We went yesterday. England still refuse to bat sensibly and insist on going gung ho.
We had 3 wickets down early on and only needed 4 an over. They could have won that game comfortably by 5/6/7 wickets if they'd just knocked the ball around on the deck.
Personally, I'd give the management a final warning that gung ho whatever is not good enough and sack them if it continues.
It's like a football team being 2-0 up and insisiting on still attacking on all fronts, every game. It's not professional imo.
We went yesterday. England still refuse to bat sensibly and insist on going gung ho.
We had 3 wickets down early on and only needed 4 an over. They could have won that game comfortably by 5/6/7 wickets if they'd just knocked the ball around on the deck.
Personally, I'd give the management a final warning that gung ho whatever is not good enough and sack them if it continues.
It's like a football team being 2-0 up and insisiting on still attacking on all fronts, every game. It's not professional imo.
They are no 1 in the world at ODI ffs.
They've had enough of 'knocking the ball around on the deck' and winning fuck all.
Carry on as they are - its clear they win more games playing that way than they used to - they have the players to do it- and its much more entertaining.
'Sack them if it continues' - dont make me laugh !!!
We went yesterday. England still refuse to bat sensibly and insist on going gung ho.
We had 3 wickets down early on and only needed 4 an over. They could have won that game comfortably by 5/6/7 wickets if they'd just knocked the ball around on the deck.
Personally, I'd give the management a final warning that gung ho whatever is not good enough and sack them if it continues.
It's like a football team being 2-0 up and insisiting on still attacking on all fronts, every game. It's not professional imo.
They are no 1 in the world at ODI ffs.
They've had enough of 'knocking the ball around on the deck' and winning fuck all.
Carry on as they are - its clear they win more games playing that way than they used to - they have the players to do it- and its much more entertaining.
I disagree, I think you should play each match according to what is required, not have one plan to go out and attempt to hit the ball in the stand regardless of the situation.
Yes, obviously our attacking play is more entertaining to watch and we are now choosing the right players, but we could have lost that game yesterday, when we shouldn't have given them a glimmer of hope.
3 times yesterday the Aussies behind us were set to leave at the end of the over as they said didn't have a prayer and each time we gave away a wicket and kept them in the game.
Yes let's play great attacking, exciting cricket, but let's also have more than one tactic and be ready to adapt as we go along. Only a fool would have one pre arranged plan and stick to it come what may (Karl Robinson anyone ?).
So, we're no 1 in the World and you want to 'sack them if it continues'.....titter. Lets go back to Trotty coming in at 3 , hitting 50 off 70 balls then leaving the rest a mountain to climb, shall we.
Carry on boys - you're doing very well, and i'm enjoying you winning and scoring lots of runs and staying at no. 1.
So, we're no 1 in the World and you want to 'sack them if it continues'.....titter. Lets go back to Trotty coming in at 3 , hitting 50 off 70 balls then leaving the rest a mountain to climb, shall we.
Carry on boys - you're doing very well, and i'm enjoying you winning and scoring lots of runs and staying at no. 1.
Sorry, have another attempt to read what I said. I said "we are now choosing the right players".
If it wasn't winning games, I would agree. But it is winning games.
I agree, but personally I think we could win more or win more comfortably. I think the tactics are right for maybe 90% of the time, but I think sometimes we need to use our brains. We lost the Scotland game giving away too many wickets and came closer to losing yesterday than we should. Maybe sacking the management is too strong, but certainly have a word with them.
England can be a bit one dimensional, it has to be said. Good game management means adapting to the situations, and not taking excessive risks when chasing a total when you don't have to, not grinding out 250 batting first.
I suspect though that players get caught up with adrenaline, it's more fun and headline grabbing to win by smashing 4s and 6s everywhere, rather than getting easy 1s and 2s.
England can be a bit one dimensional, it has to be said. Good game management means adapting to the situations, and not taking excessive risks when chasing a total when you don't have to, not grinding out 250 batting first.
I suspect though that players get caught up with adrenaline, it's more fun and headline grabbing to win by smashing 4s and 6s everywhere, rather than getting easy 1s and 2s.
Exactly, the players rarely looked for an easy single. It was generally block or smash.
England can be a bit one dimensional, it has to be said. Good game management means adapting to the situations, and not taking excessive risks when chasing a total when you don't have to, not grinding out 250 batting first.
I suspect though that players get caught up with adrenaline, it's more fun and headline grabbing to win by smashing 4s and 6s everywhere, rather than getting easy 1s and 2s.
Exactly, the players rarely looked for an easy single. It was generally block or smash.
Kent played like England today. They were chasing a modest target and bashed and biffed their way to it with 15 overs and 9 wickets to spare. I'd always rather watch that approach than a conservative "we've got 50 overs let's use them" one. As for the powers that be having a word with the management well I think Bayliss and Farbrace would say bugger off! Strauss brought in Bayliss for this kind of white ball cricket. However, I do agree though that sometimes you do need a Plan B, especially when you're 30-4 but it ain't gonna happen under this regime. The women have adopted the same attitude too.
Problem you can sometimes get with being determined to use the full 50 overs to chase a target is that you end up three down but instead of being three down for 50 in 7 overs, you're three down for 30 in 10 overs and all the (limited) momentum is sucked out of your run chase.
