English cricket thread

You'd have thought he'd be available for the whole series, instead of forcing him out after one test.

Unless they didn't have any intention of picking him (looking forward to the Ashes etc), apart from a farewell test - if he agreed to retire.
 
Red Royal said:
The word legend is handed out a bit too easily. Jimmy Anderson is a cricketing legend.
Click to expand...

Very well said and I echo those words.
I have had the immense pleasure of watching Jimmy Anderson over a long time.
And looking at him today, he still looks in great shape.
Absolutely brilliant.
 
WI won toss in second Test, put England in.

Crawley out third ball, 0/1 !!

Who knows, could be a more even match this time...
 
ChrisNelson said:
WI won toss in second Test, put England in.

Crawley out third ball, 0/1 !!

Who knows, could be a more even match this time...
Click to expand...

England now going at a touch under 12 an over :lol:

That said, it does look like Duckett is here for a good time, not a long time
 
I've not been watching, the radio reckons West Indies have been awful more than England good, is that fair?
 
So they keep saying there's a chance Ben Duckett's partner goes in to labour during the match and if so then he will leave to attend the birth. If we're fielding at some point during this are we gonna do so with 10 men or is there precedent for paternity leave sub fielders? Or are we gonna dare the officials to order our sub off, hope they do not, and we create that precedent?
 
rimaldo said:
another 2.3 day test match. this is how we save test cricket-

reduce the test match to four days.

each team bats for a full day each, twice. you lose 30 runs per wicket. everyone must bat before any player can return to the crease. most runs at the end of 4 days wins.

if a day is rained off, tough titties, you are batting in t20 mode for 90 overs and praying for a miracle. this way, you get the structure of an odi, which people want, you get a guaranteed result, and the matches always last the allocated days.
Click to expand...
I thought you loved cricket, but actually you hate it. :mad:
 
DOTA said:
So they keep saying there's a chance Ben Duckett's partner goes in to labour during the match and if so then he will leave to attend the birth. If we're fielding at some point during this are we gonna do so with 10 men or is there precedent for paternity leave sub fielders? Or are we gonna dare the officials to order our sub off, hope they do not, and we create that precedent?
Click to expand...
Vaughan and Denly have both done that in the past. Having a sub to field is no issue but they can't replace them when batting.
 
England playing well but lots of drops and you feel against a better quality fielding team, they would have lost more wickets. They still need to bring that control element to their aggressive cricket.
 
TheGame said:
England playing well but lots of drops and you feel against a better quality fielding team, they would have lost more wickets. They still need to bring that control element to their aggressive cricket.
Click to expand...
Harry Brook definitely not taking your advice.
 
England could easily end up with a below par score here - they should be disappointed with anything under 400.
 
I read this thread and expected us to be 8 down or something, to find us on 233-4 with Pope just having got his century.
 
Balljy said:
I read this thread and expected us to be 8 down or something, to find us on 233-4 with Pope just having got his century.
Click to expand...

This thread still hasn't got to grips with the fact the England batting line up doesn't give a toss.

'Should have got this etc etc'. They don't care. It's a completely individual approach the vast majority of the time.

Annoys me at times also, but I made peace with it.
 
Utd heap said:
This thread still hasn't got to grips with the fact the England batting line up doesn't give a toss.

'Should have got this etc etc'. They don't care. It's a completely individual approach the vast majority of the time.

Annoys me at times also, but I made peace with it.
Click to expand...
The problem is that it just hasn’t been producing the results. They are bottom of the WTC. A more controlled aggressive approach would be better. In fact they have looked much better with Stokes and Pope as they have been milking the singles and putting the bad ball away whilst keeping the run rate high. That would be the way to go.
 
Baz Ball is fun but why try and make a 5 day game over in 3? Will we ever make 500 playing this way? I'm not so sure and we'll need those kind of scores against the top, top teams.
 
TheGame said:
He seems to feel the need to be more aggressive when if he played his natural game, he was a great accumulator anyway and could score with a decent strike rate without trying stupid things.
Click to expand...
He did average 65 last year, with the highest strike rate of his career by far.
 
TheGame said:
The problem is that it just hasn’t been producing the results. They are bottom of the WTC. A more controlled aggressive approach would be better. In fact they have looked much better with Stokes and Pope as they have been milking the singles and putting the bad ball away whilst keeping the run rate high. That would be the way to go.
Click to expand...

We are bottom of the WTC due to stupid penalty points for over rates.
 
Gonna jinx it now but we've actually been very good since we started moaning a couple hours ago.

EDIT - That's Ben seen off...
 
Last edited:
TheGame said:
True but we’ve only won 4 out of 11 tests and lost 6 as well so the record on results ain’t great either.
Click to expand...

Then I'd also throw the fact we played five test match series v India and Australia in there at you
 
You must log in or register to reply here.