Cook and Trott Out

[Deleted member 15344]

despite that NZ still got 500+, not sure I see us bowling them out in 75ish overs second time round. if the ball doesnt swing i struggle to see where we get wickets from

Getting the last 7 wickets for 120 runs was a good fightback from the bowlers that is something to build on

 

[HomerJSimpson]

Getting the last 7 wickets for 120 runs was a good fightback from the bowlers that is something to build on

Clutching at straws!

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Quality knock from Cook today 2nd test ton this year - not bad for someone in abject form

Alex Hales had a great tweet yesterday - said its funny that people are slating Ballance after praising him for getting to a 1000 runs for England quicker than anyone else

 

[fundy]

Quality knock from Cook today 2nd test ton this year - not bad for someone in abject form

Alex Hales had a great tweet yesterday - said its funny that people are slating Ballance after praising him for getting to a 1000 runs for England quicker than anyone else

Yep Cook played superb, could see from very early on today he was in much better nick than he has been, feet moving better and leaving the ball better. Definitely been put some time in the nets recently

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Yep Cook played superb, could see from very early on today he was in much better nick than he has been, feet moving better and leaving the ball better. Definitely been put some time in the nets recently

Yeah could see him battling yesterday and his timing looked good - could see the bat wasn't too far from his body and was confident

 

[HomerJSimpson]

You still can't ignore (well some can) that the top order for England fail more often than not and that compared to many other top sides we lose too many early wickets which can put the team on the back foot. If no-one makes a big knock to dig them out of the hole they are usually rolled over inside three days. At 30-4 on the first day it needed the big innings and they won't always happen.

 

[fundy]

some comical views on declarations from ex players being bandied about, talk of setting NZ 320-330 in 80 overs. Test been played at 4rpo with 330ish a day being scored, cant see why theyd ever set less than say 360 in 70 overs here, especially in only a 2 test series

 

[Deleted member 15344]

some comical views on declarations from ex players being bandied about, talk of setting NZ 320-330 in 80 overs. Test been played at 4rpo with 330ish a day being scored, cant see why theyd ever set less than say 360 in 70 overs here, especially in only a 2 test series

Some still think getting 250 on the last day is a tough ask - it clearly isn't and think anything over 380 is when to declare

 

[HomerJSimpson]

some comical views on declarations from ex players being bandied about, talk of setting NZ 320-330 in 80 overs. Test been played at 4rpo with 330ish a day being scored, cant see why theyd ever set less than say 360 in 70 overs here, especially in only a 2 test series

Totally agree. Realise we've done well to escape with a draw, bat out as long as possible tomorrow and play NZ out of it and take the draw, regroup and try and win the next one

 

[fundy]

Some still think getting 250 on the last day is a tough ask - it clearly isn't and think anything over 380 is when to declare

pitches are very different these days, mainly due to the drainage systems, they just dont break up like pitches used to. this pitch going to be very similar on day 5 as to how it was on day 2. be a min of 5rpo i expect unless they get bowled out which looks highly unlikely

 

[HomerJSimpson]

pitches are very different these days, mainly due to the drainage systems, they just dont break up like pitches used to. this pitch going to be very similar on day 5 as to how it was on day 2. be a min of 5rpo i expect unless they get bowled out which looks highly unlikely

I can see NZ getting 5 runs an over especially with wickets in hand. I would cut the losses and run with a draw or set an unrealistic target to chase

 

[Deleted member 15344]

pitches are very different these days, mainly due to the drainage systems, they just dont break up like pitches used to. this pitch going to be very similar on day 5 as to how it was on day 2. be a min of 5rpo i expect unless they get bowled out which looks highly unlikely

It's a shame they don't break up to give the bowlers a hand - too much focus on making this pitch playable all 5 days for batting IMO

 

[Deleted member 18588]

It's a shame they don't break up to give the bowlers a hand - too much focus on making this pitch playable all 5 days for batting IMO

Actually has much more to do with the drainage of outfields in an attempt to ensure that play can recommence after rain delays. Too many occasions in the past where play could not restart despite the pitch and surrounds, including run ups, having been covered and playable but the outfield was not.

The drainage of the outfield also means the square retains less moisture and, therefore, wickets hold together better.

The County Championship results confirm that those grounds that have undertaken this kind of work (usually Test grounds) tend to produce less "three day" results.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Actually has much more to do with the drainage of outfields in an attempt to ensure that play can recommence after rain delays. Too many occasions in the past where play could not restart despite the pitch and surrounds, including run ups, having been covered and playable but the outfield was not.

The drainage of the outfield also means the square retains less moisture and, therefore, wickets hold together better.

The County Championship results confirm that those grounds that have undertaken this kind of work (usually Test grounds) tend to produce less "three day" results.

Cheers for the info

So how about Stokes ?

 

[Deleted member 18588]

Cheers for the info

So how about Stokes ?

