Squad unchanged from last test

Madness.

No surprise.
It'll almost certainly be Anderson for Robinson and no other changes.

I’d have liked to see them get Foakes in there somehow but it’s not that surprising they haven’t given their approach since they took over.

I am amazed they haven’t added in either a keeper or another batter.

Sends a shocking message to everyone on the outside. They would rather go in to this test match with 1 player short than being someone in.

Bordeauxclaret wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 11, 2023 11:25 am

I’d have liked to see them get Foakes in there somehow but it’s not that surprising they haven’t given their approach since they took over.

They have literally opted to have no one in the squad than give him the 15th slot.

He’s probably never going to play for England again if that’s how they feel

Olly robinson and hes injured

Unless he's literally in a wheelchair, they were always going to try give Anderson his Old Trafford Ashes Swansong.

Can't begrudge him of that after years of contributions, even his figures haven't been great in the first 2 tests.

I'd assume he'll be in for Robinson with the rest of the team from 3rd Test

Foakes will be shoved in if we lose at OT... 4 tests too late.

criminalclaret wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 11, 2023 11:33 am

Can't begrudge him of that after years of contributions, even his figures haven't been great in the first 2 tests.

They'd have been a lot better if we were awake behind the stumps.

Didn’t we win the last test?

Jimmy just has to play as this is his moment in these Ashes at OT

I remember a Darren Gough criticism of the squad from many, many years ago. He commented tbat it was harder to get dropped than picked.

I appreciate squad harmony etc but it sends a very bad message out. Form is secondary to your name.

Seems a bit arrogant from England. Perhaps that will work in our favour, perhaps it won’t.

The question of who takes the No 3 spot is interesting. As much as it took balls from Mo, I don't think that's a longer term solution. Brooks just feels much more comfortable at 5, which he showed on 2nd Innings on Sunday.

After Bairstow's performance with gloves and ball, does he step up to Stokes and say "gimme a chance at 3, I have a point to prove"?

Any option is explored in this current England strategy so who knows

Worryingly stubborn

Newcastleclaret93 wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 11, 2023 11:25 am

I am amazed they haven’t added in either a keeper or another batter.

Sends a shocking message to everyone on the outside. They would rather go in to this test match with 1 player short than being someone in.

Or use the spare batter that has been in the squad and through all the prep with them in Dan Lawrence.

chekhov wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 11, 2023 11:39 am

Didn’t we win the last test?

You’d be surprised reading the mass panic and outpouring of misery on here.

dandeclaret wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 11, 2023 11:46 am

Or use the spare batter that has been in the squad and through all the prep with them in Dan Lawrence.

He's just been bowled out for 1 off 7 balls by Tom Bailey at Blackpool CC.

Newcastleclaret93 wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 11, 2023 11:26 am

They have literally opted to have no one in the squad than give him the 15th slot.

He’s probably never going to play for England again if that’s how they feel

They’ve clearly told the players at the start of the series that they are going to stick with them, as they had done with Crawley over the last year.
They must think it takes some pressure off the players and in turn they’ll get more out of them.

For me I’d like to see Foakes play, although I’m not sure who would come out, Bairstows form with the bat over the past 18 months makes it difficult.

But there is no surprise really in that squad.

You can forgive Bairstow one bad Test and he seemed to improve in the 2nd. But he looked very unfit in this last Test.
When Brook ran for the catch that JB should have claimed early, it told us all he's not fit enough to be out there.

I'm getting a little concerned there's not enough brains in the England set up. Plenty of bravado and confidence which I welcome, but a tactical brain is needed.

Quickenthetempo wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 11, 2023 12:24 pm

You can forgive Bairstow one bad Test and he seemed to improve in the 2nd. But he looked very unfit in this last Test.
When Brook ran for the catch that JB should have claimed early, it told us all he's not fit enough to be out there.

