England v India, 4th Test, Old Trafford, 7-11 August, 2014

As Peter's thread suggests, Jimmeh may be unavailable. If so, is he the only likely change for England?

And I've obviously missed a groundbreaking pun through the 3rd Test thread. How did Woakes become Medioakes?

And with Instant gone as well, will Pancake be retained. India look like they wanted to be on the plane a week ago.

Medioakes = mediocre + woakes, I think.

(And the final -s is a common team-matey-type diminutive in English private-school-ish circles, like the cosy -o(s) in Oz - Durbo the Turbo, Planet Haydos, etc etc.)

Danny clearly decided he wasn't satisfied with the hollow good-egg bonhomie of "Chris Bloakes" that (in Monkehh's view) secured him the gig on the team.

Heaven knows what D will make of Meaker, if he gets selected.

Weaker, will be the best he can hope for.

PeterCS wrote:Medioakes = mediocre + woakes, I think.

Ah yes. Rather obvious (sorry, a bit slow after a late night - was reading the "Medi" bit with a short "e", as in Medical), but not bad. I like it!!  

Cheers Peter.  

PeterCS wrote:Heaven knows what D will make of Meaker, if he gets selected.

Weaker, will be the best he can hope for.

Some old jew that is < Flintoff reckons he'll inherit the Earth

PeterCS wrote:Heaven knows what D will make of Meaker, if he gets selected.

Weaker, will be the best he can hope for.

Leaker, if his economy is no good.

Geaker, if he's into comics and stuff.

Tracy Beaker, if he watches more CBBC than Alan D.

I'm going to say it: Woakes bowled all right. Uncommonly unlucky to have not taken a wicket.

Wouldn't be averse to giving him another shot.

Still think overall he's pap, but he deserves the chance to prove it.

Chris Woakes? Yeah he bowled alright. Too short for over half the time. Beat the bat about 5 times. Most of his spells were tight, but unthreatening. Sort of mediocre really.

Yeah, he needs to pitch it up more, but this is clearly a major issue for all English bowlers. Either it's a team tactic or some kind of innately English phobia.

Thought Woakes got enough shape on the ball, at a handy lick, to suggest he could go well at some point. Could be a decent investment - never seems to get injured, bats, bowls, bloody nice chap: all the ingredients are there.

Anyway, that should jinx the useless prick good and proper. My work here is done.

Decent enough knots, but that dropped off after the 2nd short spell. Moved the ball a bit, but only under the worst of batting conditions, 2nd and 4th evenings - straight as, when the sun was doing the do. Was OK.

I'd possibly take him over Jordan, who was all over the shop - but I'd have Plunkett or Finn in front of him.

Or Bleaker - if England's prospects are even worsened by his inclusion.

Creaker, if his knees go (not even to a Syd Lawrence extent).



Woakes didn't look bad. The consensus here seems to be he was a Birmingham answer to Pankaj. Not bad, not s bad as feared, genuine effort and fairly unlucky. But maybe not great.


Let's talk about Buttler.

Understandably (esp in view of his predecessor's last 12 months) he has been getting rave reviews for his long-handle work, all allowance made for the fact he should have been out for 0 and again a couple more times at least. And kept, from what I saw, far better than feared (a pattern emerging here ....). But am I alone in thinking his batting style is weird, even when it does produce results?

It's his footwork I mean. Even by T20 standards, he seems to be running a one-man comp on how far he can possibly get his feet out of the way while getting maximum weight into the shot. It's like (field) hockey. Or French cricket.

Well, as long as it works, enthusiasts might say. (Allowing for the fact he could and should have been out again and again on his way to 85.)

But the blinding flaw is - give him any real speed (and I am not even talking Midge, Stale Dane, Slinga or Bruce Lee pace here) and he'll be spec-a-tacularly and horribly castled, surely? Even if his brain eyes and legs may be capable of dealing with tricky spin.

His innings was refreshing, but I'm not at all convinced yet.

Drop Jordan and replace him with Plunkett.
That's the only change I'd make.

