'One for the purists.'No doubt the end of day reports are going to see heavy use of the word 'attritional'.
Sibley is doing a Kraigg.Excluding washouts, I wonder what's the fewest runs an opener has had finishing not out on day 1?
Still 90 minutes to go of course.
I don't know if time was lost to rain, but apperently John Wright in this innings against England finished day 1 on 55*, having faced 255 balls. He then backed this up with 19 (105) in the second innings. NZ won, so you can't say it was uncalled for, unless you were a spectator.Excluding washouts, I wonder what's the fewest runs an opener has had finishing not out on day 1?
I don't know if time was lost to rain, but apperently John Wright in this innings against England finished day 1 on 55*, having faced 255 balls. He then backed this up with 19 (105) in the second innings. NZ won, so you can't say it was uncalled for, unless you were a spectator.
Yeah, and with so many who like to play shots lower down it doesn't matter if we are a bit stodgy up top.I like Sibley. Really helps to have at least one incredibly boring opener in English conditions.
I think we can beat it: Mudassar Nazar in his 10-hour 114, also against England, finished day 1 on 52*. Again, Boycott and Brearley in the opposition responded in kind. Curiously, the game was a draw.I don't know if time was lost to rain, but apperently John Wright in this innings against England finished day 1 on 55*, having faced 255 balls. He then backed this up with 19 (105) in the second innings. NZ won, so you can't say it was uncalled for, unless you were a spectator.
Edit: This was NZ's first ever win against England.
Yeah there's no problem at all, it's just the only observation on an uneventful day.Got to say I am old-fashioned, but I don't see the problem with the run-rate, Gabriel clearly not right, 4 days to play, grind the bowlers into the dust for me.
Stokes seems a bit agitated about it, he needs to calm down as the great philosopher in my avatar says.
Ooh, that's not clever.....
Yup. When the main criticism levelled at an English opener these days is that they score too slowly it's a sign that they're doing a better job than pretty much anyone else we've had in that role in the last 8 years or so.I like Sibley. Really helps to have at least one incredibly boring opener in English conditions.
The fact that Burns was the first opener since Cook to get to 1000 runs shows how bad it has been. Sibley surely will do it too and the pair could be set for a long run.Yup. When the main criticism levelled at an English opener these days is that they score too slowly it's a sign that they're doing a better job than pretty much anyone else we've had in that role in the last 8 years or so.
Haha yeah, that stat said it all. The 'since 2007' thing was slightly misleading since Strauss was around for 5 years after that, but still.The fact that Burns was the first opener since Cook to get to 1000 runs shows how bad it has been. Sibley surely will do it too and the pair could be set for a long run.
Some people ar saying the batting is bad though, it isn't it's just not fluent.Yeah there's no problem at all, it's just the only observation on an uneventful day.
Compton 775, Jennings 781.Haha yeah, that stat said it all. The 'since 2007' thing was slightly misleading since Strauss was around for 5 years after that, but still.
Who got the closest in the meantime? Compton?
That's it, forget the other stat, the fact the Keaton Jennings is our 2nd most prolific opener since Cook is the most damning thing of allCompton 775, Jennings 781.