![]() |
Re: The Cricket Thread
Originally Posted by mikemike
(Post 12727496)
with anderson back and smith finding archer unplayable i stick by by scarred and scared, I would not be saying either except the aussies decided that that playing with their mouths suited them best. I wonder who they will drop for Smith? hardly going to be his replacement.
It doesn't matter which batter they drop. You can pick 1, 2 or 3 and it won't make a lick of difference to any result. Its all about the bowlers. All the bowlers need to do is bowl line and length like they did in the first innings and for that short period post lunch in the second innings when England collapsed. |
Re: The Cricket Thread
they are going to select Matt Prior? well it may be their best option
|
Re: The Cricket Thread
I see Specsavers (England cricket sponsors) have offered Jack Lech free glasses for life after he kept his wicket intact so Stokes could win the match.
|
Re: The Cricket Thread
Originally Posted by mikelincs
(Post 12727542)
I see Specsavers (England cricket sponsors) have offered Jack Lech free glasses for life after he kept his wicket intact so Stokes could win the match.
|
Re: The Cricket Thread
Originally Posted by mikemike
(Post 12727520)
they are going to select Matt Prior? well it may be their best option
|
Re: The Cricket Thread
Originally Posted by mikemike
(Post 12727496)
with anderson back and smith finding archer unplayable i stick by by scarred and scared, I would not be saying either except the aussies decided that that playing with their mouths suited them best. I wonder who they will drop for Smith? hardly going to be his replacement.
I'm sticking with scarred only |
Re: The Cricket Thread
Originally Posted by Amazulu
(Post 12727570)
It's not yet certain that Anderson is fit and Australia still have Starc up their sleeve. Archer may well prove to be the next great white hope, but as England have just found out, ability in the other forms of non-cricket (ODIs and T20s) does not necessarily mean test success - test cricket is the only version of cricket, the others are games. Anyway, they are both, average 2nd string test nations at the moment with middling test rankings. But it's the Ashes, where cricket began and it's exciting and worth a watch
I'm sticking with scarred only In recent history Australia's tail end have contributed as many runs as the batters ...... so no batting loss there. And it might save the selectors from doing something really stupid like picking Mitch Marsh. Anyhow, no drastic changes needed. Losing by one wicket after losing the toss and bowling in batting perfect conditions is no great shakes, given where Australia were a year ago they should be 3 nil down by now. |
Re: The Cricket Thread
Originally Posted by mikemike
(Post 12727496)
with anderson back and smith finding archer unplayable i stick by by scarred and scared, I would not be saying either except the aussies decided that that playing with their mouths suited them best. I wonder who they will drop for Smith? hardly going to be his replacement.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/49527522 Time for plan C |
Re: The Cricket Thread
Originally Posted by Amazulu
(Post 12729724)
|
Re: The Cricket Thread
Originally Posted by Beoz
(Post 12729890)
On the brightside, it makes the job easier for the selectors. Anderson would have been a certainty. So who would you drop? Woakes or Archer?
|
Re: The Cricket Thread
Originally Posted by Amazulu
(Post 12730010)
A tough one. Woakes, although a 2nd string bowler is a genuine test player. Archer, although he is showing some signs, has yet to prove that he is. Anderson has been one of the best test fast bowlers this century - able to bowl consistent line and length for long spells - and take wickets. He is hard to replace but I'd probably go with Archer given his pace, which will probably worry Smith
I would go with Archer because of his stats so far. He dropped some pace in the 3rd test but I think that had more to do with giving the ball more air time. |
Re: The Cricket Thread
Originally Posted by Beoz
(Post 12730036)
I recall when Jimmy came on the scene. He was a bit slow and was mainly on the ODI scene. However that certainly changed. His pace improved and was able to swing it both ways in the right conditions and always on the money. Unplayable in the right conditions.
I would go with Archer because of his stats so far. He dropped some pace in the 3rd test but I think that had more to do with giving the ball more air time. Shame Jimmy gone but a quality team can’t rely on one player to carry it. |
Re: The Cricket Thread
IF JA was still around ....get rdical
drop jason roy, promote bairstow, he has opened in long form Now JA looks pretty much retired even if he does nt want toe it will be unchanged. I would not be dropping Archer, he has done nothing wrong, and Steve Smith is going to have a niggle of a doubt against him, that the others do not induce.. |
Re: The Cricket Thread
Smith marches on, got to admire the guy despite being caught up in the sandpaper nastiness. Booing getting tedious given the chief instigator, Warner, is getting his Karma served back to him on a platter, captains table and cruise ship (Broad)ly. |
Re: The Cricket Thread
Originally Posted by mikemike
(Post 12727496)
with anderson back and smith finding archer unplayable i stick by by scarred and scared,
|
| All times are GMT -12. The time now is 1:18 am. |
Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.