I'm getting a little concerned there's not enough brains in the England set up. Plenty of bravado and confidence which I welcome, but a tactical brain is needed.

Did it tell us he's not fit enough (Bairstow is famously obsessively fit), or did it tell us that there was a breakdown of communication (which would have been Bairstow's fault) that led to a hesitation between the two players, and which Brook then remedied? It was clearly Bairstow's catch initially, but Brook was sprinting, and either Bairstow didn't call for Brook to leave it to him or the call wasn't heard in what was a febrile atmosphere - and if Bairstow didn't call as he should have done, it might also be that Bairstow's confidence has taken a knock over the course of the series, understandably. That might be another reason to consider standing him down, but it's rather different to fitness.

Bairstow looks to me to be a bit tense, both as batter and keeper. You can always tell when Bairstow is tight as a batter because his bottom hand takes over and he closes off and ends up shaping to hit the ball too hard and drag it, which was the case with both dismissals at Headingley. With a bit of luck the break between the two tests will do him good and he can come back refreshed. He's been retained as he's clearly the best placed keeper to also be a top 6 batter, which is needed in order to play 5 bowlers. This is the sort of compromise that becomes necessary when you don't have an all rounder to bat at 6 and bowl 15 overs a day. As a keeper, when he was last dropped he was underrated (he was dropped for his batting returns, not his keeping, but hadn't been helped by moving around the order). He doesn't look the keeper he was to me, but he's not done it much for 3 years, and his ability as a number 6/7 batsman is beyond doubt. Form is temporary and class is permanent, and all that.

Bairstow was quite brilliant with the bat last year and it’s right to back him this year and hope that he gets his form back. Giving players a run is very important in terms of giving them confidence and JB has earned his chance. Foakes is a super keeper but we need the batting strength, given Stokes’ injury problems with bowling.
Very jealous of anyone with OT tickets. Hoping for a win as I have 3 days at the Oval!

Claret53 wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 11, 2023 1:07 pm

Bairstow was quite brilliant with the bat last year and it’s right to back him this year and hope that he gets his form back. Giving players a run is very important in terms of giving them confidence and JB has earned his chance. Foakes is a super keeper but we need the batting strength, given Stokes’ injury problems with bowling.
Very jealous of anyone with OT tickets. Hoping for a win as I have 3 days at the Oval!

He didn't keep wicket last year, we've been here before, you play your best keeper. All for him keeping his place as a Batsman.

Bob Taylor and Alan Knott, it would hit the headlines if they missed a chance. Bairstow has missed 8

James Rew is 132 Not Out at lunch. Another big score for this young wicket keeper. If the current selectors have no intention of selecting Foakes then this young lad should not be overlooked. A far better keeper than Bairstow already and very much in the runs.
Just about the top run scorer in Division 1.

Does anyone know what he’s actually like as a keeper??

claretspice wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 11, 2023 12:45 pm

Did it tell us he's not fit enough (Bairstow is famously obsessively fit), or did it tell us that there was a breakdown of communication (which would have been Bairstow's fault) that led to a hesitation between the two players, and which Brook then remedied? It was clearly Bairstow's catch initially, but Brook was sprinting, and either Bairstow didn't call for Brook to leave it to him or the call wasn't heard in what was a febrile atmosphere - and if Bairstow didn't call as he should have done, it might also be that Bairstow's confidence has taken a knock over the course of the series, understandably. That might be another reason to consider standing him down, but it's rather different to fitness.

Bairstow looks to me to be a bit tense, both as batter and keeper. You can always tell when Bairstow is tight as a batter because his bottom hand takes over and he closes off and ends up shaping to hit the ball too hard and drag it, which was the case with both dismissals at Headingley. With a bit of luck the break between the two tests will do him good and he can come back refreshed. He's been retained as he's clearly the best placed keeper to also be a top 6 batter, which is needed in order to play 5 bowlers. This is the sort of compromise that becomes necessary when you don't have an all rounder to bat at 6 and bowl 15 overs a day. As a keeper, when he was last dropped he was underrated (he was dropped for his batting returns, not his keeping, but hadn't been helped by moving around the order). He doesn't look the keeper he was to me, but he's not done it much for 3 years, and his ability as a number 6/7 batsman is beyond doubt. Form is temporary and class is permanent, and all that.

