England squad vs Ireland

Ben Stokes (Durham captain), James Anderson (Lancashire), Jonny Bairstow (Yorkshire), Stuart Broad (Nottinghamshire), Harry Brook (Yorkshire), Zak Crawley (Kent), Ben Duckett (Nottinghamshire), Dan Lawrence (Essex), Jack Leach (Somerset), Ollie Pope (Surrey), Matthew Potts (Durham), Ollie Robinson (Sussex), Joe Root (Yorkshire), Chris Woakes (Warwickshire), Mark Wood (Durham).

Pope becomes VC. Anderson hopes to be fit by then or the ashes if not.
Ben Foakes is unlucky to be dropped as hes in fine form.
Surprised Lawrence still manages to make the team. His form makes
Crawley look like mr consistent. Archer ruled out for the summer again.
Will the irish test be the first FC match for Root and Brook this season?

mike

Op dinsdag 16 mei 2023 om 16:35:13 UTC+2 schreef mike:
> England squad vs Ireland
>
> Ben Stokes (Durham captain), James Anderson (Lancashire), Jonny Bairstow (Yorkshire), Stuart Broad (Nottinghamshire), Harry Brook (Yorkshire), Zak Crawley (Kent), Ben Duckett (Nottinghamshire), Dan Lawrence (Essex), Jack Leach (Somerset), Ollie Pope (Surrey), Matthew Potts (Durham), Ollie Robinson (Sussex), Joe Root (Yorkshire), Chris Woakes (Warwickshire), Mark Wood (Durham).
>
> Pope becomes VC. Anderson hopes to be fit by then or the ashes if not.
> Ben Foakes is unlucky to be dropped as hes in fine form.
> Surprised Lawrence still manages to make the team. His form makes
> Crawley look like mr consistent. Archer ruled out for the summer again.
> Will the irish test be the first FC match for Root and Brook this season?
>
> mike

Foakes must be gutted.

I am also puzzled why England keep faith in Crawley.

Even with Anderson injured, a seam attack of Broad, Robinson and Woakes/Wood looks decent. Let's hope Stokes will be fit to bowl.

RtH

On Tue, 16 May 2023 08:59:00 -0700 (PDT), Robbert ter Hart
<rterhart@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>Foakes must be gutted.

They've decided that none of the specialist batters need to step down
to make room for Bairstow.
>
>I am also puzzled why England keep faith in Crawley.

Of all the mysterious decisions the Stokes-McCullum regime have made,
this is the one I have yet to even begin to understand.
>
>Even with Anderson injured, a seam attack of Broad, Robinson and Woakes/Wood looks decent. Let's hope Stokes will be fit to bowl.

Let's hope the seamers and Jack Leach take enough wickets quickly
enough that the question doesn't really arise.

Cheers,

Mike

On Tuesday, May 16, 2023 at 4:59:01 PM UTC+1, Robbert ter Hart wrote:
> Op dinsdag 16 mei 2023 om 16:35:13 UTC+2 schreef mike:
> > England squad vs Ireland
> >
> > Ben Stokes (Durham captain), James Anderson (Lancashire), Jonny Bairstow (Yorkshire), Stuart Broad (Nottinghamshire), Harry Brook (Yorkshire), Zak Crawley (Kent), Ben Duckett (Nottinghamshire), Dan Lawrence (Essex), Jack Leach (Somerset), Ollie Pope (Surrey), Matthew Potts (Durham), Ollie Robinson (Sussex), Joe Root (Yorkshire), Chris Woakes (Warwickshire), Mark Wood (Durham).
> >
> > Pope becomes VC. Anderson hopes to be fit by then or the ashes if not.
> > Ben Foakes is unlucky to be dropped as hes in fine form.
> > Surprised Lawrence still manages to make the team. His form makes
> > Crawley look like mr consistent. Archer ruled out for the summer again.
> > Will the irish test be the first FC match for Root and Brook this season?
> >
> > mike
> Foakes must be gutted.
>
> I am also puzzled why England keep faith in Crawley.

