go "no **** you we'll do what we want" and do something else.
Click to expand...
Thing is, if Pope had been injured at the start of the summer, they'd absolutely have had Foakes in the side from the start and used the same team structure as last summer with Brook instead of Pope. But when they decided Foakes was gonna be the fall guy for Bairstow and Brook to play together they left him out the squad entirely to make a statement that YJB has the gloves now. I guess it was to discourage chatter about him losing them if he has a couple of bad games behind the stumps.

Well, his performance behind the stumps has been worse than bad, and this injury opens the door for Foakes to come in without having to admit it was a mistake to drop him in the first place. But instead it looks like they'll fall into sunken cost fallacy and continue to leave out Foakes even though he's a better keeper than Bairstow and a better bat than Lawrence.

Frustrating, because even with this series going sideways, Stokes' tenure as captain overall has still been a big net positive, but part of that package is that he's gonna do some obviously daft stuff along the way and keep doing it.
 
GIMH

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
Red_Ink_Squid said:
Thing is, if Pope had been injured at the start of the summer, they'd absolutely have had Foakes in the side from the start and used the same team structure as last summer with Brook instead of Pope. But when they decided Foakes was gonna be the fall guy for Bairstow and Brook to play together they left him out the squad entirely to make a statement that YJB has the gloves now. I guess it was to discourage chatter about him losing them if he has a couple of bad games behind the stumps.

Well, his performance behind the stumps has been worse than bad, and this injury opens the door for Foakes to come in without having to admit it was a mistake to drop him in the first place. But instead it looks like they'll fall into sunken cost fallacy and continue to leave out Foakes even though he's a better keeper than Bairstow and a better bat than Lawrence.

Frustrating, because even with this series going sideways, Stokes' tenure as captain overall has still been a big net positive, but part of that package is that he's gonna do some obviously daft stuff along the way and keep doing it.
Click to expand...
Yeah this was a real opportunity to fix a mistake without admitting you made one.
 
Spark

Spark

Global Moderator
What's the selection structure these days? Is Stokes formally part of the selectors' panel, is it just McCullum making the calls, or is there a formal National Selector like in the Ed Smith days?
 
H

halba

State Captain
Spark said:
What's the selection structure these days? Is Stokes formally part of the selectors' panel, is it just McCullum making the calls, or is there a formal National Selector like in the Ed Smith days?
Click to expand...
Selectors in name only. 100% influence is jointly Stokes and Mccullum - nobody else. this is bazball era.

eg Stokes texted Moeen 'Ashes?" and he was subsequently brought out of retirement, suggests those two are indeed the selectors.
 
Red_Ink_Squid

Red_Ink_Squid

Global Moderator
Spark said:
What's the selection structure these days? Is Stokes formally part of the selectors' panel, is it just McCullum making the calls, or is there a formal National Selector like in the Ed Smith days?
Click to expand...
Last year there was a panel with Key, Mo Bobat, McCullum, Stokes and James Taylor as specialist scout/selector.

I've not heard it discussed this year but presumably it's the same. I think Luke Wright replaced James Taylor over the winter.
 
Spark

Spark

Global Moderator
I've long wondered about the merits of having the captain also be a selector. They're obviously always going to have informal influence, so why not make that formal and structured, but Michael Clarke was pretty forthright after his time - which was the only time where we tried it in recent memory - that it was a mistake and it placed undue burderns and cross-pressures on him as a captain not just of the playing XI but the whole squad.
 
sledger

sledger

Spanish_Vicente
Spark said:
I've long wondered about the merits of having the captain also be a selector. They're obviously always going to have informal influence but Michael Clarke was pretty forthright after his time - which was the only time where we tried it in recent memory - that it was a mistake and it placed undue burderns and cross-pressures on him as a captain not just of the playing XI but the whole squad.
Click to expand...
It's a fundamentally bad idea imo. A captain should certainly always be consulted by the selectors, but should never be one. There needs to be a clear separation of powers in these sorts of environments, for precisely the same reasons we have them in pretty much every other aspect of society.
 
mackembhoy

mackembhoy

International Regular
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top