English cricket thread

zing said:
I think that the focus on Bazball + the Bairstow incident is taking away from the fact that Australia are simply a better team. There's people saying "This isn't how England played 12 months ago", "England can tweak their attacking approach a bit", and a lot of noise about the Bairstow incident.. playing a good team was always going to be a test of a tactic which relies on aggressive shot making and it's coming up short. I don't think it's a big surprise - Australia are just very good.

The McCullum interview of "We're galvanized by this" is symptomatic of this. The series score reads 2-0.
Click to expand...

England are aware of this hence we are not going to drop the Bairstow incident. Good chance to wind the Aussies up a bit, and get the players/crowd going.

And despite being the inferior side, we've been very close to winning both tests. You can spin it either way TBH.

Just a shame it isn't 1-1 for hype overdrive.
 
Champ said:
I think this is a fair assumption, albeit an obvious one. Australia are the number one team for a reason, they are very very good.

However, I have to say England are really not far behind.

England have made mistakes more than Austria have and that's why Australia are two up in the series.
Click to expand...
The big difference for me is Khawaja and the amount of deliveries he's soaked up. He's faced almost as many balls in this series as Crawley, Duckett, Pope and Root combined. Obviously the quality of bowling they're facing compared to him is higher, but a lot of their wickets were pretty cheap for players of their quality and the Aussie openers have actually faced some excellent bowling spells from the English attack as well.

Crawley may get a huge score at some point in this series, but he's just not played the role of an opener very well at all. The fact that Cummins has faced more balls and only has 4 fewer runs than him is pretty damning. This is test cricket and wearing the bowling attack down is a huge part of the game and we've just seen what someone like Stokes can produce when the bowlers starts to run out of gas.
 
DixieDean said:
Why do you think so many get knighthoods.

I'm still at a loss why cook and strauss got one! I thought strauss one might be for charity work but apparently it wasn't.

I've tuned out of the media so thankfully have not heard any more discourse about that tedious event. PM being asked about it ffs. No wonder they call us whinging poms.
Click to expand...
The Corinthian said:
Cook and Strauss getting one is proper weird, agreed.
Click to expand...

Cook is England's highest ever run scorer in test matches that shouldn't be that surprising, if anything it came a bit early but then the government love to be seen to being do something in the present, kind of like Murray got his miles before he should have
 
Care_de_Bobo said:
The big difference for me is Khawaja and the amount of deliveries he's soaked up. He's faced almost as many balls in this series as Crawley, Duckett, Pope and Root combined. Obviously the quality of bowling they're facing compared to him is higher, but a lot of their wickets were pretty cheap for players of their quality and the Aussie openers have actually faced some excellent bowling spells from the English attack as well.

Crawley may get a huge score at some point in this series, but he's just not played the role of an opener very well at all. The fact that Cummins has faced more balls and only has 4 fewer runs than him is pretty damning. This is test cricket and wearing the bowling attack down is a huge part of the game and we've just seen what someone like Stokes can produce when the bowlers starts to run out of gas.
Click to expand...
Hundred percent agree.

It's two different outlooks on the game at play, England seem intent on accumulating runs quickly in order to win the game outright, Australia seem to play the longer game and not necessarily looking to score quickly, aware that by doing so they reduce the chances of them losing the game.

I think England better buckle up because the next test will see the Aussies strap themselves in and not budge for as long as possible.
 
Gavinb33 said:
Cook is England's highest ever run scorer in test matches that shouldn't be that surprising, if anything it came a bit early but then the government love to be seen to being do something in the present, kind of like Murray got his miles before he should have
Click to expand...

you put a few popular figures in for peerages and the likes and get the masses talking about how they don’t deserve it that soon. you can then sneak all kinds of ones through, like your bastard offspring or mates that helped you cling to power.
 
harshad said:
Has this ever worked?
Click to expand...

Definetly. Ponting 2005 the most obvious. Defo rattled them a bit (he still went onto score plenty mind).

Likewise getting in Mitchell Johnson's head for our only away win in living memory.
 
They'll do well to shift a load of tickets at £100 a go for those two test series. Need to look at pricing.
 
Stokes at 3?

Crawley
Duckett
Stokes
Root
Brook
Bairstow
Ali
Woakes
Broad
Wood
Tongue

Anderson and Robinson dropped/rested.
 
Surely it's about time Bangladesh played a test series here instead of Sri Lanka?
 
Robindinho said:
Stokes at 3?

Crawley
Duckett
Stokes
Root
Brook
Bairstow
Ali
Woakes
Broad
Wood
Tongue

Anderson and Robinson dropped/rested.
Click to expand...
It’s tough one because then you’ve got five bowlers. Despite Ali/Woakes being potentially worth decent runs, it can also turn into a massive tail.

Depends on the pitch as to whether we have an out and out spinner I reckon.
 
IRN-BRUno said:
Surely it's about time Bangladesh played a test series here instead of Sri Lanka?
Click to expand...

Not this WTC cycle.

BCykyYs.png
 
If Lawrence is the answer, England deserve to lose this series. He is dreadful and there are way better options out there.
 
Samid said:
Not this WTC cycle.

BCykyYs.png
Click to expand...
I don't think they've played a series in England in any format since 2010. They're a solid team these days, plenty of supporters over here too which should guarantee good crowds. Disappointing they never get the chance.
 
groovyalbert said:
If Lawrence is the answer, England deserve to lose this series. He is dreadful and there are way better options out there.
Click to expand...

He's not by any means dreadful? Extremely talented cricketer with numbers that don't quite back it up yet.
 
groovyalbert said:
Having seen him live a few times, I'll stick with my original assessment. Nowhere near test cricket level.
Click to expand...