Because he has it in him to be really dominant ...

He has also made runs this Spring. RH

> RtH

On Tuesday, May 16, 2023 at 3:35:13 PM UTC+1, mike wrote:
> England squad vs Ireland
>
> Ben Stokes (Durham captain), James Anderson (Lancashire), Jonny Bairstow (Yorkshire), Stuart Broad (Nottinghamshire), Harry Brook (Yorkshire), Zak Crawley (Kent), Ben Duckett (Nottinghamshire), Dan Lawrence (Essex), Jack Leach (Somerset), Ollie Pope (Surrey), Matthew Potts (Durham), Ollie Robinson (Sussex), Joe Root (Yorkshire), Chris Woakes (Warwickshire), Mark Wood (Durham).

Best XI from the selectors' list
Crawley
Duckett
Pope
Root RoB
RoB Brook RM
Stokes RFM
Bairstow (wk)
Chris Woakes
Robinson RFM
Joe Lech SLA
Wood RF

RH
>
> Pope becomes VC. Anderson hopes to be fit by then or the ashes if not.
> Ben Foakes is unlucky to be dropped as hes in fine form.
> Surprised Lawrence still manages to make the team. His form makes
> Crawley look like mr consistent. Archer ruled out for the summer again.
> Will the irish test be the first FC match for Root and Brook this season?
>
> mike

In message <6c3e4b5d-9f48-4235-aabd-5335a2b4e0aan@googlegroups.com>,
Robert Henderson <anywhere156@gmail.com> writes
>On Tuesday, May 16, 2023 at 3:35:130 >> England squad vs Ireland
>>
>> Ben Stokes (Durham captain), James Anderson (Lancashire), Jonny Bairstow (Yorkshire), Stuart Broad (Nottinghamshire), Harry Brook (Yorkshire), Zak
>>Crawley (Kent), Ben Duckett (Nottinghamshire), Dan Lawrence (Essex), Jack Leach (Somerset), Ollie Pope (Surrey), Matthew Potts (Durham), Ollie
>>Robinson (Sussex), Joe Root (Yorkshire), Chris Woakes (Warwickshire), Mark Wood (Durham).
>
>Best XI from the selectors' list
>Crawley
>Duckett
>Pope
>Root RoB
>RoB Brook RM
>Stokes RFM
>Bairstow (wk)
>Chris Woakes
>Robinson RFM
>Joe Lech SLA
>Wood RF

It's Jack Leach. mike even helpfully included the players' first names
in his post. I'd be surprised if they went for Woakes in preference to
Broad, but otherwise I'd expect that to be the XI, assuming that
Anderson isn't fit but that all the others are. If Anderson *is* fit by
then, then the choice of the quick bowlers becomes quite tricky.
--
John Hall "[It was] so steep that at intervals the street broke into steps,
like a person breaking into giggles or hiccups, and then resumed
its sober climb, until it had another fit of steps."
Ursula K Le Guin "The Beginning Place"

On Tuesday, 16 May 2023 at 19:35:19 UTC+1, John Hall wrote:

> It's Jack Leach. mike even helpfully included the players' first names
> in his post.

That'll be Jack Leach who's fully embraced Bazball this season: he has the highest strike rate of any CC batsman who's scored more than 100 runs (Avg: 39, SR: 93).

Richard

Op dinsdag 16 mei 2023 om 18:08:48 UTC+2 schreef Mike Holmans:
> On Tue, 16 May 2023 08:59:00 -0700 (PDT), Robbert ter Hart
> <rter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >
> >Foakes must be gutted.
>
> They've decided that none of the specialist batters need to step down
> to make room for Bairstow.
> >
> >I am also puzzled why England keep faith in Crawley.
> Of all the mysterious decisions the Stokes-McCullum regime have made,
> this is the one I have yet to even begin to understand.

Out of curiosity, Mike:

Bairstow obviously has to be in the team. Say we drop Crawley. What would the batting order be in that case? Bairstow to open?

