- My dear old things, it's STW TMS!
Posted 1 week agoView this post on Instagram
A post shared by AlisonMitchell (@alison_mitchell_official) onlungeSubscriber
On balance, Australia are a better side, but not by much. Both sides have real questions in their batting lineups, and both teams are unafraid of s collapse. Personnel changes needed for both sides I think, Wade and the 2 openers for Aus will be under the microscope, Butler, Bairstow, Roy and Denly for England.
Bowling wise, both are prone to sessions of incredible bowling often followed by a session of dirge. Not sure personnel changes are needed but questions need to be asked.Posted 1 week ago
Disagree a bit there looking lunge – the Aussie bowling attack is a better unit than England’s. Better spinner and they can rotate fast bowlers without much change in quality. Smith is just a machine and aside from him the Aussie batters are bang average.Posted 1 week agomeftyMember
I agree with shortbread fanylion, Aussie bowling attack was a step ahead of ours, which still performed well. Amazingly we had the best opener, they had the best 3 & 4 by a margin, our middle order (well Stokes) was slightly better and their lower order contributed alot more.
I would bring in a new opener to partner Burns, probably Sibley, put Denley at 3 as he has shown sufficient application two tests in a row, put Root back to 4, Stokes 5, Pope 6, Bairstow 7, Woakes, Archer, broad and Leach. If Stokes is injured then Curran comes in, Pope and Bairstow move up.Posted 1 week agonicko74Member
More broadly though England need to treat batting seriously. No coming out to the middle aiming to swipe the ball around a bit, but proper Test batting, methodically building a total to defend. The last two matches England have only looked like a decent batting unit when their backs have been against the wall. It’s not good enoughPosted 1 week agoconvertSubscriber
How’s everyone feeling about the knighthood of Sir Boycs? Original conviction always had a bit of a tinge to it (the lady in question asking for money to go away, some suggestion she told a different story to friends) – but he still is a convicted domestic abuser…..Posted 5 days agomartinhutchMember
It depends if you think the current honours system is particularly meritocratic. If Philip Green gets one, Boycs is a shoe-in.
I suppose there’s always the option for Queenie to annul it some years later like she did for Fred Goodwin, and the honorary ones she took away from those lovely chaps Mugabe, Ceaucescu and Mussolini.Posted 5 days ago
Domestic violence notwithstanding, here’s another miserable old Yorkshire bastard ‘congratulating’ Dennis Lillee on his 300th Test wicket. I say ‘congratulating’ but he spends approx ten seconds doing that, the rest of the time he is either rucking about not getting the adulation he believes he deserves or just talking about himself. The Yorkshire dressing room was full of them in that era (miserable horrible old Illingworth and barely any better Brian Close in there as well). If nothing else Boycs is a typical Yorkshire braggart of the era. He does talk some sense sometimes, but he is rapidly becoming a self-parody, much as Trueman did.Posted 4 days ago
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.