English cricket thread

The Corinthian said:
The guy has led his team to a WTC win, and come away with retaining the Ashes against a good England side. He's done fine as a captain.

My criticism of him is that he was a bit too defensive too early, but for his first tour of the UK as captain, he definitely didn't want to lose the Ashes, so he's done well in my books. Also he had a couple of great performances with the bat and was superb with the ball throughout. He also was inspirational and led his team from the front in the first test. It seems like sour grapes from a few of you lot if anything.
Click to expand...

It’s nothing to do with sour grapes. He’s doing fine as captain, there’s nothing radical or transformative happening, but he’s achieving decent results. Although I’d say a draw is probably not the result they were looking for 12 months ago. It was a big chance for them to claim a series win in England, and a final chance for most of the core team.

He’ll get an opportunity to really put his own mark on the team soon enough. For all the talk of the age of England’s bowlers, Australia are likely to be struggling to field half that team in the next ashes.
 
4-0 home Ashes win, retaining it away from home (would’ve won 1-3 if not for the rain and a baffling ball change on day 4), WTC champions. All in a year and a half as captain.

Not surprised the caf want him removed. This place wanted Fergie sacked every other season. Great leaders simply aren’t appreciated on here.
 
The Corinthian said:
The guy has led his team to a WTC win, and come away with retaining the Ashes against a good England side. He's done fine as a captain.

My criticism of him is that he was a bit too defensive too early, but for his first tour of the UK as captain, he definitely didn't want to lose the Ashes, so he's done well in my books. Also he had a couple of great performances with the bat and was superb with the ball throughout. He also was inspirational and led his team from the front in the first test. It seems like sour grapes from a few of you lot if anything.
Click to expand...

It’s not sour grapes at all. Good teams win more games than bad ones. It’s not rocket science in a sport like cricket. In general though his decision making was not great at all. He was ridiculously defensive for the most part and was also far too reactive of what was going on. The fact that you think that he was superb with the ball is just wrong considering he took 18 wickets at 37 at a ER of 4.5 in the series
 
Last edited:
Samid said:
4-0 home Ashes win, retaining it away from home (would’ve won 1-3 if not for the rain and a baffling ball change on day 4), WTC champions. All in a year and a half as captain.

Not surprised the caf want him removed. This place wanted Fergie sacked every other season. Great leaders simply aren’t appreciated on here.
Click to expand...
Maybe some are a bit over analytical on him and he isn't the worst captain by any stretch just feel He was up against it in alot of these tests and looked a bit clueless and I've never seen the Aussies as ragged before in some of these sessions to me they have lost their air of invincibility they once had and it's alot closer that the top now than it was years ago with them and India.The Aussie teams of yesteryear would be chirping constantly at the batsman and making life unbearable now it's a bit watered down after they were being carted around :)
 
Samid said:
4-0 home Ashes win, retaining it away from home (would’ve won 1-3 if not for the rain and a baffling ball change on day 4), WTC champions. All in a year and a half as captain.

Not surprised the caf want him removed. This place wanted Fergie sacked every other season. Great leaders simply aren’t appreciated on here.
Click to expand...

What a strange comparison to make. Also so they would have won the Ashes 3-1 without the rain here & ball change but of course Manchester test never happened
 
massey said:
Maybe some are a bit over analytical on him and he isn't the worst captain by any stretch just feel He was up against it in alot of these tests and looked a bit clueless and I've never seen the Aussies as ragged before in some of these sessions to me they have lost their air of invincibility they once had and it's alot closer that the top now than it was years ago with them and India.The Aussie teams of yesteryear would be chirping constantly at the batsman and making life unbearable now it's a bit watered down after they were being carted around :)
Click to expand...

Think that's a bit harsh. It's easy to look a bit clueless when England are on a roll with the bat. These players are grown up with T20 and can score fast at will so it's not easy to counter that if the ball/pitch isn't doing anything. Don't really see how it's his fault that he's up against this hyper offensive version of England rather than the timid ones of yesteryear.

Chirping and sledging in general is out of fashion nowadays. Most of the players share dressing rooms in different leagues for various franchises. Just look at the post match interviews yesterday and both set of players are using nicknames to address opponent players. That kind of animosity amongst players belongs to a different era.
 
Samid said:
4-0 home Ashes win, retaining it away from home (would’ve won 1-3 if not for the rain and a baffling ball change on day 4), WTC champions. All in a year and a half as captain.

Not surprised the caf want him removed. This place wanted Fergie sacked every other season. Great leaders simply aren’t appreciated on here.
Click to expand...