RtH

> >
> >Even with Anderson injured, a seam attack of Broad, Robinson and Woakes/Wood looks decent. Let's hope Stokes will be fit to bowl.
> Let's hope the seamers and Jack Leach take enough wickets quickly
> enough that the question doesn't really arise.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mike

On Tue, 16 May 2023 12:40:22 -0700 (PDT), Robbert ter Hart
<rterhart@gmail.com> wrote:

>Out of curiosity, Mike:
>
>Bairstow obviously has to be in the team. Say we drop Crawley. What would the batting order be in that case? Bairstow to open?

I'd quite like Stokes to open - he can't be worse than Crawley and it
gives him the opportunity to set the tone up front.

That would give us
Stokes
Duckett
Pope
Lawrence
Brook
Bairstow
Foakes plus some bowlers.

However, given Stokes batting where he wants to, I think Lawrence
would have partner Duckett and slot Stokes in below Bairstow at 6.

Obviously Crawley is likely to play, because the selectors just love
the artistry of the edge to third slip he plays so regularly.

Cheers,

Mike

On Wed, 17 May 2023 00:32:51 +0100, Mike Holmans <spam@jackalope.uk>
wrote:

>On Tue, 16 May 2023 12:40:22 -0700 (PDT), Robbert ter Hart
><rterhart@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Out of curiosity, Mike:
>>
>>Bairstow obviously has to be in the team. Say we drop Crawley. What would the batting order be in that case? Bairstow to open?
>
>I'd quite like Stokes to open - he can't be worse than Crawley and it
>gives him the opportunity to set the tone up front.
>
>That would give us
>Stokes
>Duckett
>Pope
>Lawrence
>Brook
>Bairstow
>Foakes plus some bowlers.
>
>However, given Stokes batting where he wants to, I think Lawrence
>would have partner Duckett and slot Stokes in below Bairstow at 6.
>
>Obviously Crawley is likely to play, because the selectors just love
>the artistry of the edge to third slip he plays so regularly.

Yeah, yeah, make fun of the old codger who can't remember Joe Root and
therefore includes Lawrence. Were I sane, obviously I'd drop Lawrence
and have Root at 4.

Cheers,

Mike

On Wed, 17 May 2023 00:32:51 +0100, Mike Holmans <spam@jackalope.uk>
wrote:

>On Tue, 16 May 2023 12:40:22 -0700 (PDT), Robbert ter Hart
><rterhart@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Out of curiosity, Mike:
>>
>>Bairstow obviously has to be in the team. Say we drop Crawley. What would the batting order be in that case? Bairstow to open?
>
>I'd quite like Stokes to open - he can't be worse than Crawley and it
>gives him the opportunity to set the tone up front.
>
>That would give us
>Stokes
>Duckett
>Pope
>Lawrence
>Brook
>Bairstow
>Foakes plus some bowlers.
>
>However, given Stokes batting where he wants to, I think Lawrence
>would have partner Duckett and slot Stokes in below Bairstow at 6.
>
>Obviously Crawley is likely to play, because the selectors just love
>the artistry of the edge to third slip he plays so regularly.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Mike

These few quotes read like Crawly has just discovered that he isn't as
special as he thought he was.and he doesn't likeit when people notice.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/65613768

max.it

In message <t3486it9pvn3flk37jpbau1jhg45ue6q0q@4ax.com>, Mike Holmans
<spam@jackalope.uk> writes
>On Tue, 16 May 2023 12:40:22 -0700 (PDT), Robbert ter Hart
><rterhart@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Out of curiosity, Mike:
>>
>>Bairstow obviously has to be in the team. Say we drop Crawley. What
>>would the batting order be in that case? Bairstow to open?
>
>I'd quite like Stokes to open - he can't be worse than Crawley and it
>gives him the opportunity to set the tone up front.
>
>That would give us
>Stokes
>Duckett
>Pope
>Lawrence
>Brook
>Bairstow
>Foakes plus some bowlers.

No Root?