For anyone interested I am told the schedule for the tour of the Caribbean will be issued in the next couple of weeks.It includes 3 tests, 5 ODI's and 1 T20. FEb/March 2019.
England can be a bit one dimensional, it has to be said. Good game management means adapting to the situations, and not taking excessive risks when chasing a total when you don't have to, not grinding out 250 batting first.
I suspect though that players get caught up with adrenaline, it's more fun and headline grabbing to win by smashing 4s and 6s everywhere, rather than getting easy 1s and 2s.
Exactly, the players rarely looked for an easy single. It was generally block or smash.
Kent played like England today. They were chasing a modest target and bashed and biffed their way to it with 15 overs and 9 wickets to spare. I'd always rather watch that approach than a conservative "we've got 50 overs let's use them" one. As for the powers that be having a word with the management well I think Bayliss and Farbrace would say bugger off! Strauss brought in Bayliss for this kind of white ball cricket. However, I do agree though that sometimes you do need a Plan B, especially when you're 30-4 but it ain't gonna happen under this regime. The women have adopted the same attitude too.
Agreed. We went from 153-3, requiring 72 off 21, an absolute breeze. To 197-7 and in danger of losing and it was no surprise to me, in fact I expected it.
England can be a bit one dimensional, it has to be said. Good game management means adapting to the situations, and not taking excessive risks when chasing a total when you don't have to, not grinding out 250 batting first.
I suspect though that players get caught up with adrenaline, it's more fun and headline grabbing to win by smashing 4s and 6s everywhere, rather than getting easy 1s and 2s.
Exactly, the players rarely looked for an easy single. It was generally block or smash.
Kent played like England today. They were chasing a modest target and bashed and biffed their way to it with 15 overs and 9 wickets to spare. I'd always rather watch that approach than a conservative "we've got 50 overs let's use them" one. As for the powers that be having a word with the management well I think Bayliss and Farbrace would say bugger off! Strauss brought in Bayliss for this kind of white ball cricket. However, I do agree though that sometimes you do need a Plan B, especially when you're 30-4 but it ain't gonna happen under this regime. The women have adopted the same attitude too.
If Kent had lost earlier wickets, I'm sure we would have played more cautiously. As it is, we were so on top the batsmen were in a position to enjoy themselves, but I've seen Denly play more cautiously as well in other run chases.
Personally think the players know when to go hard and when to nudge it around when needed. Much prefer the brand of cricket they are playing at the moment which is high risk higher reward and the batting skills go all the way down the order. Saying sack them if they continue winning more than they lose doesn’t make sense.
184-3 off 30 Roy 90 no. I think we are going too fast - think we should look to slow down and make sure we bat out the 50 overs and make sure we get to 250 .
If they get near 350 they need to have a long hard think about the coaching set up
Ok ok. In fairness I have had a fever for 3 days and a lot more besides. I have no issue with today (who would)?
My comment was when under pressure, wickets are tumbling every 10 mins and we are in danger of throwing away a game we were winning at a canter. Then if you only need 3 an over, perhaps be a bit sensible and stop getting out by skying the ball unnecessarily.
Comments
A fairly simple POTM adjudication there I think
We had 3 wickets down early on and only needed 4 an over. They could have won that game comfortably by 5/6/7 wickets if they'd just knocked the ball around on the deck.
Personally, I'd give the management a final warning that gung ho whatever is not good enough and sack them if it continues.
It's like a football team being 2-0 up and insisiting on still attacking on all fronts, every game. It's not professional imo.
They've had enough of 'knocking the ball around on the deck' and winning fuck all.
Carry on as they are - its clear they win more games playing that way than they used to - they have the players to do it- and its much more entertaining.
'Sack them if it continues' - dont make me laugh !!!
Yes, obviously our attacking play is more entertaining to watch and we are now choosing the right players, but we could have lost that game yesterday, when we shouldn't have given them a glimmer of hope.
3 times yesterday the Aussies behind us were set to leave at the end of the over as they said didn't have a prayer and each time we gave away a wicket and kept them in the game.
Yes let's play great attacking, exciting cricket, but let's also have more than one tactic and be ready to adapt as we go along. Only a fool would have one pre arranged plan and stick to it come what may (Karl Robinson anyone ?).
Lets go back to Trotty coming in at 3 , hitting 50 off 70 balls then leaving the rest a mountain to climb, shall we.
Carry on boys - you're doing very well, and i'm enjoying you winning and scoring lots of runs and staying at no. 1.
I think the tactics are right for maybe 90% of the time, but I think sometimes we need to use our brains.
We lost the Scotland game giving away too many wickets and came closer to losing yesterday than we should.
Maybe sacking the management is too strong, but certainly have a word with them.
I suspect though that players get caught up with adrenaline, it's more fun and headline grabbing to win by smashing 4s and 6s everywhere, rather than getting easy 1s and 2s.
To 197-7 and in danger of losing and it was no surprise to me, in fact I expected it.
Weird to play him as a specialist batsman, surely someone like Malan would be a better ODI batsman?
I know he has his critics on here but when he gets it right he is a matchwinner.
My comment was when under pressure, wickets are tumbling every 10 mins and we are in danger of throwing away a game we were winning at a canter. Then if you only need 3 an over, perhaps be a bit sensible and stop getting out by skying the ball unnecessarily.
P.s. I had my first litre of sangria at 10:30 this morning. Sorry.