England v Ireland at Lord's, 24/7.

[backfootpunch]

Well that was crap.

Should have kept the lead to 80, but instead it's 120 because we can't bowl out the tail. Again, bodes badly for next week.

Need a bare minimum 350 in the second dig I reckon. Seems unlikely.

I swear broads bowling to the tail just gets worse and worse

He seems to think hes bowling 92-95mph not 82-85mph

[alfie]

I turned in and missed the fightback... getting them out for 207 after 130/2 is a pretty good session and keeps England in the game. Surely can't bat that badly again ? And bowling conditions won't be so helpful.

Seems funny to send in a night watchman instead of an opener - speaks to a lack of confidence as well as a lopsided selection (agree with Arthur that Smith got far too much praise for his work last year ; which wasn't quite as inspired as it has been billed). But then again , Leach was the only man that wasn't dismissed by the fearsome Irish attack in the first innings so perhaps he was the man for the job He'd like some runs I'm sure after some underwhelming bowling...

Pleased to see Broad turning in a good stint. Unlucky early on and finally got some wickets I see which seems fair reward. Running into form for the Ashes - and he might fancy bowling to an Australian team that can't make 200 against itself at the moment , apparently. Stone seems to have managed a not too bad debut but I think he's a bit down the queue. And Curran hasn't hurt his chances.

Just need some batsmen to stand up now !

But for today just for the Irish...well played

[sussexpob]

agree with Arthur that Smith got far too much praise for his work last year ; which wasn't quite as inspired as it has been billed

The whole of his apparent success is based around Buttler's left field selection, and while on paper its been a success, in reality Buttler had some quite frankly unbelievable luck last year. I believe when you look at every single score of substance he made, the only ones where he wasnt dropped early in were the Gros Islet first innings, and the 89 he scored at the Oval; which the match report humorously sums up as thus....... "barring a couple of extremely close lbw shouts and the 19 times he was beaten all ends up, he had their measure"..... His highest score (106 at Nottingham) he was dropped on 0 by Pant, as he was vs Pakistan (and dropped again ) when he made his third best score and won MOTM with 80*, which was a career saving effort. If people had took their catches by the time he scored his maiden test 100, he'd have averaged 18 for the year to that point(worth noting thats only counting drops passed 50, he got dropped more than once in innings he made the odd 20-30 in too)...... get the feeling if his luck runs out, then he might not be around in 2020.

Other than that, what has he done?

Ollie Pope... failed
Dom Bess.... failed
Burns.... failed so far
Jennings....... brought back after an appalling debut run, played a staggering 20 extra innings under Smith with only one score of 50+.... massive failure
Stoneman.... yes, he even reselected Stoneman for one game..... who scored 13 in 2 innings... fail
Malan... came back for 3 tests last summer, averaged 14....massive fail
Denly.... jury is still out, but averaged 12 in ODIs since his return, and under 25 in tests...... cant exactly be claimed a success.
Foakes..... dropped him with the best average of all players in the period, and the second highest runs to innings ratio. Bairstow continues to play
Rashid/Leach..... Rashid has played over double, Leach is returning a 22 run wicket average to Rashids 35.....seems bizarre he favours one.
Curran..... done alright, but no England bowler in this period has averaged over 25 per wicket (Stokes not being a specialist)..... Curran averages 34 before this test, by some distance the worst.

[sussexpob]

Seems funny to send in a night watchman instead of an opener

Why pick Roy if after one innings, you cant even trust him to bat out one over at the end of a days play vs the legend that is 38 year old Tim Murtagh? If I was in Roy's position, id be tackling Leach to the floor to get out and bat that last over, and as a coach Id be saying to the player "you want to prove you can play at this level, in this game? Go out there and see this over out, then see out an hour tomorrow"... score 0, I dont give a damn about runs from Roy, I just want to see him get a straight bat on a few overs and proving he can face 20-30-40 dot balls in a row without wanting to swing at one. But sending out the number 11 for one over said the world to me.....