>
>However, given Stokes batting where he wants to, I think Lawrence
>would have partner Duckett and slot Stokes in below Bairstow at 6.
>
>Obviously Crawley is likely to play, because the selectors just love
>the artistry of the edge to third slip he plays so regularly.

It's occurred to me that the way Foakes bats might be well suited to
opening. He wouldn't be able to both keep wicket and open, though, at
least when England bat second, so Bairstow would have to keep the
gloves, which I admit seems a little perverse.
--
John Hall "[It was] so steep that at intervals the street broke into steps,
like a person breaking into giggles or hiccups, and then resumed
its sober climb, until it had another fit of steps."
Ursula K Le Guin "The Beginning Place"

On Tuesday, May 16, 2023 at 5:08:48 PM UTC+1, Mike Holmans wrote:
> On Tue, 16 May 2023 08:59:00 -0700 (PDT), Robbert ter Hart
> <rter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >
> >Foakes must be gutted.
>
> They've decided that none of the specialist batters need to step down
> to make room for Bairstow.
> >
> >I am also puzzled why England keep faith in Crawley.
> Of all the mysterious decisions the Stokes-McCullum regime have made,
> this is the one I have yet to even begin to understand.
> >
> >Even with Anderson injured, a seam attack of Broad, Robinson and Woakes/Wood looks decent. Let's hope Stokes will be fit to bowl.

ATM he cant and doesnt seem to be even playing.

Robinson now has an ankle prob, so might be a doubt for the irish match. With the ashes starting about 11
days later, they wouldnt want to risk him and jimmy? If theres any doubt over their fitness, i would choose
Woakes and Potts to join Broad and Leach. Thats if they are still fit to play, the seamers seem to
be dropping 1 by 1.

mike

On Wednesday, May 17, 2023 at 9:35:05 AM UTC+10, Mike Holmans wrote:
> I'd quite like Stokes to open

You can't be serious.

Is England's batting stocks so poor that people are seriously suggesting Stokes opens?

In message <340c4dae-96f6-4fae-9cc2-e1a67c0fc799n@googlegroups.com>,
jack fredricks <jzfredricks@gmail.com> writes
>On Wednesday, May 17, 2023 at 9:35:050 >> I'd quite like Stokes to open
>
>You can't be serious.
>
>Is England's batting stocks so poor that people are seriously
>suggesting Stokes opens?

He has a sound technique and is capable of batting very "correctly", as
he showed in the first half of his innings at Headingley in 2019. Of
course you would need to persuade him not to bat in the gung-ho fashion
that he often did last summer, when he seemed to feel that he had to
lead from the front.
--
John Hall "[It was] so steep that at intervals the street broke into steps,
like a person breaking into giggles or hiccups, and then resumed
its sober climb, until it had another fit of steps."
Ursula K Le Guin "The Beginning Place"

On Tue, 23 May 2023 10:32:22 +0100, John Hall
<john_nospam@jhall.co.uk> wrote:

>In message <340c4dae-96f6-4fae-9cc2-e1a67c0fc799n@googlegroups.com>,
>jack fredricks <jzfredricks@gmail.com> writes

>>Is England's batting stocks so poor that people are seriously
>>suggesting Stokes opens?

I'm interested to know who else is suggesting it. And it's not because
England has such poor batting stocks - it's because England have so
many batters we'd want to pick and you can't pick seven batters to
fill five places. One of the current openers is extremely unreliable,
so one option is to have one who would normally bat in the middle
order taking Crawley's place. There's been a fair amount of talk about
Brook, but I'm not very keen on that, and I'm even less keen on
Livingstone opening, so if Stokes opens, we probably won't lose in
comparison to Crawley and could do a lot better while strengthening
the middle order.

>He has a sound technique and is capable of batting very "correctly", as
>he showed in the first half of his innings at Headingley in 2019. Of
>course you would need to persuade him not to bat in the gung-ho fashion
>that he often did last summer, when he seemed to feel that he had to
>lead from the front.

That's exactly what I was thinking, with the qualification that he
would entirely ignore any suggestion that he should play "correctly"
in the first innings. If we're in big trouble when we come out for the
2nd innings, I'd trust him to bat to fit the situation.