Justin Langer got sacked after doing the same thing and more.. won a World T20 as well. Correlation and causality are two different things.
 
I think Cummins has done ok as a captain. He didn't have a brilliant series (as captain - his individual performances were excellent) but before that they won the WTC comfortably and in general was leading the team well, so it's harsh to question him too much. Smith is probably a 'better' captain but I think it's hard to go back to him after the sandpaper stuff and when it's possible he could retire in 2-3 years' time so it doesn't help with future proofing.

Odd to call criticism of his captaincy 'sour grapes' though. In fact I think most England fans would say the Australian conservative tactics suited us pretty well, certainly in the latter tests when we became a bit sharper.

Samid said:
4-0 home Ashes win, retaining it away from home (would’ve won 1-3 if not for the rain and a baffling ball change on day 4), WTC champions. All in a year and a half as captain.

Not surprised the caf want him removed. This place wanted Fergie sacked every other season. Great leaders simply aren’t appreciated on here.
Click to expand...

This is completely baseless :lol: The rain was unlucky and the ball change should probably be looked into (that's nothing to do with England) but you can't just declare the result as different to the one that actually happened and cite that as evidence of his great captaincy
 
owlo said:
Series hinged on the absence of Lyon and the shocking continual inclusion of Anderson who I hope calls time too.

England super sloppy in the first, got beaten in the 2nd, in the ascendancy from thereonin. Despite functionally playing with 10 men. Big shout out to Moeen who did a fine job in the circumstances and had a good end to his career now.
Click to expand...

We were also sloppy in the second test when chasing that short ball constantly
 
ChrisNelson said:
Brilliant series.

England will feel like they were the better side overall and were a bit of dodgy weather away from a 3-2 win which would have guaranteed it the greatest series of them all (bearing in mind despite all the raving about 2005, two of the matches were drawn).

Australian cricket fans I think will believe they would have won, perhaps comfortably if it hadn't been for sandpaper-gate. What I mean is Smith would still be captain and Bancroft would almost certainly still be in the team scoring runs or at least breathing down the necks of the batters and providing competition.

Their lack of urgency and spark in the field has been a big feature of the series and I don't think the modern game is the place for a strike bowler to double up as captain.

I'd be amazed if Cummins carries on in the job going forward.

Both teams will look very different by the time of the return series down under.

I thought Cummins nailed it in his post-match interview when he mentioned about how entertaining bazball was but that its true test will come this winter as it's hard to think of a more difficult place to play like that than India!

Having said that overall, as much as I'm an old school cricket fan and have taken some persuading to bashing the ball at every opportunity in Tests, the results since Stokes and McCullum do not lie and but for a sloppy start to this series it would be impossible to counter-argue.
Click to expand...

Yeah Bazball is certainly going to be for an even sterner test when we head to India in the winter. Who do people think should be in our side for that first test?
 
croadyman said:
Yeah Bazball is certainly going to be for an even sterner test when we head to India in the winter. Who do people think should be in our side for that first test?
Click to expand...

Struggling for spin option but can see something like:

Crawley
Duckett
S Curran
Root
Stokes
Brook
Bairstow
Dawson / Ahmed
Wood
Robinson
Leach

This on the presumption that Stokes won't bowl, if he does then Pope for Sam Curran at 3. Curran is not a number 3 but wouldn't be surprised if he bats there.
 
Am I wrong in thinking Moeen brought more to this test and England side then Leach would have done? I like Leach a lot, but if you consider what Ali did by batting no#3 and the incredibly important wickets he picked up in this test and at Headingley... I'm not sure Leach would have the same impact
 
Annihilate Now! said:
Am I wrong in thinking Moeen brought more to this test and England side then Leach would have done? I like Leach a lot, but if you consider what Ali did by batting no#3 and the incredibly important wickets he picked up in this test and at Headingley... I'm not sure Leach would have the same impact
Click to expand...
Nah you’re right. Aided by the fact Australia didn’t really try and take him out of the attack like previous, plus Root being a fairly competent back up helped.

I have no idea what we’d have done with Pope out, Stokes unable to bowl and Leech in the team. Hopefully Stokes does manage to get back to being that fourth seam option.
 
Annihilate Now! said:
Am I wrong in thinking Moeen brought more to this test and England side then Leach would have done? I like Leach a lot, but if you consider what Ali did by batting no#3 and the incredibly important wickets he picked up in this test and at Headingley... I'm not sure Leach would have the same impact
Click to expand...

