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

Nath wrote:the scribes suggesting that Starc might be left out for Hazelwood.

Madness. Starkey is the new Midge.

Sounds like Root's going to bat at three. Makes sense to not have a top three of unproven rookies and never going to be-s.

But isn't the only justification for selecting Joe Denly in the first place that he can bat at number three? If he's just going to drop down the order, we might as well replace him with a middle order batsman of better quality.

Still looks like a team that don't have any real plan and are just winging it.

Root never likes going in with the ball fresh and seaming around.

Hence his preference for 4, where even if two of the top three have at least stuck around for around 10 overs making single-figure scores, the spitting serpent element has gone out of it, and he can set to work accumulating.

Remember when they first tried him as an opener? Was like the least competent meerkat. And he's added years, many runs and experience since then, but still pretty hapless when the ball is doing a lot.

Supreme fence sitting above.

England to win going away

Starting to get worried about what the rumours are about the Aust team.

Throwing a few selection bombs to rattle England, and overcome our recent history at the ground? Troubling a indeed. Langer must be reading Tsun Tsu and missing the point.

Can't help thinking that the Aussies will be more than happy to see Root at 3.

I have a feeling that Archer will be held back until Lords to  give his side extra recovery time.

The weather looks like it's going to improve.

Basil wrote:
I have a feeling that Archer will be held back until Lords to  give his side extra recovery time.

It'd be silly not to, really. Unless it looks like a really quick pitch, the two weeks of rest time for Archer until the Lord's Test gives him a chance at playing the final four games at full tilt.

And given that Anderson is an injury doubt too, it'd be madness to risk them both. We could be down two bowlers after two overs. I mean, it could happen anyway, but you're asking for trouble picking two recovering seamers unless absolutely necessary.

"Like the poor chap who
Day after day
Stands
On the mighty river's shore
And bets on which way
Those waters will go ...
When they flow on for ever"


When signs are very mixed, & absolutely no clear outcome in sight, there seems no great virtue in making a headlong forecast.

Better to read the signs, as they develop, & watch what happens.

Dello wrote:

Basil wrote:
I have a feeling that Archer will be held back until Lords to  give his side extra recovery time.

It'd be silly not to, really. Unless it looks like a really quick pitch, the two weeks of rest time for Archer until the Lord's Test gives him a chance at playing the final four games at full tilt.

And given that Anderson is an injury doubt too, it'd be madness to risk them both. We could be down two bowlers after two overs. I mean, it could happen anyway, but you're asking for trouble picking two recovering seamers unless absolutely necessary.

Aye.

Even if it looks like a really quick pitch. Stone then.

Even if England aren't without sin, they could cast him in the role of a strike bowler.

Casting Oliver Stone? Surely he does the casting.

Can you even grow couch over there?

My team:

Warner (I feel dirty)
Bancroft
Khawaja
Smith
Head
Wade
Paine
Cummins
Pattinson
Starc
Lyon
Hazlewood (12th)

I can't remember Australia ever choosing a side with three FC keepers in it previously; but it seems to be a craze that's sweeping several nations.

Do a lot of young batsmen these days feel they need to learn to keep wicket if they don’t bowl, otherwise they may find their options limited as one-dimensional players?

So I’m hearing a rumour that both Starc and Hazlewood will miss out and that Siddle will play, meaning the Aus attack will be Cummins, Pattinson, Siddle, M.Marsh, Lyon.

Their faith in Mitchell Marsh simply because he’s technically an ‘all rounder’ (when in truth Cummins is just as good a batsman) is extraordinary.

I can’t help but think Hazelwood’s bounce would be useful against the likes of Roy.

Henry wrote:Their faith in Mitchell Marsh simply because he’s technically an ‘all rounder’ (when in truth Cummins is just as good a batsman) is farked up the arse.

Fixed.

[quote="Henry"]So I’m hearing a rumour that both Starc and Hazlewood will miss out and that Siddle will play, meaning the Aus attack will be Cummins, Pattinson, Siddle, M.Marsh, Lyon.

Their faith in Mitchell Marsh simply because he’s technically an ‘all rounder’ (when in truth Cummins is just as good a batsman) is extraordinary. [/quote

Don't know when this search for the holy grail started. Can't remember it in the seventies. I spose that's how ksr got his start in the eighties. Didnt really need one into the nineties and a half a decade beyond. When we aren't dominatinating it proves we need an all-rounder would seem to be the Aquinas like logic. Quite forgetting the factor we we were missing during the domination.

In the early and mid 70's we had Dougie and GSC who were more than useful with the ball; Jenner and O'Keeffe were more than handy with the bat. Gilmour flattered to deceive. SRW has already been mentioned. In the 80s, Matthews was selected as a bowler and (mostly) failed, but averaged over 40 with the bat, outperforming many who were chosen as specialist batsmen. Julian was another promising all-rounder ... look where that got him, the Shane Lee of his day.

I still view M Marsh as a batsman (not up to Test standard yet, if ever) who bowls a bit. If he could bat better, he'd reach Tom Moody standard. When bowling he's nearly as injury-prone as Watson.

Well I didn't want to mention the obvious, point is none of them were remotely all-rounders, though Matthews is one of the stranger abbherations in test history. Coming across a batsman who can spell a bowler without embarassing himself will always be nice but should be the limits of our ambition. Nothing wrong with developing talent if it comes along but it stops at actually selecting one who really isnt. Most of our bowler's are good for a twenty or thirty every now and then and we have four of those.

So, after sorting out international times, I now realise I will still be in Colombia for Day 1 (5 am to 12 noon on Thurs 1 August, Colombian time). I will miss day 2 in transit and be home to catch most of Day 3.

Can anyone suggest a dodgy link that might give me some coverage? Furry??

Rumour now is that Starc will miss out & Hazlewood will get the nod with Patto & Sids. Our selectors clearly have their money on England.

Patto and Second surely?

I heard Starc with cot and Patto and can live with that.

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

Surely if he’s not injured, Cummins is the first name on the Aus team sheet these days?

Honestly though, if you asked England’s batsmen which bowler they’d least like to face, they’d say Starc.