Terrific counter attacking innings but to quote the "experts" on Sky last night he is a batsman who can bowl a bit, same is true of Moeen Ali and the truth is that England cannot afford them both.

Generally speaking Tests are won by taking 20 wickets and that is usually very difficult with only three specialist bowlers, in this case Anderson, Broad and Wood.

As Bob Willis and Jeremy Coney both said Ben Stokes is not currently sufficiently dependable to be a mainline Test bowler.

Six batsmen, four bowlers and a wicket-keeper. Where does Stokes fit into that?

The only batsman that is certain of a place long term is Root and, probably, Cook so that leaves possible vacancies at 2, 3, 4 & 6.

Stokes could fill the last of those spots but it would then leave no space for Ali who seems to be our only spin option. Who would be a selector?

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Terrific counter attacking innings but to quote the "experts" on Sky last night he is a batsman who can bowl a bit, same is true of Moeen Ali and the truth is that England cannot afford them both.

Generally speaking Tests are won by taking 20 wickets and that is usually very difficult with only three specialist bowlers, in this case Anderson, Broad and Wood.

As Bob Willis and Jeremy Coney both said Ben Stokes is not currently sufficiently dependable to be a mainline Test bowler.

Six batsmen, four bowlers and a wicket-keeper. Where does Stokes fit into that?

The only batsman that is certain of a place long term is Root and, probably, Cook so that leaves possible vacancies at 2, 3, 4 & 6.

Stokes could fill the last of those spots but it would then leave no space for Ali who seems to be our only spin option. Who would be a selector?

When Flintoff started out he was a batsmen who can bowl a bit - Stokes already has the pace and raw ability to become a quick dangerous bowler , as with Freddie and even Jimmy he will develop his bowling to become a good 4th option given time like others.

That along with his obvious shot making talent with the bat makes him a great player to bat in the 6/7 slot and able to move up the order of needed.

The good news is England are going to allow that to develop and with a bit of luck even in this test he would have had three wickets and NZ with a lot less runs.

 

[Deleted member 18588]

When Flintoff started out he was a batsmen who can bowl a bit - Stokes already has the pace and raw ability to become a quick dangerous bowler , as with Freddie and even Jimmy he will develop his bowling to become a good 4th option given time like others.

That along with his obvious shot making talent with the bat makes him a great player to bat in the 6/7 slot and able to move up the order of needed.

The good news is England are going to allow that to develop and with a bit of luck even in this test he would have had three wickets and NZ with a lot less runs.

Unfortunately time is a luxury we do not have. Only Anderson and Broad are experienced so we cannot have both our other bowlers learning "on the job."

Wood has only played approx 25 First Class games so is still a work in progress and Stokes remains far too erratic with a "four ball" virtually guaranteed each over.

Stokes' batting is also rather "feast or famine" but I agree his two innings in this Test do suggest that he could probably do a good job at six. That does mean no place for Ali and thus no spin option.

Also would disagree about Flintoff, I would say that he always was a bowling all-rounder rather than a batsman who bowled a bit.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Unfortunately time is a luxury we do not have. Only Anderson and Broad are experienced so we cannot have both our other bowlers learning "on the job."

Wood has only played approx 25 First Class games so is still a work in progress and Stokes remains far too erratic with a "four ball" virtually guaranteed each over.

Stokes' batting is also rather "feast or famine" but I agree his two innings in this Test do suggest that he could probably do a good job at six. That does mean no place for Ali and thus no spin option.

Also would disagree about Flintoff, I would say that he always was a bowling all-rounder rather than a batsman who bowled a bit.

The only way players develop their game at the high level is playing at the high level - always have to have time to allow players to nurture their natural game whilst playing

Yes time is a luxury we do have because we cannot keep swapping in and out players - England did that throughout the 90's and it got us nowhere

Its the same with Ali - he continues in the side to allow him to develop as a spinner

Right now it's the options that England have gone for and it's the team they must give time to develop as a team - it's something we did under Flower and Fletcher , since Flower left we have had too many changes and we need to let a team settle

 

[Paperboy]

I just feel sorry for Rashid, runs and wickets in div 1. Obviously something they don't like about him!!

 

[Deleted member 18588]

The only way players develop their game at the high level is playing at the high level - always have to have time to allow players to nurture their natural game whilst playing

Yes time is a luxury we do have because we cannot keep swapping in and out players - England did that throughout the 90's and it got us nowhere

Its the same with Ali - he continues in the side to allow him to develop as a spinner

Right now it's the options that England have gone for and it's the team they must give time to develop as a team - it's something we did under Flower and Fletcher , since Flower left we have had too many changes and we need to let a team settle

That is only possible if the players in question show enough to suggest that there is something to develop and personally I have not seen that with Stokes' bowling. Also the team needs sufficient experience around that potential.

Also please don't remind me of Andy Flower. I am afraid I see him as a reason for many of England's current woes and he continues to have considerable influence in his current, less public, role.