RugbyRebels

Almost nobody takes test cricket seriously, thus we had a home test series against the top ranked side that ran for an entire 2 games.

Banquo wrote:

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote: ...and I'm saying a- not sure they 'do nothing' about it and b- there's not a whole lot they can do with players with such bad habits without a lot of access- its radical change. What they definitely can be doing is gettting the catching much better though.

Who are these 38 year olds of which you speak?

Daryl Stevens? Though he's pushing 50 by now!

Darren, and he's 46. You need to find 4 more .

But on a serious note, they've cycled through most of the guys who have shown form in county cricket. We just don't have any real quality options, which is why we are bu55ered. Anderson, Broad, Stokes and occasionally Root have been covering over cracks for three or four years now.

Yeah, I know.

As I said, I think our openers are OK now, though (just). I'd be happy to leave them be for a while. And with Stokes and Buttler back, we're covered at 5 and 7. We just need a 3 and a 6 to step up. Do we persist with Crawley and Pope? Or do we send them away to work on their technique and bring in Malan and Bairstow? Even though the latter isn't good enough (imo)...his fielding will improve the team, though, as our fielding has turned to shite.

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Stom wrote:
Daryl Stevens? Though he's pushing 50 by now!

Darren, and he's 46. You need to find 4 more .

But on a serious note, they've cycled through most of the guys who have shown form in county cricket. We just don't have any real quality options, which is why we are bu55ered. Anderson, Broad, Stokes and occasionally Root have been covering over cracks for three or four years now.

Yeah, I know.

As I said, I think our openers are OK now, though (just). I'd be happy to leave them be for a while. And with Stokes and Buttler back, we're covered at 5 and 7. We just need a 3 and a 6 to step up. Do we persist with Crawley and Pope? Or do we send them away to work on their technique and bring in Malan and Bairstow? Even though the latter isn't good enough (imo)...his fielding will improve the team, though, as our fielding has turned to shite.

I don't agree they are even ok- Australia's bowlers will demolish them, esp in Australia. I don't have any better answers tho.

I think we need Root's runs, so would change the captaincy to Buttler or Stokes. We do have a lot of decent lower order batsmen- Stone or Wood at 8 is ludicrous, as well as they did, and obviously either Buttler or Bairstow or Foakes are a huge improvement on Bracey. So Root, Stokes, Pope, Buttler make for a very good 4-7, with maybe Woakes or Ali at 8. But still 1-3 looks grim, though Crawley appears to be more challenged upstairs than technically. Also, need to see if Anderson can get back on the wicket train- they were looking to see him off, and he bowled well enough, but it did feel like he was unable to get zip off the pitch when he pitched it up, or maybe he was a fraction off the right length. I'd also like Broad to take his batting talent more seriously, but I think the bottle ship has sailed.

But these are similar questions to 3 years tbh.

Banquo wrote: I don't agree they are even ok- Australia's bowlers will demolish them, esp in Australia. I don't have any better answers tho.

I think we need Root's runs, so would change the captaincy to Buttler or Stokes. We do have a lot of decent lower order batsmen- Stone or Wood at 8 is ludicrous, as well as they did, and obviously either Buttler or Bairstow or Foakes are a huge improvement on Bracey. So Root, Stokes, Pope, Buttler make for a very good 4-7, with maybe Woakes or Ali at 8. But still 1-3 looks grim, though Crawley appears to be more challenged upstairs than technically. Also, need to see if Anderson can get back on the wicket train- they were looking to see him off, and he bowled well enough, but it did feel like he was unable to get zip off the pitch when he pitched it up, or maybe he was a fraction off the right length. I'd also like Broad to take his batting talent more seriously, but I think the bottle ship has sailed.

But these are similar questions to 3 years tbh.

I wouldn't be shocked to see Hameed come in somewhere in the top 3. If it were to be 3 though that would make the top 3 very... eh conservative. So Root may need to bat at 3 whether he wants to or not.

I think Bairstows ship has sailed a little and maybe we will see Foakes in as a keeper and Buttler as a batter. To be honest though, it isn't like they are top level batsmen either.

I think England has an issue with the bowling too. Part of the reason that NZ largely saw off Anderson and Broad was because they knew that Wood, Root and in the second test Stone would give them chances to score. If they don't have a spinner to provide control they leak runs too easily.

Big D wrote:

Banquo wrote: I don't agree they are even ok- Australia's bowlers will demolish them, esp in Australia. I don't have any better answers tho.

I think we need Root's runs, so would change the captaincy to Buttler or Stokes. We do have a lot of decent lower order batsmen- Stone or Wood at 8 is ludicrous, as well as they did, and obviously either Buttler or Bairstow or Foakes are a huge improvement on Bracey. So Root, Stokes, Pope, Buttler make for a very good 4-7, with maybe Woakes or Ali at 8. But still 1-3 looks grim, though Crawley appears to be more challenged upstairs than technically. Also, need to see if Anderson can get back on the wicket train- they were looking to see him off, and he bowled well enough, but it did feel like he was unable to get zip off the pitch when he pitched it up, or maybe he was a fraction off the right length. I'd also like Broad to take his batting talent more seriously, but I think the bottle ship has sailed.

