Roy’s spot at the top should not be in doubt

[Niall]

He was someone I think was genuinely unlucky, even sans hindsight. I get why you'd want to make some changes after the 13/14 Ashes but he was one of the few players who actually could say he did what was expected (Stokes and Broad probably the other two). Furthermore that was nightmarish bowling.

Treated poorly.

Would any other opener in any nation bar the likes of Smith have done any better against that bowling line up?

Third highest scorer of that series for England I think behind Bell and KP also.

I think the series after that was Sri Lanka at home,,he deserved a go against them.

 

[morgieb]

Treated poorly.

Would any other opener in any nation bar the likes of Smith have done any better against that bowling line up?

Third highest scorer of that series for England I think behind Bell and KP also.

I think the series after that was Sri Lanka at home,,he deserved a go against them.

And given that the same bowling attack sent Smith into premature retirement, I think it says a lot.

 

[TheJediBrah]

He was someone I think was genuinely unlucky, even sans hindsight. I get why you'd want to make some changes after the 13/14 Ashes but he was one of the few players who actually could say he did what was expected (Stokes and Broad probably the other two). Furthermore that was nightmarish bowling.

England's 2 best batsmen for that series never played Test cricket again. Maybe they dropped the wrong ****s. Carberry never recovered from that.

 

[Tom Flint]

Denly to open, Pope in and Roy back to Surrey.

Back to South Africa!

 

[Jarquis]

In fairness, I'd say after what we've seen in the 5 innings in this series that there isn't much doubt anymore...

 

[wpdavid]

Back to South Africa!

Er, he left SA when he was 10. Anyway, we'll take him back in the Surrey middle order thank you very much.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Tbf, he's been about as bad as anyone in that side not named burns or stokes.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Denly has secured his place in the upper order by top scoring in the first innings at Headingley, so might as well open.

 

[theegyptian]

What's really annoyed me is the constanting tinkering of the middle order positions in the series in contrast to Roy at the top.

First test Buttler at 5, Second test he batted 5 first innings and 6 second innings, third test he bats 7. Stokes has moved from 6 to 5 after 3 innings in the series. Bairstow batted 7 the first two tests and then is back batting at 6 after a couple of reasonable innings in the second test.

Like really they've played enough tests together for the management to know what positions they'd like them to bat. (it's not like they are moving around because of changes in the top order, they are just rotating positions between 5 and 7.) It just makes the management look incompetent and like there's no long term thinking - and is confusing for the players.

And then there is Roy who they've stuck with as opener whilst he has looked terrible and Bayliss admitted at the start of the game is batting out of position and would be better suited in the middle order. I mean ffs you are the ****ing coach. You've got Denly at 4 who has opened the batting in fc cricket.

Plus the move to bat Root at 3. Which was fine if it was Roy moving down the order. But to move Root to 3, and then keep Roy as opener and protect Denly at 4. Like wtf

Like you are always going to have issues when the batting is failing, and things will get moved around but these decisions would take a lot to decipher under any circumstance.

 

[Shaggy Alfresco]

Christ. When was England's top order last this bad? 1999? I can't think of any time since I began watching cricket.

 

[GIMH]

Top order has been bad for years now, the problem is the middle order have joined in with them this series

 

[wpdavid]

Christ. When was England's top order last this bad? 1999? I can't think of any time since I began watching cricket.

On paper, the top order in 1999 was much better, even if they didn't perform well in that series. The problem there was no lower order to bail us out. See the final test at the Oval where Chris Cairns rescued NZ and we had Andy Caddick at number 8, followed by Tufnell, Giddins and someone else equally hopeless whose name escapes me. Maybe Mullally.

 

[wpdavid]

I think we're heading towards a situation where the one-day team bears minimal resemblance to the test side. As much down to workload as having to master different approaches. Not that I think we have 3 non-ODI players to make a really good top 3, but guys like Burns, Sibley and one other may develop sufficiently to be effective enough to provide a platform for Root, Stokes and whoever else plays in the middle order.

 

[Compton]

On paper, the top order in 1999 was much better, even if they didn't perform well in that series. The problem there was no lower order to bail us out. See the final test at the Oval where Chris Cairns rescued NZ and we had Andy Caddick at number 8, followed by Tufnell, Giddins and someone else equally hopeless whose name escapes me. Maybe Mullally.

Yeah, NZ had a first innings 50 from Vettori batting at 10 as well.

(Also you’re right, it was Mullally)

 

[Compton]

I, for one, am excited for the inevitable recall of James Vince.

 

[wpdavid]

I, for one, am excited for the inevitable recall of James Vince.

As excited as the Australian slip cordon?

 

[GIMH]

Burns is probably the only England batsman coming out of the series to date with a better reputation than he had before it

Of course, a few others may change that today when they drive us to a famous victory

 

[wpdavid]

Burns is probably the only England batsman coming out of the series to date with a better reputation than he had before it

Of course, a few others may change that today when they drive us to a famous victory

Hard to remember that most of us thought it would be an act of kindness to drop him after the Ireland match. I still suspect he'll end up with a sub-30 test average, but I may be willing to take that in these troubled times.

 

[Spark]

Hard to remember that most of us thought it would be an act of kindness to drop him after the Ireland match. I still suspect he'll end up with a sub-30 test average, but I may be willing to take that in these troubled times.

You should absolutely not be willing to take that, those are tailend numbers.

 

[GIMH]

You should absolutely not be willing to take that, those are tailend numbers.

When your alternatives are sub-20 what can you do?

Based on all available evidence since Strauss retired, and then Cook, we might as well stick with Burns for the time being.