I'm not insisting that Stokes must open, and I don't think it's the
only answer to the problem of the management having decided that
Crawley must open and all the England fans thinking that Crawley is
the reincarnation of Rob Key, who was also a fine player but usually
got himself out before reaching 30. For one person, Key was the finest
batter of his generation and got a Test double-hundred; we must
therefore conclude that the ECB's Director of Cricket is insisting
that Crawley play in order to make sure that someone else takes over
the title of most disappointing player of the century.

Cheers,

Mike

In message <cfpp6it1altrisnas0btcp2hb0klofkjtk@4ax.com>, Mike Holmans
<spam@jackalope.uk> writes
>On Tue, 23 May 2023 10:32:22 +0100, John Hall
><john_nospam@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <340c4dae-96f6-4fae-9cc2-e1a67c0fc799n@googlegroups.com>,
>>jack fredricks <jzfredricks@gmail.com> writes
>
>
>>>Is England's batting stocks so poor that people are seriously
>>>suggesting Stokes opens?
>
>I'm interested to know who else is suggesting it.

I've seen one journalist suggest it, but I can't remember who it was.

> And it's not because
>England has such poor batting stocks - it's because England have so
>many batters we'd want to pick and you can't pick seven batters to
>fill five places. One of the current openers is extremely unreliable,
>so one option is to have one who would normally bat in the middle
>order taking Crawley's place. There's been a fair amount of talk about
>Brook, but I'm not very keen on that, and I'm even less keen on
>Livingstone opening, so if Stokes opens, we probably won't lose in
>comparison to Crawley and could do a lot better while strengthening
>the middle order.
>
>>He has a sound technique and is capable of batting very "correctly", as
>>he showed in the first half of his innings at Headingley in 2019. Of
>>course you would need to persuade him not to bat in the gung-ho fashion
>>that he often did last summer, when he seemed to feel that he had to
>>lead from the front.
>
>That's exactly what I was thinking, with the qualification that he
>would entirely ignore any suggestion that he should play "correctly"
>in the first innings.

I'd like to see a happy medium between "correct" and "gung-ho". Scoring
at 4 to 5 runs an over for the first 20 overs of the innings would be
fine - there's no need to try to make it 7 or 8 rpo. Perhaps it would
help if he realises that all his players are now fully committed to an
aggressive approach, and there's no longer any need to bat
extra-ultra-aggressively himself to convince them.

> If we're in big trouble when we come out for the
>2nd innings, I'd trust him to bat to fit the situation.

One would certainly hope so.

>
>I'm not insisting that Stokes must open, and I don't think it's the
>only answer to the problem of the management having decided that
>Crawley must open and all the England fans thinking that Crawley is
>the reincarnation of Rob Key, who was also a fine player but usually
>got himself out before reaching 30. For one person, Key was the finest
>batter of his generation and got a Test double-hundred; we must
>therefore conclude that the ECB's Director of Cricket is insisting
>that Crawley play in order to make sure that someone else takes over
>the title of most disappointing player of the century.

:)
--
John Hall "[It was] so steep that at intervals the street broke into steps,
like a person breaking into giggles or hiccups, and then resumed
its sober climb, until it had another fit of steps."
Ursula K Le Guin "The Beginning Place"

On Tue, 23 May 2023 20:15:07 +0100, John Hall
<john_nospam@jhall.co.uk> wrote:

>In message <cfpp6it1altrisnas0btcp2hb0klofkjtk@4ax.com>, Mike Holmans
><spam@jackalope.uk> writes

>>That's exactly what I was thinking, with the qualification that he
>>would entirely ignore any suggestion that he should play "correctly"
>>in the first innings.
>
>I'd like to see a happy medium between "correct" and "gung-ho". Scoring
>at 4 to 5 runs an over for the first 20 overs of the innings would be
>fine - there's no need to try to make it 7 or 8 rpo. Perhaps it would
>help if he realises that all his players are now fully committed to an
>aggressive approach, and there's no longer any need to bat
>extra-ultra-aggressively himself to convince them.