The big positive to fitness, is it improves speed of clear thought.
WKs are alive every ball, they have to be.

I've played in quite a few cricket teams and don't know of any keeper who wouldn't have screamed for that straight away.

The management need to pick up on those obvious signs he not quite right.

criminalclaret wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 11, 2023 11:43 am

The question of who takes the No 3 spot is interesting. As much as it took balls from Mo, I don't think that's a longer term solution. Brooks just feels much more comfortable at 5, which he showed on 2nd Innings on Sunday.

After Bairstow's performance with gloves and ball, does he step up to Stokes and say "gimme a chance at 3, I have a point to prove"?

Any option is explored in this current England strategy so who knows

I think Stokes is the best bet. He has the technique and the temperament. He could also influence the game from a position of strength rather than when it's last chance saloon with the tail.

claretspice wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 11, 2023 12:45 pm

Did it tell us he's not fit enough (Bairstow is famously obsessively fit), or did it tell us that there was a breakdown of communication (which would have been Bairstow's fault) that led to a hesitation between the two players, and which Brook then remedied? It was clearly Bairstow's catch initially, but Brook was sprinting, and either Bairstow didn't call for Brook to leave it to him or the call wasn't heard in what was a febrile atmosphere - and if Bairstow didn't call as he should have done, it might also be that Bairstow's confidence has taken a knock over the course of the series, understandably. That might be another reason to consider standing him down, but it's rather different to fitness.

Bairstow looks to me to be a bit tense, both as batter and keeper. You can always tell when Bairstow is tight as a batter because his bottom hand takes over and he closes off and ends up shaping to hit the ball too hard and drag it, which was the case with both dismissals at Headingley. With a bit of luck the break between the two tests will do him good and he can come back refreshed. He's been retained as he's clearly the best placed keeper to also be a top 6 batter, which is needed in order to play 5 bowlers. This is the sort of compromise that becomes necessary when you don't have an all rounder to bat at 6 and bowl 15 overs a day. As a keeper, when he was last dropped he was underrated (he was dropped for his batting returns, not his keeping, but hadn't been helped by moving around the order). He doesn't look the keeper he was to me, but he's not done it much for 3 years, and his ability as a number 6/7 batsman is beyond doubt. Form is temporary and class is permanent, and all that.

Nothing to do with fitness or communication in my opinion purely down to confidence why he didn’t go for it. His keeping has regressed alarmingly or seems to have anyway some of that is due to is injury and not being fully fit to keep I guess but I wonder some of it is noticeable only because of how good Foakes is. I am all for sticking with a player for a loner period but surely they all can see what we see especially Bairstow himself. I think it was quite telling that before he had put on the keeping gloves he managed a run a ball 78 since it has been very poor and nothing of any note.

You don't move Stokes when he's smashing it every where with the old ball .

Bairstow's only decent innings was the 1st test, guess what? We batted first.

Keeping wicket is physically and mentally draining, it's obviously too much for him so soon after his lay off.

Whilst Bairstow continues to have a shocker,

James Rew our future superstar wicket keeper just scored his first double century in the county championship.

Can’t believe none the county championships form players arnt getting a look in

Newcastleclaret93 wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 11, 2023 7:01 pm

Whilst Bairstow continues to have a shocker,

James Rew our future superstar wicket keeper just scored his first double century in the county championship.

Can’t believe none the county championships form players arnt getting a look in

Big difference going from county champ straight into the Ashes fire. I’d imagine they’ll get a chance in the next series.

