Slipstream wrote:I don't see Roy given a chance against Ireland now. The three reserves to be named tomorrow should play against Ireland or they will get no game time at all.
sussexpob wrote:Slipstream wrote:I don't see Roy given a chance against Ireland now. The three reserves to be named tomorrow should play against Ireland or they will get no game time at all.
With Brooks form, and the squad officially not needing to be announced till after the series, it made sense to have the two play and fight for the place. It would look very stupid if Roy scored runs after Brook has failed 3 times..... but I guess for that reason, like you, they will not pick him to make them then look foolish.
Durhamfootman wrote:It's worth reminding ourselves, while everyone carps on about Roy's back spasms turning him into an unsafe bet, that England put themselves in a whole world of trouble when Roy picked up an injury halfway through the tournament 4 years ago. Seemingly he came back and played while still carrying the injury that ruled him out for 2 or 3 games and despite that, scored a shed load of runs and scored them damned fast too. Now it rather looks as though his England career is over
alfie wrote:I feel for Roy ; but I do think the decision is largely because his fitness is obviously questionable - and Malan has surely booked the opening spot with his recent form. This leaves a choice between a player who is not just short of match play and something of an injury risk , but also only really an option as opener , against one who can - up to a point - cover any batting position. I take the point that Brook has no great white ball credentials as yet ; but he does look like a player who has a lot of upside
Durhamfootman wrote:I take all those points, SP and agree with them by and large, but England don't look further than T20, now that they play almost no ODI's and have reduced the value of the domestic 50 over cup to nothing. Yes Roy has 2 ODI centuries, but he couldn't buy a run in either the dribble or the nonsense and that's all England look at.
sussexpob wrote:Durhamfootman wrote:I take all those points, SP and agree with them by and large, but England don't look further than T20, now that they play almost no ODI's and have reduced the value of the domestic 50 over cup to nothing. Yes Roy has 2 ODI centuries, but he couldn't buy a run in either the dribble or the nonsense and that's all England look at.
Its a very silly think to do. T20 players can be very useful as ultra aggressive sloggers, but at lower averages. Having the ability to average high 20s at SRs in essence of 140-150 is world class batting in T20, but in 50 over game if your top 6 batters only manage 20 balls each, then you are trading high SRs for lost overs.... so the higher SR is nullified. In 50 over cricket, you need players to average 30-35 at least in the top 6, especially in England's case where hitting the ball lower down the order in quickfire contributions is not a skill they lack.
For me, picking Brook at the top of the order would have a similar effect to moving a Moeen up and asking him to have a cameo. And playing him down the order just puts him into that zone of where Buttler, Livingstone, Moeen and Woakes can already fly over 6 an over to put quick runs on the board at the end.
Arthur Crabtree wrote:Brook plays shots, but doesn't middle many of them. He shanks a lot into the outfield. That can be effective, but chances are you'll scoop a chance before making a big total.
Arthur Crabtree wrote:Brook plays shots, but doesn't middle many of them. He shanks a lot into the outfield. That can be effective, but chances are you'll scoop a chance before making a big total.
Return to International Cricket
Users browsing this forum: Slipstream and 5 guests