I'm not all that keen on talking about runs an over, although I know
exactly what you mean and basically agree with you. (That makes it all
the more likely that we will end the first over of the Ashes at 16/1,
with Pope having faced two balls and scored nothing yet.) And I
certainly agree that he doesn't need to whack every ball to convince
his players that in this team, no-one cares much about your averages
but they do care about whether you try and win the match.

There are two basic ways of dealing with the dozen or so overs the
opening bowlers will bowl. The traditional method is effectively to
wear them down and wait for the change bowlers to offer more scoring
opportunities. The main disadvantage of that approach is that the
McGraths and Andersons of this world will appreciate being given a
couple of overs to get their line and length absolutely correct. The
more risky approach attempts to put the opposition's strike force in a
quandary about where to bowl, as England have been doing rather
successfully, following such batters as Virender Sehwag and Chris
Gayle.

This is all rather academic, though, because Crawley has some pretty
damning kompromat on McCullum and has a spot in the team for as long
as he wants one.

Cheers,

Mike

On Wednesday, May 24, 2023 at 3:21:19 AM UTC+10, Mike Holmans wrote:
> On Tue, 23 May 2023 10:32:22 +0100, John Hall
> <john_...@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >In message <340c4dae-96f6-4fae...@googlegroups.com>,
> >jack fredricks <jzfre...@gmail.com> writes
> >>Is England's batting stocks so poor that people are seriously
> >>suggesting Stokes opens?
> I'm interested to know who else is suggesting it.

Well, no one. My comment was directly to you.

> And it's not because
> England has such poor batting stocks - it's because England have so
> many batters we'd want to pick and you can't pick seven batters to
> fill five places. One of the current openers is extremely unreliable,

/agree

> so one option is to have one who would normally bat in the middle
> order taking Crawley's place. There's been a fair amount of talk about
> Brook, but I'm not very keen on that, and I'm even less keen on
> Livingstone opening, so if Stokes opens, we probably won't lose in
> comparison to Crawley and could do a lot better while strengthening
> the middle order.

Whilst I'm fully behind Bazball, I will go to my grave saying opening the batting (in Tests) is a specialist skill.
It requires patience, a very sound defence, the ability to "see off the new ball" (and the fresh bowlers).
"20 runs off 100 deliveries" is more valuable than "40 runs off 40 deliveries", because it protects the real run scoring engine; batters 3/4/5.
With Crawley neither is likely. He's not the answer.
There have been a few batsmen who can play Bazball whilst opening, eg Sehwag.
They are far and few between.
Stokes isn't one of them.
Although I'd have no problems seeing it, if only to be proven right.

It pains me to say this, but I'd rather give Vince another go at Tests, and as opener. He's averaging 80 this season so far in CC (at #4).
Same goes for Tom Westley.
I think these lads would be better options than Stokes as opener.

In message <14b0eb4d-5e74-437e-875d-75836a263cd0n@googlegroups.com>,
jack fredricks <jzfredricks@gmail.com> writes
<snip>
>It pains me to say this, but I'd rather give Vince another go at Tests,
>and as opener. He's averaging 80 this season so far in CC (at #4). Same
>goes for Tom Westley. I think these lads would be better options than
>Stokes as opener.

I disagree. Vince and Westley been tried at 3 - IIRC - and been found
wanting, so it seems unlikely they would make a success of opening. But
Stokes hasn't yet been tried in the top 3 or 4, so we don't know how he
would fare. His basically correct technique, together with some innings
he's played in the past such as at Headingley in 2019, suggest that he
might make a success of it. It's not guaranteed, of course, but Mike,
you and I all agree that Crawley is not the answer.
--
John Hall "[It was] so steep that at intervals the street broke into steps,
like a person breaking into giggles or hiccups, and then resumed
its sober climb, until it had another fit of steps."
Ursula K Le Guin "The Beginning Place"

On Wednesday, May 24, 2023 at 7:03:37 PM UTC+10, John Hall wrote:
> Stokes hasn't yet been tried in the top 3 or 4, so we don't know how he
> would fare.

