England v Australia, 1st Test, Edgbaston, 1-5 August, 2019

Regarding the all-rounder issue, it’s very like England in the late 80s and 90s, we were so desperate to find the next Botham that we picked so many who contributed nothing with bat or ball, and any tailender who scored a 50 was earmarked as the great man’s successor... even Freddie looked like another fat pretender for the first few years. Now we’ve got more all-rounders than we know what to do with and can’t find any specialist batsmen...

The reason for such an obsession among Australia selectors is harder to fathom, given the winning formula of their greatest modern sides was six batsmen, a destructive keeper-batsman and four bowlers.

beamer wrote:
The reason for such an obsession among Australia selectors is harder to fathom, given the winning formula of their greatest modern sides was six batsmen, a destructive keeper-batsman and four bowlers.

We had an all-time great fast bowling (McGrath) and an all-time great spinner (Warne). We didn't need a 5th bowler for the most part.

Nath wrote:

beamer wrote:
The reason for such an obsession among Australia selectors is harder to fathom, given the winning formula of their greatest modern sides was six batsmen, a destructive keeper-batsman and four bowlers.

We had an all-time great fast bowling (McGrath) and an all-time great spinner (Warne).  We didn't need a 5th bowler for the most part.

I’d have expected the obsession to be with finding another Warne... as I’ve always said, there must have been an entire generation of youngsters wanting to bowl leg-spin, so not finding one of even half his ability is the biggest squandered legacy in cricket history.

Probably get their spirit crushed or their technique farked up at the academy.

https://www.foxsports.com.au/cricket/the-ashes/ashes-shock-stuart-broad-and-jofra-archer-could-sit-out-first-test-for-england-against-australia/news-story/b837b624f4bbe442aff44546b3c9c7c6

Broad & Archer to be left out?

Didn't think Archer would play. They'll probably want it as they'll want it as they tight as possible early first up and his radar is still a work in progress.

Didn't think Archer would play.  They'll want it as tight as possible early first up and his radar is still a work in progress.

Nath wrote:

beamer wrote:
The reason for such an obsession among Australia selectors is harder to fathom, given the winning formula of their greatest modern sides was six batsmen, a destructive keeper-batsman and four bowlers.

We had an all-time great fast bowling (McGrath) and an all-time great spinner (Warne).  We didn't need a 5th bowler for the most part.

But you've included the problem in the argument, Nath.

With two ATGs, you only rarely needed a fifth bowler (except to fill in), esp on home tracks. You could run through sides fairly rapidly.

Other bowling lineups don't make such short work of opposition batting. (Unless they have a Murtagh in their opening attack.)

If England continue to look like a coconut shy, you might only need two or three bowlers. It's not generally great policy.

And you don't turn a bowler into an ATG simply by giving him only three other guys who can bowl.

Bradman wrote:Didn't think Archer would play.  They'll want it as tight as possible early first up and his radar is still a work in progress.

So good they named it twice ...

Bradman wrote:Didn't think Archer would play.  They'll probably want it as they'll want it as they tight as possible early first up and his radar is still a work in progress.

We are talking cricket here?!

In further shock revelations, England are rumoured to be considering leaving out half their batting ...

... and helpful information.

I didn't agree with the experts about the team Aussie should play. On second thoughts, maybe Siddle at 6 is a bit high.

PeterCS wrote:

Bradman wrote:Didn't think Archer would play.  They'll probably want it as they'll want it as they tight as possible early first up and his radar is still a work in progress.

We are talking cricket here?!

Pills and booze. Leave me alone.

PeterCS wrote:In further shock revelations, England are rumoured to be considering leaving out half their batting ...

They’ve already left out the other half of it, Leach...

Makes sense not to risk Joffrey, he needs to be fully fit, and suspect conditions will suit Anderson, Broad and Woakes anyway.

England XI for first Test: Rory Burns, Jason Roy, Joe Root (c), Joe Denly, Jos Buttler, Ben Stokes, Jonny Bairstow, Moeen Ali, Chris Woakes, Stuart Broad, James Anderson.

So, how many wickets on day 1? There were 20 against Ireland... I'll go for 16 here.

The worrying thing for any England follower going into this series (if there's to be any chance of regaining the Urn, & not just avoiding a drubbing) is:

Where the hell are enough England runs going to come from?

On recent form: from (maybe 5), 6, 7 & 8 (& maybe 9) in the order - plus, the visitors' batting would also have to get into a bit of strife. Which is possible.

It may be a long shot, given last week's fiasco at Lord's, only partly offset in the home team's second dig. Against a hardly world-beating attack, lest that be forgotten.

But Blighty optimists would counter, perhaps: Ah, you see, but Stokes & Buttler weren't playing last week. And England's top three (even if 3 is moved to 4 - to escape detection?) can't misfire for ever, can they? Well ok ...

Australia still have to be favourites, you'd think. Even in a country where they haven't prospered for some years. Even starting on a ground that has been hard work for them during the same period (~ ~ mind you, if The Friendly Ghost hadn't wrongly been given out "caught behind" 14 years ago, who knows how that record might have developed?).

But whether hot favourites, or marginal favourites, does anyone really know? Anyone?

beamer wrote:So, how many wickets on day 1? There were 20 against Ireland... I'll go for 16 here.

27?

Bradman wrote:Skulls I've been in bumfark, Alabama and picked up cricket via the Carribbean.  Aren't you a lot closer?

Will see what I can find.

Cheers Q.

Bradman wrote:

PeterCS wrote:

Bradman wrote:Didn't think Archer would play.  They'll probably want it as they'll want it as they tight as possible early first up and his radar is still a work in progress.

We are talking cricket here?!

Pills and booze.  Leave me alone.

Wasn't having a go at your syntax. More an eyebrow-raise at the lexis (vocabulary). Quite a Carry-On of innuendo - unintended, presumably.

Hmmmm. I suppose I can sort of see that. Might have had more luck if I was still pissed and stoned.

At any rate they don't want the Aussie openers to get off to a flyer, and this pitch has that potential with sprayers.

So the Ashes have come around again , I guess the only positive from a Australian viewpoint is the Cricket is back on 9/9Gem depending on your Sate/Territory.

Blackadder wrote:So the Ashes have come around again ,  I guess the only positive from a Australian viewpoint is the Cricket is back on 9/9Gem depending on your Sate/Territory.

I don't see the positive. Ch9 sucks.

Give me 9 over 7 and their "coverage" any day of the week.