The International Cricket Thread

[paul_e]

I thought we bowled well, Archer in particular bowled a couple of good spells in the morning session on day 5. I’d be happy to stick with that attack for the 2nd test. It was the batsmen that let us down not the bowlers.

I think Wood struggled and I'm nervous of him playing back to back tests so I'd bring Broad back in along with Root. The 3rd test is close behind so we can look again after that.

[hilts_coolerking]

I thought we bowled well, Archer in particular bowled a couple of good spells in the morning session on day 5. I’d be happy to stick with that attack for the 2nd test. It was the batsmen that let us down not the bowlers.

I think Wood struggled and I'm nervous of him playing back to back tests so I'd bring Broad back in along with Root. The 3rd test is close behind so we can look again after that.

They were talking about this on Sky.  The reason Wood for Broad was odd is because most commentators thought England would save Wood for the pacier tracks at Old Trafford.  It would be equally odd to drop him now.  After all, anyone can have a bad game and if the tracks are pacier up there then he could do well.  Three tests in a row would be pushing it though.  Broad in for the third test maybe?

[Rory]

I really rate Wood, but agree that he was probably an unwise choice for the first test. I wonder if the selectors were trying to make a starement that nobody is undroppable - apart from Jimmy, Stokes and Root.

[Villan For Life]

Just like the footballers when the season restarted, the players looked off the pace. It’s hardly surprising when you consider that they won’t have played competitive cricket since the South Africa series that ended in January.

Subject to the pitch and conditions being typical of Old Trafford I’d stick with the same bowling attack.

[simboy]

I thought we bowled well, Archer in particular bowled a couple of good spells in the morning session on day 5. I’d be happy to stick with that attack for the 2nd test. It was the batsmen that let us down not the bowlers.

I think Wood struggled and I'm nervous of him playing back to back tests so I'd bring Broad back in along with Root. The 3rd test is close behind so we can look again after that.

I really rate Wood, but agree that he was probably an unwise choice for the first test. I wonder if the selectors were trying to make a starement that nobody is undroppable - apart from Jimmy, Stokes and Root.

Actually i think Anderson will be "rested" this test. Injuries are starting to catch up with him. Replaced by Woakes, strengthening the batting line up and is a better bowler in England than abroad, statistically. Broad for Wood? Maybe although I thought Wood bowled OK. Question is can Wood last two tests in a row with a four day turn around.

Root back in for Crawley, who's time will come, and we look as well balanced as we can save for perhaps Buttler being replaced by Foakes ...
 

[UK Redsox]

Simboy - why should Crawley be dropped and Denley kept in the team ?

I know that batting Crawley at Four was a hint that he'd give way for Root, but he's playing better than Denley

[simboy]

I think Denly is a better number 3 at the moment. Root prefers batting at 4.

The first innings I think Denly did a good [if not spectacular] job at 0-1, I don't think Crawley would necessarily have done. I like Crawley but he benefited from the hard work the top three in the second innings, which is exactly what the 4,5 and 6 would hope to do.

Denly did ok, got set and should have gone on. 

I also think Crawley is a future Test no. 3 [or opener] but I would prefer him to start at 4,5 or 6 . I also think Crawley has a lot more potential than Denly. We do have a habit of finding good young prospects, praising them to the skies for them to crash unceremoniously. 

Crawley, for all the Vaughan fanfare has a Test average of 31 [as opposed to 29.5 for Denly although admittedly from more tests] and Denly has faced on average more balls.  At 0-1 I would rather see someone coming to the crease who would look to get 29 off 80 balls than 31 off 60 balls.

The stated aim is to build an Ashes winning side next year. A solid number 3 will be imperative. It is, I would argue, the most specialised position in the batting line up, as it can set a tone or save an inning. Our best number 3 for many years was Trott. I never felt nervous if he was walking in at 3-1 or 120 -1. I feel less nervous with Denly than I do with Crawley at the moment.

It's just my current view and not one I am prepared to die in a ditch for

[hilts_coolerking]

Denly doesn't get big scores, that's undeniable.  But he does face lots of deliveries and puts miles into the opposition bowlers' legs.  There was some stat on Sky about Denly being at the top of the list of balls faced in Tests in a 12 month period.  I can't remember it exactly but it basically indicated he does bring something to the team.  Under Silverwood the emphasis is not so much quick runs as it was under Bayliss and Denly fits into that.  However, there is going to be an enforced change of personnel for the next Test and given how well Crawley played in the 2nd innings I'd be amazed if they drop him.

[PaulWinch again]

Yeah I think if you look at scores alone Denly doesn’t look great, but it’s the crease occupation he’s done well at. I think he’s done alright in his role.

[paul_e]

I thought we bowled well, Archer in particular bowled a couple of good spells in the morning session on day 5. I’d be happy to stick with that attack for the 2nd test. It was the batsmen that let us down not the bowlers.

I think Wood struggled and I'm nervous of him playing back to back tests so I'd bring Broad back in along with Root. The 3rd test is close behind so we can look again after that.

They were talking about this on Sky.  The reason Wood for Broad was odd is because most commentators thought England would save Wood for the pacier tracks at Old Trafford.  It would be equally odd to drop him now.  After all, anyone can have a bad game and if the tracks are pacier up there then he could do well.  Three tests in a row would be pushing it though.  Broad in for the third test maybe?

This is true but don't forget the 3rd test is a few days later and also at old trafford so Wood can come in for that one, giving him a slightly longer recovery period between games which i'd say is fair given his injury problems over the last 3-4 years. Broad in for Wood for the 2nd and wood back in for Jimmy for the 3rd would be my choice, I'd leave the rest because I think the attack did a decent job.

Further up I'd move Crawley to 3 and drop Denly but that's it. Buttler gets another chance because he looked the 'rustiest' player in the team for me, if he can't shake that off in the 2nd test then I'd think about what to do with him.

[PaulWinch again]

I haven’t seen the compelling case for Crawley yet. I think he’ll come good, but Denly is doing a decent job at the moment. His batting enables, in theory, the more talented middle order to attack. I’d bring Root in for Crawley myself. It’s a pretty tight call, so if it goes Crawley’s way I wouldn’t particularly complain, but I’d still lean Denly for now.

[hilts_coolerking]

I read on cricinfo today that Crawley has registered his Test best in each of the five matches he's played to date.

[Villan For Life]

Root has to replace Denly, he gets a start, uses up balls but fails to convert that start into a decent score. Crawley has the temperament and he looks comfortable in test cricket. I think he will keep getting better.

[PaulWinch again]

See again I’m not anti-Crawley at all, and I’m hoping he’s a long term option, but his record (acknowledging a small sample size) is no better than Denly’s. Denly has made good and important scores.

[paul_e]

See again I’m not anti-Crawley at all, and I’m hoping he’s a long term option, but his record (acknowledging a small sample size) is no better than Denly’s. Denly has made good and important scores.

As above Crawley has shown consistent improvement. Denly has shown he can get starts but has done a shocking job of converting this 10-30 starts into even 50s let alone match defining scores. Given the respective ages I see no reason to keep Denly in.