I was thinking that last night. I think given he ended up being pretty handy with the bat it was probably net gain in the end. Wickets wise Leach probably would have done similarly.

Our absence of decent spin options is probably the biggest weakness in the side. I haven’t seen much of Ahmed, but it sounds like he’s the best hope for the future. Be nice to have a few more coming through ideally.

On India tour, I think I’d probably have Tongue in place of Curran/Robinson (or Wood if he isn’t fit or needs resting).
 
Dan_F said:
It’s nothing to do with sour grapes. He’s doing fine as captain, there’s nothing radical or transformative happening, but he’s achieving decent results. Although I’d say a draw is probably not the result they were looking for 12 months ago. It was a big chance for them to claim a series win in England, and a final chance for most of the core team.

He’ll get an opportunity to really put his own mark on the team soon enough. For all the talk of the age of England’s bowlers, Australia are likely to be struggling to field half that team in the next ashes.
Click to expand...
England's fortunes in Test cricket have changed since Stokes and McCullum have taken the reins. A win on these shores with England's change in performances and results was always an outside shot. The more important thing for their side was not to lose the Ashes. Anyway, they haven't 'won' them here since 2001, so it's not exactly a walk in the park for them anyway. There's been better teams than this one that have lost them.

Ayush_reddevil said:
It’s not sour grapes at all. Good teams win more games than bad ones. It’s not rocket science in a sport like cricket. In general though his decision making was not great at all. He was ridiculously defensive for the most part and was also far too reactive of what was going on. The fact that you think that he was superb with the ball is just wrong considering he took 18 wickets at 37 at a ER of 4.5 in the series
Click to expand...
He was too passive and defensive too early, but other than that I thought he led his team well. He was dealt a bum hand losing Lyon who is a fantastic option to turn to. England lost Leach but got someone miles better with the bat, and par with the ball on Moeen Ali (although Murphy looks like he has a big future in front of him when Lyon retires).

He was excellent with the ball in the first three tests, which they ended up winning. I think he took 16 wickets in those first three? His form dipped in the last two, but he was a big reason they went 2-0 to begin with anyway. I doubt he's bothered with his ER - Hazlewood and Starc were higher. Average could have been better but I doubt he's losing any sleep on that. He puts himself down as a first change bowler, and he picked up crucial wickets when they needed them.
 
The Corinthian said:
England's fortunes in Test cricket have changed since Stokes and McCullum have taken the reins. A win on these shores with England's change in performances and results was always an outside shot. The more important thing for their side was not to lose the Ashes. Anyway, they haven't 'won' them here since 2001, so it's not exactly a walk in the park for them anyway. There's been better teams than this one that have lost them.


He was too passive and defensive too early, but other than that I thought he led his team well. He was dealt a bum hand losing Lyon who is a fantastic option to turn to. England lost Leach but got someone miles better with the bat, and par with the ball on Moeen Ali (although Murphy looks like he has a big future in front of him when Lyon retires).

He was excellent with the ball in the first three tests, which they ended up winning. I think he took 16 wickets in those first three? His form dipped in the last two, but he was a big reason they went 2-0 to begin with anyway. I doubt he's bothered with his ER - Hazlewood and Starc were higher. Average could have been better but I doubt he's losing any sleep on that. He puts himself down as a first change bowler, and he picked up crucial wickets when they needed them.
Click to expand...

So basically a bowler who averages 22 in tests took wickets at 37 over a 5 test series while going at 4.3 an over was superb because he did well when they won. Cummins won’t lose sleep over his numbers but I doubt he is sitting there thinking about how he had a great series
 
Ayush_reddevil said:
So basically a bowler who averages 22 in tests took wickets at 37 over a 5 test series while going at 4.3 an over was superb because he did well when they won. Cummins won’t lose sleep over his numbers but I doubt he is sitting there thinking about how he had a great series
Click to expand...
Compare his stats with the first 3 tests and the latter 2. He picked up 16 out of 18 wickets in the first 3 and was the leading wicket taker up until OT. His bowling went off the boil and his average dropped at OT and the Oval. It happens.
 
The Corinthian said:
England's fortunes in Test cricket have changed since Stokes and McCullum have taken the reins. A win on these shores with England's change in performances and results was always an outside shot. The more important thing for their side was not to lose the Ashes. Anyway, they haven't 'won' them here since 2001, so it's not exactly a walk in the park for them anyway. There's been better teams than this one that have lost them.
Click to expand...
Well you’re pretty much proving my point. Stokes’ leadership in comparison has been transformational to take the team from where it was 18 months ago to now. It is quite clearly a team that is performing more than the sum of its parts because of this, which Australia aren’t.

