The Ashes

IronHerb

BubblesNeverDies said:

Stating the obvious.
Catches are dropped in cricket.

Then why make such a song and dance over a dropped catch?

OldCastleSwift

I've seen neither song, nor dance, about a dropped catch.

I've seen people bemoan Roots costly drop of Marsh, which is completely valid IMO, and I've seen people be critical of England's catching as a whole, which has been repeated by the pundits across all platforms covering the series.

alderz

This article is from Saturday so only goes to day 2 of the third test, but we had conceded 401 runs to dropped players during the series to that point, and Australia had conceded 266. Alex Carey has dropped 2, Bairsteow had dropped 5 and missed a stumping. Joe Root has dropped 6.

Bairstows six errors have cost us 182 runs so far.

Aside from that, we've also conceded 49 more extras than Australia so far.

IMO, it is perfectly reasonable to bemoan simple errors being made. Is it reasonable to expect every single chance to be taken? Yes. But I've not seen anyone do that on here.

https://wisden.com/series-stories/ashes-2023/ashes-2023-how-much-every-dropped-catch-and-missed-stumping-has-cost-england-and-australia-so-far

OldCastleSwift

buffybegood said:

Dodger58 said:

I heard yesterday that we have already missed 20 chances for wickets in the 3 tests, that’s getting all the Aussies out twice in one match. It isn’t Bazball, but our fielding that has let us down.

I have always hated not picking the best wicketkeeper - we never appear to learn. Bairstow willbe very fortunate if he keeps his place.

Bairstow should be very fortunate to keep his place, but I see a stubborness with McCullum and Stokes that suggests they're not going to admit they were wrong in dropping Foakes.

I admire a degree of loyalty from selectors; in the past we've chopped and changed too much, but I'm not sure Bairstow has done enough since his accident to justify his place, and he's certainly done nothing to suggest he should be keeping wicket, quite the reverse in fact.

It seems Stokes is unlikely to bowl again this series, so it seems we've got to re-examine the balance of the team. Old Trafford tends to have a bit more turn than some other grounds, so it seems unlikely we'll go without a spinner; will Moeen Ali be available (there was mention of his sore finger again in this Test)? Will we risk Robinson given his back issues in this Test? Unlikely I woulda thought.

Ultimately, we'll need 4 seamers and Moeen, and then just 5 batsmen and whoever keeps. I just can't see Stokes and McCullum going with Foakes in those circumstances; if Stokes could be trusted to be the 4th seamer then I think there's more chance of Foakes coming back in, but I think the indications are that Stokes won't be able to bowl again. If Wood is able to play again, then I think we'll see the same side again, with either Tongue, who seems to have overtaken Potts is the minds of the selectors, or Anderson coming in for Robinson; realistically I think it's more likely to be Tongue as I'm not sure I'd want Anderson and Wood in the same team given neither would want to be bowling long spells.

Nine days rest now, so hopefully Wood will be ok to play. Hard pressed to drop Woakes, too, given his efforts and his home record.

I can't see any argument for keeping Bairstow as 'keeper, and maybe even not dropping him altogether. Bar the first innings at Edgbaston he's barely contributed with the bat (subsequent scores of 20, 16, 10, 12 and 5) and we've all seen his issues with the gloves.

A couple of big calls for Stokes and McCullum. I don't think we'll see Brook at 3 again, and the Ali experiment didn't (and I suspect never will) work, so does Root go back to 3? Or if Stokes isn't going to bowl maybe he goes there given his form over the last couple of tests?

Assuming Robinson won't be 100%, I think I'd go with:

Crawley
Duckett
Stokes
Root
Brook
Foakes
Woakes
Ali
Wood
Broad
Tongue

Maybe a batter light, but you could argue we'd bat to 10.

Fortuneseeker

OCS, No Jimmy Anderson on his home ground?

OldCastleSwift

Fortuneseeker said:

OCS, No Jimmy Anderson on his home ground?

It was a toss up between him and Tongue. Anderson just didn't look a threat in the first two for me.

No real issues if he is picked, but I'm not sure his form necessarily warrants it.

IronHerb

As an aside. The T20 Blast finals day will consist of the top four teams from the southern section of the competition. Essex will play Hants and Surrey will play Somerset this coming Saturday.

buffybegood

OldCastleSwift said:

Crawley
Duckett
Stokes
Root
Brook
Foakes
Woakes
Ali
Wood
Broad
Tongue

I'm not unhappy with that at all (it's pretty much what I was suggesting), and, although I think Stokes has the technique and, when he puts his mind to it, the temperament, to bat at 3, Root did say he'd bat there before the last Test, so I think he's a more natural player there tbh. Unfortunately I can't see it happening under Stokes and McCullum though; the batting line-up does look a little light it has to be said. It's just so unfortunate that Stokes can't bowl, as he does fill the 4th seamer spot nicely when fit allowing the extra batsman. When you consider we had 7 batsmen for the first 2 Tests, I can't see us playing 5 in this one.

I mentioned earlier in the thread I could see Wood and Anderson being alternated over the last 4 Tests, and this would likely have been earmarked as an Anderson Test as it's his home ground. However, if he's up to it, it's hard to drop Wood after how he bowled, and no point saving him for the Oval if we're 3-1 down by then. It's possible Anderson will play ahead of Tongue though.

alderz

I like Stokes at 6, but if Bairstow is dropped I'd probably only want him moved to 5. I'd probably go Root 3, Brook 4, Stokes 5.