Entitled to your opinion mate but terrible cricketers don't tend to Captain Essex from an early age, move to Surrey and be constantly around the England setup.
 
Utd heap said:
Entitled to your opinion mate but terrible cricketers don't tend to Captain Essex from an early age, move to Surrey and be constantly around the England setup.
Click to expand...

Just basing it off the times I've seen him for England. Pretty uninspiring and would hardly be a concern to the Aussies.
 
Still so annoying we didn't manage Archer better earlier in his career. We have lost him for good due to that factor. He really could have given us that something extra.
 
I said Stokes would be dropped if he wasn't the Captain! Ah well my hands held up high. As for the rest of it. Starc didn't catch Duckett and Bairstowe was out. Why? because the Umpires said so and the that should be that. I'm English and frankly embarrassed for the players now. I said to a mate that the Aussies will be looking through hours of tape to find an English man doing the same as Carey and they have. It was J.Bairstow stumpin Samit Patel. What the pundits should be focusing on are extras. Aussies conceded 39, England 74. 74 extra runs to the Aussies minus their extras (39) = 35. 35 free runs and we lost by 43. Bet you all check my Maths!.
 
The other option for England from the squad would be to push everyone up a place and have Ali at 7 and Woakes at 8 to deepen the batting a bit further then add 3 bowlers after that. That way it takes the pressure off Stokes to bowl as well.
 
Spoony said:
Actually why does Strauss have a knighthood? It's not for cricketing reasons....so...?
Click to expand...

"services to English cricket" awarded in Theresa May's resignation honours in 2019, according to wiki.
 
Gavinb33 said:
Cook is England's highest ever run scorer in test matches that shouldn't be that surprising, if anything it came a bit early but then the government love to be seen to being do something in the present, kind of like Murray got his miles before he should have
Click to expand...
I guess. Was he captain when you won the Ashes away? I remember he had an average of over 100 that series.

I can see why Botham was given one, as he was a pretty transformative cricketer in the context of England, but Cook always seemed an odd one.
 
I wouldn’t be astonished if Strauss is a Conservative MP in the future, once his kids are older.
 
Spoony said:
Actually why does Strauss have a knighthood? It's not for cricketing reasons....so...?
Click to expand...
Complete mystery to me. Except, if you're a footballer, they're handed out like candy these days. Because you could list 20 english crickters form the past more than deserving than Struass. No one in 80's was wondering were Gooch, Gower and Botham knighthood was. Because it was super rare back. And all the better for it. It's still super rare for a footballer to get one, though. Can't think why that would be...
 
The Corinthian said:
I guess. Was he captain when you won the Ashes away? I remember he had an average of over 100 that series.

I can see why Botham was given one, as he was a pretty transformative cricketer in the context of England, but Cook always seemed an odd one.
Click to expand...
No, he wasn't it wa strauss who was captain. But winning away in Aus should not be knighthood worthy! Cook was a very good player who was not a patch on Gooch!

And Botham might be deserving but again it took him decades of chairty work to get it!
 
The Corinthian said:
I guess. Was he captain when you won the Ashes away? I remember he had an average of over 100 that series.

I can see why Botham was given one, as he was a pretty transformative cricketer in the context of England, but Cook always seemed an odd one.
Click to expand...

Botham did a hell of a lot of charity work as well which likely contributed.

For Cook I can see why just think it was too early, but really the Knighthood means nothing they give them away for nothing these days its popularity contest or how much you pay either party in contributions, you just know they were itching to give Southgate one if we won the Euros they would have announced the very next day
 
DixieDean said:
No, he wasn't it wa strauss who was captain. But winning away in Aus should not be knighthood worthy! Cook was a very good player who was not a patch on Gooch!

And Botham might be deserving but again it took him decades of chairty work to get it!
Click to expand...
Gavinb33 said:
Botham did a hell of a lot of charity work as well which likely contributed.

For Cook I can see why just think it was too early, but really the Knighthood means nothing they give them away for nothing these days its popularity contest or how much you pay either party in contributions, you just know they were itching to give Southgate one if we won the Euros they would have announced the very next day
Click to expand...
Oh yes - I totally forgot about the charity work.

Agree that sometimes it can be a bit political or a popularity contest, but it's pretty minor on the grand scale of things.
 
Funny...
https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/is-whiskey-or-rum-the-true-spirit-of-cricket-discuss-1385606


The case for Alex Carey being charged under the Geneva Convention
- He's Australian, and they are known cheats, and historically, sheep thieves
- He threw the ball underarm (smoking gun)
- Bairstow tapped his back leg inside the crease to indicate that he believed the ball to be dead, and who is Carey to argue?
- England, the reigning ODI World champions, would never accept victory on a technicality
- Just look at his face
 
Maybe I'm biased but I don't see the issue with cook getting one. He was a hell of a player. One of the best openers
 
according to telegraph Brooks will be played as number 3. Anderson and Tongue out. Wood and Alli to play. They also say Woakes will play.

So something like that

Crawley
Duckett
Brooks
Root
Stokes
Bairstow
Alli
Woakes
Wood
Broad
Robinson
 
KM said:
according to telegraph Brooks will be played as number 3. Anderson and Tongue out. Wood and Alli to play. They also say Woakes will play.

So something like that

Crawley
Duckett
Brooks
Root
Stokes
Bairstow
Alli
Woakes
Wood
Broad
Robinson
Click to expand...

Very interesting if that's the case. No idea why you don't play Woakes at Lord's then do here....

Not a huge fan of Brook at 3 but will be a fun watch.

Also would mean all of a sudden our tail is quite good - ha
 
You must log in or register to reply here.