Most people were saying at the beginning of the series that you’d maybe have 2 players from England if you combined the two teams. In no way was a series win here a long shot, that feels very much a hindsight opinion.
 
Annihilate Now! said:
Am I wrong in thinking Moeen brought more to this test and England side then Leach would have done? I like Leach a lot, but if you consider what Ali did by batting no#3 and the incredibly important wickets he picked up in this test and at Headingley... I'm not sure Leach would have the same impact
Click to expand...

I don't think so, Leach performs a different function. (he's actually incredibly similar to Lyon statistically) - With 20/20 hindsight my call would be to drop Anderson for Leach and play 2 spinners, at least for a few of the games.

croadyman said:
We were also sloppy in the second test when chasing that short ball constantly
Click to expand...

I'll be kind and put that down to naivity. A necessary learning curve.
 
TheGame said:
Struggling for spin option but can see something like:

Crawley
Duckett
S Curran
Root
Stokes
Brook
Bairstow
Dawson / Ahmed
Wood
Robinson
Leach

This on the presumption that Stokes won't bowl, if he does then Pope for Sam Curran at 3. Curran is not a number 3 but wouldn't be surprised if he bats there.
Click to expand...

Stokes will be bowling full time off spin by then :lol:

Will be interesting to see if Pope gets recalled. I can't remember what his performances were like in Asia previously, but he is VC. I'm not sure if it's necessary to pick a 3rd seamer in India but I would like to see Curran involved with the test team at some stage.

Annihilate Now! said:
Am I wrong in thinking Moeen brought more to this test and England side then Leach would have done? I like Leach a lot, but if you consider what Ali did by batting no#3 and the incredibly important wickets he picked up in this test and at Headingley... I'm not sure Leach would have the same impact
Click to expand...

In England I think it's a massive advantage having a spin bowling all rounder. Leach has done well but some games he was only bowling a few overs anyway. And with Stokes not bowling it was extra important to have Moeen in the side. I doubt we would have levelled the series with Woakes batting at 7 and Wood at 8, its just too long a tail.
 
What will the makeup of the team look like going forward with stokes as a batter only.

1. Crawley
2. Duckett
3.???
4. Root
5. Brook
6. Stokes
7. ????
8. Bowler
9. Bowler
10. Bowler
11. Bowler

How do we fit in a wicket keeper and an all rounder? Can either bat at 3?
 
TheGame said:
Struggling for spin option but can see something like:

Crawley
Duckett
S Curran
Root
Stokes
Brook
Bairstow
Dawson / Ahmed
Wood
Robinson
Leach

This on the presumption that Stokes won't bowl, if he does then Pope for Sam Curran at 3. Curran is not a number 3 but wouldn't be surprised if he bats there.
Click to expand...
Missed this post. You think Curran is the all rounder replacement and he goes to three? Interesting.
 
arnie_ni said:
Missed this post. You think Curran is the all rounder replacement and he goes to three? Interesting.
Click to expand...
That would be a mistake IMO, 3 should be Root or Stokes but Root doesn't want to go in at 3
 
Red in STL said:
That would be a mistake IMO, 3 should be Root or Stokes but Root doesn't want to go in at 3
Click to expand...

Let Root be Root in my view, if he wants to bat at 4, keep him there even if it is a psychological thing

arnie_ni said:
What will the makeup of the team look like going forward with stokes as a batter only.
Click to expand...

Stokes has no meaningful cricket now for 6 months so hopefully he can return as an all rounder. If he is genuinely done then possibly Will Jacks should get a go in the 1st XI in India.

Pope was the number 3 till he got injured, still officially the vice-captain so not sure if he should be dismissed just yet.
 
arnie_ni said:
What will the makeup of the team look like going forward with stokes as a batter only.

1. Crawley
2. Duckett
3.???
4. Root
5. Brook
6. Stokes
7. ????
8. Bowler
9. Bowler
10. Bowler
11. Bowler

How do we fit in a wicket keeper and an all rounder? Can either bat at 3?
Click to expand...
In that list put Bairstow in at 3 sink or swim for him. Foakes at 7 with the gloves.
 
arnie_ni said:
What will the makeup of the team look like going forward with stokes as a batter only.

