English cricket thread

As infuriating as the batting can be, I think England's major issue is the bowling. If either Broad or Anderson aren't at the top of their game, it is just such a toothless attack.

A lot of this is due to injury, and not having Archer available/Stone develop has really hurt England's options in this regard, but the current attack looks incapable of restricting Australia to below 350 let alone 300.

You can't be giving away scores like this in England and expect to win matches.

England have no real spin options (even with Leach IMO) and the pace bowlers after Broad/Anderson are filler at best.
 
croadyman said:
Key session was yesterday evening
Click to expand...

Nah this morning was the most important session of the match and England threw it away.

With more sensible batting they'd still be in now and potentially looking at a first innings lead.

The fact that Australia bowled us out in that session is a big psychological boost for them.
 
With Warner playing this far out of his crease for Anderson wouldn't it be an idea to try a couple of slow balls to entice the miss. If Bairstow knew which balls were going to be slower he can step forward for the stumping?
 
That was a straightforward catch tbh - should have taken it.
 
Balljy said:
With Warner playing this far out of his crease for Anderson wouldn't it be an idea to try a couple of slow balls to entice the miss. If Bairstow knew which balls were going to be slower he can step forward for the stumping?
Click to expand...

Bairstow would have to be up to the stumps before the delivery which would give it away to the batters.

At normal pace he's too quick for the 'keeper to be up.
 
ChrisNelson said:
Bairstow would have to be up to the stumps before the delivery which would give it away to the batters.

At normal pace he's too quick for the 'keeper to be up.
Click to expand...

That was my thought though, why couldn't he move during Anderson running in or is that not allowed as it' a distraction to the batter?
 
Those protestors should have waited a few days, Bairstow would probably be helping them destroy the wicket now.
 
I get the aggressive approach - and frankly with the players in this team, it’s probably the best approach for England. But there has to be some balance. Some game management. Some contextual batting. It really isn’t as binary as one or the other. And for those saying the whole thing falls down when you start getting selective, I wholeheartedly disagree. You can be aggressive without chasing the stupid shots.
 
rpitroda said:
I get the aggressive approach - and frankly with the players in this team, it’s probably the best approach for England. But there has to be some balance. Some game management. Some contextual batting. It really isn’t as binary as one or the other. And for those saying the whole thing falls down when you start getting selective, I wholeheartedly disagree. You can be aggressive without chasing the stupid shots.
Click to expand...

Yeah unfortunately England didn't realise that and so just surrendered like cowards to the short ball,absolutely pathetic
 
rpitroda said:
I get the aggressive approach - and frankly with the players in this team, it’s probably the best approach for England. But there has to be some balance. Some game management. Some contextual batting. It really isn’t as binary as one or the other. And for those saying the whole thing falls down when you start getting selective, I wholeheartedly disagree. You can be aggressive without chasing the stupid shots.
Click to expand...

As @DOTA said earlier, it kind of is binary though.

The approach only works when all doubts on shot selection, etc. are dismissed. As soon as they start thinking about the risks involved it's no longer the same approach.
 
That looked clear not out, how on earth was that even given?
 
Alex99 said:
As @DOTA said earlier, it kind of is binary though.

The approach only works when all doubts on shot selection, etc. are dismissed. As soon as they start thinking about the risks involved it's no longer the same approach.
Click to expand...
Sorry I disagree. You can easily preset some basic parameters. Not suggesting a long list of do’s and don’t’s as yes that does undermine the approach. But, for example, “don’t chase high and wide short balls” does not change the overall approach.
 
rpitroda said:
Sorry I disagree. You can easily preset some basic parameters. Not suggesting a long list of do’s and don’t’s as yes that does undermine the approach. But, for example, “don’t chase high and wide short balls” does not change the overall approach.
Click to expand...

Honestly, I've got the impression that the only consideration they have is "can I get bat to ball?" and if the answer is yes, they swing away.
 
rpitroda said:
Doesn’t make it right though. You don’t even do that in ODI’s.
Click to expand...

Ultimately, Stokes was the only one playing "sensible" cricket and he ended up with a lower strike rate than everyone apart from Tongue and Anderson and one of the lowest run returns.
 
Alex99 said:
Ultimately, Stokes was the only one playing "sensible" cricket and he ended up with a lower strike rate than everyone apart from Tongue and Anderson and one of the lowest run returns.
Click to expand...

2nd ball of the day though and that sort of dismissal can happen.

If Stokes had batted for about 2/3 hours longer yesterday he would likely have gone on to do quite well I think.
 
Annihilate Now! said:
2nd ball of the day though and that sort of dismissal can happen.

If Stokes had batted for about 2/3 hours longer yesterday he would likely have gone on to do quite well I think.
Click to expand...

Strike rate probably wouldn't have been much higher though, and he also wasn't really playing what we know to be Bazball.

I don't really disagree with the idea that England need more flexibility with how they approach matches, but this is also basically the first time we've seen the approach they've been using fall apart in this manner.

I just don't think Bazball is an adjustable approach, even if it was the wrong approach for this series.
 
Alex99 said:
Ultimately, Stokes was the only one playing "sensible" cricket and he ended up with a lower strike rate than everyone apart from Tongue and Anderson and one of the lowest run returns.
Click to expand...

Yeah reckless batting costs England Ashes will be headline after the third test. They would be absolutely spot on with that assessment too
 
croadyman said:
Yeah reckless batting costs England Ashes will be headline after the third test. They would be absolutely spot on with that assessment too
Click to expand...
That would be somewhat simplistic given that, on paper, Australia have a better team and England were absolutely shit in test cricket until McCullum and "Bazball" came in. The approach in the 1st test was mostly reasonable, you can quibble with the declaration but I don't think reckless batting was the issue, but I think particularly when Lyon got injured it's valid to question if England shouldn't have been more flexible in the last session yesterday and this morning and tried to put more overs on the Australian bowlers.
 
RORY65 said:
That would be somewhat simplistic given that, on paper, Australia have a better team and England were absolutely shit in test cricket until McCullum and "Bazball" came in. The approach in the 1st test was mostly reasonable, you can quibble with the declaration but I don't think reckless batting was the issue, but I think particularly when Lyon got injured it's valid to question if England shouldn't have been more flexible in the last session yesterday and this morning and tried to put more overs on the Australian bowlers.
Click to expand...

They can't be flexible just go at it like mad bulls and to hell with the consequences
 
croadyman said:
They can't be flexible just go at it like mad bulls and to hell with the consequences
Click to expand...
Sure but to blame them potentially losing the Ashes on their approach in a couple of sessions is silly, they're not as good a team as Australia (who were recently crowned the best team in the world) and started playing this way because they were worse when they tried to play conventionally.
 
Ish said:
Pity about Archer and his injury troubles. Suppose injuries almost robbed the Aussies of their current pace attack as well.
Click to expand...

He should have been managed better,these injuries are him bowling too many overs
 
RORY65 said:
Sure but to blame them potentially losing the Ashes on their approach in a couple of sessions is silly, they're not as good a team as Australia (who were recently crowned the best team in the world) and started playing this way because they were worse when they tried to play conventionally.
Click to expand...

They could have really put them under pressure yesterday but no they had to be dumb and keep falling for the same mistake. No wonder Smith has ripped the piss in the media today because I would too for such a careless reckless approach.
 
croadyman said:
He should have been managed better,these injuries are him bowling too many overs
Click to expand...
No doubt, albeit some are also just unlucky with injuries - i think the Aussies went through this as well with both Cummins and Starc being frequently injured (possibly even Hazelwood?). If I'm not mistaken, they rotate/rest them quite well - it does help having someone like Boland though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.