OldCastleSwift

I put Stokes at 3 because it means only him moving. Keeping him at 6 means both Root and Brook moving. Not that I think batting at 3 or 4, or 4 and 5 are that much different, but it certainly seems to be a thing.

I suppose playing Lawrence ahead of Bairstow is an option, but again, not sure where he'd fit into the batting line up. Offers a spin option, but if Ali and Root are playing we shouldn't need a third spinner.

I just don't know what Bairstow is bringing to the team at the moment; he's been a liability with the gloves and hasn't contributed enough with the bat. Could all change of course, but looks to me like a man playing with zero confidence. Starc's wicket is a prime example; that was Bairstow's catch all day long but Brook was forced to take a much more difficult catch than was necessary because I'm not sure Bairstow fancied it.

buffybegood

OldCastleSwift said:

Could all change of course, but looks to me like a man playing with zero confidence. Starc's wicket is a prime example; that was Bairstow's catch all day long but Brook was forced to take a much more difficult catch than was necessary because I'm not sure Bairstow fancied it.

He wouldn't be human if his confidence hadn't been knocked by how he's been playing, but if there's one position you can't afford to be lacking confidence it's with the gloves; your example is a very good one, but it also can have an impact throughout the slip cordon, most especially at first slip.

buffybegood

As predicted, no recall for Foakes, unchanged squad for the 4th Test:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/66163802

thornburyiron

Ludicrous. Bairstow will cost us the ashes, we got away with it last test but he’s not a test quality keeper.

buffybegood

thornburyiron said:

Ludicrous. Bairstow will cost us the ashes, we got away with it last test but he’s not a test quality keeper.

Given how tight the first two matches were, there's a case we could have won them back already; the first Test especially, despite that being his best performance with the bat, he was truly shocking with the gloves and we'd almost certainly be at worst 2-1 up with Foakes playing.

OldCastleSwift

Yep, as predictable as it is disappointing.

Clearly, unless Bairstow gets injured, Foakes ain't getting a look in, so I think we just have to accept that now.

Feels like stubbornness, because I can see no other reason for continuing with Bairstow.

PrestonHammer

Bairstow will come good, I feel it in my bones.

thornburyiron

By coming good I assume you mean only making half the mistakes. He doesn’t have the right technique to be a test quality keeper. Playing him because he may score some runs is plain daft logic.
It would be like us playing Paqueta in goal because his distribution from the back may create some opportunities.

buffybegood

PrestonHammer said:

Bairstow will come good, I feel it in my bones.

He hasn't been as bad in the last 2 Tests as he was in the first, but he still put down chances that you know Foakes would have taken, and he also let some byes past that Foakes wouldn't have either. The team has a better balance with Bairstow in, especially when Stokes can't bowl and we have to play 5 specialist bowlers, but he just isn't anywhere near as good as Foakes behind the stumps, he's not a natural there.

We're gonna have to hope that Bairstow comes good, because, tbh, the Aussie batsmen really haven't performed as well as you'd expect them to; Smith is only averaging 31.67, Labuschagne 24 and Warner down at 23.5. If they up their game, then we can't afford to carry on giving them the chances that we have done so far. It's hard enough getting 20 Australian wickets, without having to create enough chances to take 25 or more.

EXETERHAMMER

PrestonHammer said:

Bairstow will come good, I feel it in my bones.

I'd rather Bairstow feel the ball in his gloves

OldCastleSwift

It's catching. Or rather it's not.

The women's team has dropped four catches and had a missed stumping in today's ODI.

PrestonHammer

It's not just Johnny then hahaha

thornburyiron

Comforting to know he wouldn’t be out of place in the women’s team.

OldCastleSwift

Jenny Bairstow

OldCastleSwift

Crawley
Duckett
Ali (yikes)
Root
Brook
Stokes
Bairstow
Woakes
Wood
Broad
Anderson

Is the team for Old Trafford.

buffybegood

England win the toss (again 😊) and will bowl. Australia bat very deep as they're playing both Green and Marsh instead of a spinner. Very important to take some cheap wickets this morning, especially as it's very possible time will be lost to the weather during the Test.

buffybegood

Broad gets Khawaja lbw, 15-1 although it's being reviewed.

He's out 😊

buffybegood

Warner goes, 61-2.

buffybegood

107-2. Evenish session, but we need a breakthrough pretty early in the afternoon or Australia could easily end up in a very strong position.

OldCastleSwift

buffybegood said:

107-2. Evenish session, but we need a breakthrough pretty early in the afternoon or Australia could easily end up in a very strong position.

I have it as Australia's session. I didn't think there was much threat from the England bowlers, particularly as the morning went on. Outside of the wickets, I can only really remember Smith's hook and Labuschagne's edge that went between 3rd slip and gulley that looked like possible chances. Doesn't seem as much pace in the pitch which seems to be blunting Wood's threat.

buffybegood

Whilst I agree there wasn't too much threat from our bowlers, 2 wickets down in the first session still represents an acceptable, if not great, return imo; thus, for me anyway, a fairly even first session.