Stokes has opened once, scoring 78* off 57 balls :)

On 24/05/2023 01:20, jack fredricks wrote:
> Whilst I'm fully behind Bazball, I will go to my grave saying opening
> the batting (in Tests) is a specialist skill.
> It requires patience, a very sound defence, the ability to "see off
> the new ball" (and the fresh bowlers).

OK, but ...

> "20 runs off 100 deliveries" is more valuable than "40 runs off 40
> deliveries", because it protects the real run scoring engine; batters
> 3/4/5.

... that sounds like what Leamon and Jones ["Hitting Against The
Spin", as I have recommended previously] would call a "tethered goat" --
IOW, something that made sense a long time ago but has become part of
lore and continues to be the rule, possibly when it no longer applies.

The problem in relatively recent history has not been with those
openers who average 40, but with us being 27-3 after an hour or so. I'd
take 20-0 over that, but also 80-2, esp if your implication was that the
"20 runs" was "20, and then out, off 100". Getting bogged down is as bad
as getting out, and rather than protecting "the real run scoring engine"
[which these days goes at least to #6, often to #7, not just "3/4/5"] it
puts added pressure on them to get some runs on the board when they do
come to the crease.

[L&J do make a lot of interesting comments about the differences
between Test cricket and the shorter forms, and esp about the way cricket
has evolved. Not least because of the vast amounts of data now available.
For example, they have a lot to say about the evolution of reverse sweeps
from risky through highly productive to pretty-much orthodoxy over the
past couple of decades, all with statistics to demonstrate that.]

--
Andy Walker, Nottingham.
Andy's music pages: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music
Composer of the day: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music/Composers/Coleridge-Taylor

In message <60d097ef-785b-498a-ad96-8b77663941a9n@googlegroups.com>,
jack fredricks <jzfredricks@gmail.com> writes
>On Wednesday, May 24, 2023 at 7:03:370 >> Stokes hasn't yet been tried in the top 3 or 4, so we don't know how he
>> would fare.
>
>Stokes has opened once, scoring 78* off 57 balls :)
>

:)

I'd forgotten that, but it certainly doesn't weaken the case for his
opening.
--
John Hall "[It was] so steep that at intervals the street broke into steps,
like a person breaking into giggles or hiccups, and then resumed
its sober climb, until it had another fit of steps."
Ursula K Le Guin "The Beginning Place"

On Wednesday, May 24, 2023 at 4:40:42 PM UTC+1, John Hall wrote:
> In message <60d097ef-785b-498a...@googlegroups.com>,
> jack fredricks <jzfre...@gmail.com> writes
> >On Wednesday, May 24, 2023 at 7:03:370 >> Stokes hasn't yet been tried in the top 3 or 4, so we don't know how he
> >> would fare.
> >
> >Stokes has opened once, scoring 78* off 57 balls :)
> >
> :)
>
> I'd forgotten that, but it certainly doesn't weaken the case for his
> opening.

theres a rumour [lets hope its only that] Andersons injury may be more
serious. might be out for .. some time.

also another which sounds ridiculous, that the bazballers are
wanting shorter boundaries for the ashes. compared to oz grounds
surely we only have short boundaries ;) Why dont they have a test
at TB if they want that..

mike

In message <d3ecb8e6-538d-4e53-9793-08718cc32af8n@googlegroups.com>,
mike <dmike204@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>theres a rumour [lets hope its only that] Andersons injury may be more
>serious. might be out for .. some time.
<snip>

I seems to be just a rumour, as apparently he did a fair amount of
bowling in practice yesterday. There was a photo in my paper of him in
his delivery stride, where it looked as if he wasn't holding back.
--
John Hall "[It was] so steep that at intervals the street broke into steps,
like a person breaking into giggles or hiccups, and then resumed
its sober climb, until it had another fit of steps."
Ursula K Le Guin "The Beginning Place"