Weather is mixed for next week... sun with showery intervals.
Win toss - bat.
Repeat the dose.

PeterCS wrote:
Let's talk about Buttler.

Yeah, I remain unconvinced. Seems pretty edgy to me, gets himself all inside-out a lot of the time. Certainly will be tested by a better bowling attack. Probably will get more tested from this bowling attack. But, that's how it goes. He's kept well enough to have an extended run - I like his athleticism and exuberance.

PeterCS wrote:

Let's talk about Buttler.

... the blinding flaw is - give him any real speed (and I am not even talking Midge, Stale Dane, Slinga or Bruce Lee pace here) and he'll be spec-a-tacularly and horribly castled, surely? Even if his brain eyes and legs may be capable of dealing with tricky spin.

His innings was refreshing, but I'm not at all convinced yet.

Yeah let's ...

This was only his first ever Test.
Credit where it's due ...
He kept extremely well, (espesh to Jordan's legside filth) better than most on here predicted, and he batted
without restraint, given the circumstances.
He was a breath of youthful fresh air ( instead of the plodding Prior ) behind the stumps

Basically, he ticked all the requisite boxes FOR THIS INDIAN SERIES.

What happens in the future - when facing Steyn and Johnson (btw hasn't Slinga retired from test cricket) -  
is open to speculation and circumstance I'd say.

Give him time and the encouragement he is entitled to, and I think you probably have the makings of an
Alan Knott in a year or two (he'll certainly be better than Alec Stewart IMO).

Let's not forget, he is still only 23 !!
And when all's said and done, he only seriously picked up the keepers gloves a mere 18 months ago!

I expected him to go okay with the bat - if his luck was in.

Given that he was given not out, caught on nought, I'd say his luck was in.

It was his keeping that was more impressive. Really seems to have kicked on with the glovework in a short space of time.

I gave him a B-. He thought it was weird and didn't recognise my authority to hand out grades. We agreed to disagree and the Rose Bowl security took care of the rest.

So, no changes then.

Plunkett for Jordan is likely to be the only change. I feel sorry for Jordan though. Why do the batsmen always get such a good run in the side but the bowlers are always on such thin ice? (barring Jimmy and Broad, who are basically undroppable). Jordan's been in the side, out of the side, back in the side, and in all likelihood out of it again. Continuity? Giving guys a good run? My foot.

Why not go with the 4 quicks (leave Woakes out), Moeen's your spinner, drop one of the batsmen?

Probably one last chance for Robson as well. He's looked ok, but there is a pretty glaring weakness just outside off stump that has been exposed by an adequate bowling attack at best.

Sir Geoffrey made a good point the other day- If we were playing Australia tomorrow, who would you want as Cook's opening partner- Robson, Carberry, or Compton?

He said Carberry, and i'd probably agree with him. Although Hales might be worth a punt as well.

Robson looks a weedy little technically deficient knob jockey. He'd be an ideal opening partner for Phil Hughes. The only difference is Fuse stands on t'other side of the bat.

Henry wrote:Probably one last chance for Robson as well. He's looked ok, but there is a pretty glaring weakness just outside off stump that has been exposed by an adequate bowling attack at best.

Sir Geoffrey made a good point the other day- If we were playing Australia tomorrow, who would you want as Cook's opening partner- Robson, Carberry, or Compton?

He said Carberry, and i'd probably agree with him. Although Hales might be worth a punt as well.

None of the above: I'd go for either Lees or Lyth

Robson looks very good through the on-side. And his straight driving is decent enough.

Just a bit of white knuckle ride with his off-side play. Some sweet cover drives, some loosey goosey wafting.

I think he's a reasonable investment who'll probably make one more meaningful score in the series. A work in progress.

Plunkett out (injured). Finn in (has remembered how to bowl, sort of).

Well that's thrown a spanner in the works. Last time I saw Finn bowl (T20) he looked all right, but teetering on the edge of it all falling apart again.

Not sure he's fixed - sending him back to work with the people who broke him in the first place seems cruel.

Does this perhaps partly explain why Kerplunk was left out of T3?