By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Hobbs and Rhodes to open the batting, Foster and Barnes the bowling - no problem. England's Glory.
110-or-so years on, as said, Stokes the absolute key. With him 1-1 or 2-2, without him 0-3 or worse. A drawn series would still be a fabulous result imho.
Don't remember Hick or Ramprakash ever getting a Test double century (267) or 189 against the Aussies in an Ashes test.
Every England team has to have a boo boy and Crawley is this one even though he is one half of one of the best opening partnerships in our history. If you boys think Burns or Sibley running out of the way of Starc, when they realise it isn't a county seamer dobbling one down to them at the Oval when they are 500 runs ahead is a better bet, be my guest. Been there, got the t-shirt and it wasn't a pretty sight.
My one concern is that Crawley is proven to be brilliant against high pace and I fancy Boland will cause him more problems than Cummins would have done.
I do think we have a sniff if Stokesy stays fit and at least two of the pacers play 4/5 tests. However, it is still a very big ask.
I dont think anyone on here is currently advocating for Burns or Sibley.
My own personal choice would have been for Haseeb Hameed to go as back up / cover for Crawley and definitely to give Crawley the first two tests and see how he goes. And Hameed has shown, he is a scorer of big scores.
The comparison with Crawley with Hick and / or Ramprakesh thought was fair though.
All have undoubtedly qualities, but their quality in comparison to their overall general performances is limited. Crawley has a test batting average of 30.89 from 52 tests, Hick's is 31.32 from 65 tests, and Ramprakash's average is 27.32 from 52 tests. Just making the point, that their class would deem an average around the mid 40s, but as with the other two, Crawleys overall performances have been hampered by losses of concentration and poor shot selection after batting himself in.
Pope is the only other batsmen currently in jeopardy over losing his place, for me. I think also, likewise, he will be given the first two tests, all being well, and if its not happening for him, I expect Bethell to be given his place as a replacement.
However, given Jacks is in the squad if Pope fails, I personally would have Smith at number three and I think he can cope with a higher profile batting position along side performing with the gloves. Jacks could fill in at six or seven, also, if this scenario happens.
Don't remember Hick or Ramprakash ever getting a Test double century (267) or 189 against the Aussies in an Ashes test.
Every England team has to have a boo boy and Crawley is this one even though he is one half of one of the best opening partnerships in our history. If you boys think Burns or Sibley running out of the way of Starc, when they realise it isn't a county seamer dobbling one down to them at the Oval when they are 500 runs ahead is a better bet, be my guest. Been there, got the t-shirt and it wasn't a pretty sight.
My one concern is that Crawley is proven to be brilliant against high pace and I fancy Boland will cause him more problems than Cummins would have done.
I do think we have a sniff if Stokesy stays fit and at least two of the pacers play 4/5 tests. However, it is still a very big ask.
I think you may have SDS aka Surrey Derangement Sydrome
Nobody has really mentioned the dire state of the Aussie batting. Apart from Smith (who is clearly declining) and Head, they are in crisis as shown by the three tests against the Windies and the World Championship defeat by South Africa. They even tried Green as No 3, with limited success. This is a real chance for England.