Originally Posted by
the other bob wilson
Playing Devil's advocate to an extent, England have batted for sixty one overs, what do you think their score would be if they batted "normally"? For a start, Crawley always seems more vulnerable to me when he is pushing and poking at the ball - I'm fairly sure he wouldn't have reached forty eight if he had tried to "build an innings". The same applies to Duckett only less so, much is made of the fact he leave so few balls (something I think is asking for trouble as an opener), but is he better off fully committing to shots as opposed to having the question "do I play this or not?" turning over in his mind in the split second before the ball reaches him? I think I'm right in saying Pope's figures are better under McCullum than they were before (Bairstow's definitely are), but I'm still not convinced about him yet, while Root should just be told to play in the way that has got him to be rated right up there among England's best batsmen.
My guess is that, if that England line up had played those sixty one overs in typical test match mode, they would have ended the day at something like 180-3 - in this instance, I'd say ninety mote runs for one more wicket lost is the better position to be in. Baz ball isn't all bad or all good, but I agree that machismo took over last night, Pope's shot was ridiculous, Duckett was a bit unlucky, Root took leave of his senses and I think you just have to accept Brook for what he is - he's seems another one who wouldn't be as effective pushing and prodding to me.