Stone seems to have managed a not too bad

He came on for second spell last night, and looked the part we are always told Wood would be; aggressive, fast and occasionally nasty.....and that shock treatment bust open the Irish innings. I was impressed with him, if he backs it up in the second dig Id be playing him next week.

[bigfluffylemon]

Pope was selected very young and only got two tests (three innings) on swinging wickets before being unceremoniously dropped again. I'm pretty sure he'll be back.

And I read that if every single catch had been taken in the world cup, Sharma would have scored just over 200 runs for the tournament rather than the 650 he did score, and yet everyone's proclaiming him as a magnificent batsman rather than a lucky one. Most players get some luck at some point in an innings. The mark of a good player is that you make the good luck count and punish the opposition for letting you off. In some ways, it shows you're a good player if you get beaten many times without actually nicking one... I still remember England v India at Trent Bridge in 2007. Tendulkar was beaten all ends up in delivery after delivery, but hung in there to make 90 and swing the match in India's favour.

Still, not trying to argue that Smith's selections have been anything other than failure for the most part, just suggesting that it's a rare batsman that you can't construct a narrative about how bad they'd be if every half-chance and dropped catch had actually got them out. It's all about perspective.

[alfie]

Leach doing quite well do far this morning...not that batting looks as tricky today , nowhere near as "green". The longer he stays the better.
Of course the other side to this is that putting military medium seamers to the sword from the off is supposed to be the main purpose of Jason Roy Test Opener...and this morning seems better suited to such a plan...

Certainly protecting Roy last night doesn't scream confident !. But after yesterday's trauma I will forgive team management - this time - if the move achieves a result.

Burns hasn't been under so much pressure as he might have been given his underwhelming stats ... Perhaps because he's been partnering Keaton Jennings
But I think he could use some runs today.

[alfie]

But alas...no runs for Burns. Tame edge to the keeper. So far Leach has looked more convincing than either Surrey opener in this match !

Ireland chip the first brick away...

[sussexpob]

Should that be it for Burns? His footwork in both dismissals is very poor, he's not scoring and hes not technically looking the part. You have to get forward, and he's simply not doing it. Consistently caught hanging half forward or on the back foot, weight isnt coming forward, head is moving.

It all looks very non-test opening bat. And this is very a pretty tame attack.

[sussexpob]

Takes no time for Roy to look comfortable with the ball jagging into him. In his brief first innings he had 2-3 chances with the ball moving back, and it only takes 2 balls for him to get in trouble again. Mitchell Starc will be loving watching this with his inswinger.

[backfootpunch]

When the nightwatchmen looks a better player than the opener you can see why we got rolled for 85

[sussexpob]

Meanwhile Jack Leach is laying down a heavy marker for the top order slot, as he continues to play in a way that should disgrace any batter whos played for England so far in this test.

Roy responds in the only way he knows how.... boundaries.

[sussexpob]

Is this Brian Lara, or Jack Leach?

[alfie]

When the nightwatchmen looks a better player than the opener you can see why we got rolled for 85

Well this is one of the advantages of being a night watchman : once you've survived the "night" part you are under no pressure the next day - anything you do is seen as a bonus. Different for the "professional" openers.

That said , he has played with determination and plenty of cricketing intelligence. Within his limitations , but positively. A good effort. In truth he has batted sensibly in most of his brief Test career.

He's going to cop some short stuff now...

[sussexpob]

Leachs match contribution is a shade under half England's first innings score.

[alfie]

Should that be it for Burns? His footwork in both dismissals is very poor, he's not scoring and hes not technically looking the part. You have to get forward, and he's simply not doing it. Consistently caught hanging half forward or on the back foot, weight isnt coming forward, head is moving.

It all looks very non-test opening bat. And this is very a pretty tame attack.

Certainly done himself no good here. Looked timid , strokeless ...very unconvincing. Probably getting Edgbaston considering Roy on trial and new and the dearth of other options...but the odds on him lasting the Ashes must be pretty long.
Sibley might be getting better the longer he isn't given a try...