RVclaret wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 11, 2023 7:13 pm

Big difference going from county champ straight into the Ashes fire. I’d imagine they’ll get a chance in the next series.

I agree but what message does just not picking anyone send lads like this.

Can’t believe they have left that slot wmpty

Newcastleclaret93 wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 11, 2023 7:16 pm

I agree but what message does just not picking anyone send lads like this.

Can’t believe they have left that slot wmpty

How much first class cricket have you watched Rew (and Hain) play? Is it much or is your demand for them to be in the England team based purely on stats?

TheFamilyCat wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 11, 2023 7:39 pm

How much first class cricket have you watched Rew (and Hain) play? Is it much or is your demand for them to be in the England team based purely on stats?

Not asking for them to be in the starting eleven. But surely that last slot could be used to reward in form players.

Watched a bit of Hain not so much Rew. But in the cricketing sphere Rew is very well thought off as the next big prospect for England

Newcastleclaret93 wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 11, 2023 7:54 pm

Not asking for them to be in the starting eleven. But surely that last slot could be used to reward in form players.

Watched a bit of Hain not so much Rew. But in the cricketing sphere Rew is very well thought off as the next big prospect for England

Newcastleclaret93 wrote: ↑

Sun Jul 09, 2023 5:13 pm

This is how I would set us up for the next test:

Crawley
Duckett
Hain
Root
Brook
Stokes
Foakes
Woakes
Wood
Broad
Anderson

It gives us our best bowling line up whilst also strengthening the batting line up.

Seems very much like you want Hain in the starting XI.

TheFamilyCat wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 11, 2023 8:03 pm

Seems very much like you want Hain in the starting XI.

I do want him in the starting eleven in place of pope. Right now I would settle for just a squad placement. Seems stupid to waste the slot.

Newcastleclaret93 wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 11, 2023 7:16 pm

I agree but what message does just not picking anyone send lads like this.

Can’t believe they have left that slot wmpty

A slot for what through? See too many cricketers dragged around the international circuit not playing games and losing form and confidence….. he’s not going to play….. might as well keep his eye in at county level for the rest of the season.

Newcastleclaret93 wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 11, 2023 7:16 pm

I agree but what message does just not picking anyone send lads like this.

Can’t believe they have left that slot wmpty

I guess that would be deemed as wasting someone’s time if they aren’t going to play probably better to play a game. As much as I want Foakes in as the keeper dropping anyone goes against the words that they used at the start. Having said that dropping Foakes in the first probably went against that as well although they did consistently say that as soon as he was fit Bairstow would be back in.

One change from the team that won at Headingley with James Anderson replacing Oliie Robinson

The only expected change to be honest.

Really excited for Wednesday now

Newcastleclaret93 wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 17, 2023 9:55 am

The only expected change to be honest.

Really excited for Wednesday now

Hope the weather doesn't ruin it.

Let's hope the groundsman has prepared a result pitch with showers expected all day, every day of the Test.

Got tickets for day 4 on Saturday but looking at the weather app this morning, I’ll be surprised if we see much cricket.

Our bowling attack for this test looks spot on upthecolne

https://twitter.com/GeorgeDobell1/statu ... y0pQg&s=19
The pitch looks a bit batter friendly at first glance.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/202 ... -95-years/

• Oldest bowling attack in 95 years with Jimmy back in the fold.

• Moeen to stay at 3 for the rest of the series.

• Aussies drop Murphy and go into match without a spinner, first time since 2012.

• Bairstow doing extra catching practice.

criminalclaret wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 17, 2023 8:50 pm

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/202 ... -95-years/

• Oldest bowling attack in 95 years with Jimmy back in the fold.

• Moeen to stay at 3 for the rest of the series.

• Aussies drop Murphy and go into match without a spinner, first time since 2012.

• Bairstow doing extra catching practice.

Amazed they have gone with Moeen at three again

The weather will play a big part,winning the toss could be decisive.