But these are similar questions to 3 years tbh.

I wouldn't be shocked to see Hameed come in somewhere in the top 3. If it were to be 3 though that would make the top 3 very... eh conservative. So Root may need to bat at 3 whether he wants to or not.

I think Bairstows ship has sailed a little and maybe we will see Foakes in as a keeper and Buttler as a batter. To be honest though, it isn't like they are top level batsmen either.

I think England has an issue with the bowling too. Part of the reason that NZ largely saw off Anderson and Broad was because they knew that Wood, Root and in the second test Stone would give them chances to score. If they don't have a spinner to provide control they leak runs too easily.

Yes, I sort of hinted that above in reference to anderson. But stick Archer, Woakes and from what I've seen of him Robinson, plus Stokes and its a better picture; Buttler/Stokes/Woakes make it easier to pick Leach (say).

I do think Root needs to stick to 4, and not be skipper; previously batting at 4 without being skipper saw him averaging 54 iirc.

Unfortunately, the WTC final could well be a washout...and meanwhile, the Indian women's cricket team are giving England's men a lesson in how to collapse properly. 167 for the first wicket to 187-7.

Banquo wrote:Unfortunately, the WTC final could well be a washout...and meanwhile, the Indian women's cricket team are giving England's men a lesson in how to collapse properly. 167 for the first wicket to 187-7.

They basically don't play any long form cricket mind, how much is boredom/tiredness just not being used to the format isn't clear. A hell of a talent in Verma they've got though.

Champagne moment of the game for me was the Brunt dismissal of Vastrakar, seemed to come of the hand pitching middle and leg, swung to pitch middle and seamed to clip the top of off stump, good luck playing that whoever you are

Day 3 (or do we call it 2?) is going well for NZ. India 59/4 today.

Lizard wrote:Day 3 (or do we call it 2?) is going well for NZ. India 59/4 today.

yep....shame its not going to have 5 full days, but still might get a result in 'sporty conditions'.

Polished em off there!!

Jamieson's ridiculous career start continues.

Now we see how poor the batting conditions really are...

Jeez this summer weather is shit even by NZ cricketing standards. Only two days to play so have to try force a result. Might as well see if Williamson and Taylor can set a platform then roll de Grandhomme, Southee, Jamieson, and Wagner out up the order to fire from the hip for some quickfire runs -- and hope that Taylor doesn't run them all out.

That or just declare from behind and try heap the psychological pressure on India to set a target against Jamieson and Southee on an overcast day.

shame, intriguing match damp squidded.

Though it is a nice comment from the weather on the absurdity of a one off test match to determine the 'winner' of test cricket. I suppose if the gimmick gets them extra coverage raising the profile there's something in it, and it's just not for grumpy gits such as me who'd put it on a par with who finishes runner up to best in show at Crufts

They are going to use the extra day tomorrow, apparently, so might make a game of it.

That was a hell of a game of cricket.

Well done En Zee, good performance.

Just goes to show what you get when you take players with complementary skills, put them together and work on your test match skills.

Thoughts?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/57697159

I don't mind the tariff in isolation, I do mind they've picked on one player and then only because it got some publicity. It's not exactly impartial and overly reactive, nothing new for sport administrators

Hundred? Thoughts?

Apathy

I have tickets booked for Headingley in three weeks. I’ll let you know then.

Fitting into a 3 hr slot, city based teams rather than counties, equal money for ladies teams, max 20 balls per bowler..
16.4 overs is a thrash at any time - will certainly bring razzmatazz
and a different fan base.
The Covid thing will skew the initial public response but if they can fit it in , no harm in giving it a go.
The boundary looked well short in that first game.

Galfon wrote: The Covid thing will skew the initial public response

I needed 3 tickets on any two of three dates at Headingley. Both dates are mid-week, were sold out for tickets in the family stand, sold out for gold tickets on one date and not enough left to have three people sat together on the other date but I did finally get three silver tickets sat together....... until they made me sign up and consequently emptied my basket.
So, I’ve deduced two things from the purchase, I think it’s going to be popular at least initially - I believe today’s match is a sell out - and buying tickets will take longer than an innings.

I also tried to get back on the site when needing to confirm the date whilst telling the long suffering Mrs Mellsblue she has a Thursday evening to herself and the site had crashed or was trying to put you in a queue. This was during yesterday’s match so I’m guessing demand was at it’s peak.

I’d therefore recommend that if you want tickets you get them ASAP and that you do it on your employer’s time.

Galfon wrote:Fitting into a 3 hr slot, city based teams rather than counties, equal money for ladies teams, max 20 balls per bowler..
16.4 overs is a thrash at any time - will certainly bring razzmatazz
and a different fan base.
The Covid thing will skew the initial public response but if they can fit it in , no harm in giving it a go.
The boundary looked well short in that first game.

It always is in for women's cricket.