1. Crawley
2. Duckett
3.???
4. Root
5. Brook
6. Stokes
7. ????
8. Bowler
9. Bowler
10. Bowler
11. Bowler

How do we fit in a wicket keeper and an all rounder? Can either bat at 3?
Click to expand...

Maybe Stokes to 3 and an all rounder at 7 and someone who can bat a bit as well at 8.
 
TheGame said:
Maybe Stokes to 3 and an all rounder at 7 and someone who can bat a bit as well at 8.
Click to expand...
Why can't Stokes bowl? There is an awfully long time until the next series and he has been quoted as saying he will get it sorted during the autumn so hopefully he can do it.
 
Dan_F said:
Well you’re pretty much proving my point. Stokes’ leadership in comparison has been transformational to take the team from where it was 18 months ago to now. It is quite clearly a team that is performing more than the sum of its parts because of this, which Australia aren’t.

Most people were saying at the beginning of the series that you’d maybe have 2 players from England if you combined the two teams. In no way was a series win here a long shot, that feels very much a hindsight opinion.
Click to expand...
I think you're missing the point somewhat. This England test team were abject when he took the reins, so there was undoubtedly going to be an improvement by virtue of not being any worse.

Australia weren't a poor test side when Cummins took over, and he's already got a better win %age than Paine from 3 less tests, as well as winning a WTC. So the criticism at him is misplaced considering he's outperforming his predecessor, and won a trophy, and retained the Ashes.
 
I wasn’t a fan of his tactics but I understood the logic behind them and I do empathise with Cummins a lot, it must have been a real head feck to captain against this England and I can’t imagine how difficult it is to do that and focus on your own bowling plans. It’s not even just all the on field stuff, all the off field stuff and what happened at Lords must have been energy sapping too.

There’s no doubt for me that the onus of the captaincy impacted his bowling this series. Luckily for him he probably won’t be under the same type of pressure very often.
 
Weird end to that Hundred Game...3rd umpire gave an lbw on the second to last ball despite a clear spike on the snicko
 
The Cat said:
Yep was in the papers today he's gonna try and get it sorted with an op now the Ashes are over. He said he wants to be an all rounder and doesn't want to just bat.
Click to expand...
He needs to for the balance otherwise tbh. Can't have a batter at 3 then rooty Brook and him 4 5 6 if he doesn't bowl. Unless of course your batter at 3 keeps wicket
 
The Corinthian said:
I think you're missing the point somewhat. This England test team were abject when he took the reins, so there was undoubtedly going to be an improvement by virtue of not being any worse.

Australia weren't a poor test side when Cummins took over, and he's already got a better win %age than Paine from 3 less tests, as well as winning a WTC. So the criticism at him is misplaced considering he's outperforming his predecessor, and won a trophy, and retained the Ashes.
Click to expand...
But that’s not what happened at all is it. You can’t even remotely compare the leadership needed to turn around where England were 18 months ago to now, to what Cummins has done to marginally improve an already dominant side.

Cummins has captained 3 tests vs India, Paine did eight. Paine never had a home Ashes, it’s not that hard to see why he lost an extra couple of tests compared to Cummins. nor did he have a chance to actually win a WTC because it wasn’t a thing, so it’s a weird comparison.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Lads. The Aussies retained the Ashes. England failed to win a home test series. Lot of “can a draw be a win” energy in this thread.
Click to expand...

Not to mention the loss of Nathan Lyon and other times luck went England's way e.g. getting a much newer ball swapped in in the final test. The ball alone probably turned a loss into a win.
 
Wibble said:
Not to mention the loss of Nathan Lyon and other times luck went England's way e.g. getting a much newer ball swapped in in the final test. The ball alone probably turned a loss into a win.
Click to expand...

Gonna give you Englands 'bad luck' (it isn't - it just happens in a 5 test series to both teams):

- Leach out of the series
- Ali comes in, can't bowl in a 4th innings run chase due to injury on a turning deck. Again struggles to bat and bowl in the 5th test with it turning.
- Wood not fit until the 3rd test.
- Robinson injured mid game, missed 90% of first innings and all of the second.
- Pope also gets injured mid game. Misses the remainder of the series.
- Crawley and Duckett having to bat in the dark for a 20 minute spell during a tense run chase. Both get out leaving us 24-2 as the monsoons open. We go on to lose in a tight thriller.
- Stokes on one leg, barely bowls.
- OT losing 5 sessions with England the only possible winner.

I think the ball change in the final test might be my new fave whinge though. Literally happens in every test match and the fecknig screenshot is of the shiny side of the changed ball as opposed to the rough side of the previous :lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.