Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Cricket .. England in South Africa & Sri Lanka 2019/2020
Comments
-
I reckon Smith and co (SA selectors) are pleased they picked the 'injured', 'past it' Philander .. well done Joe Denly. otherwise England's 'super star' batsmen are getting even worse, and I never thought that would be possible.2
-
great idea, however think of the money that the 'stars' would lose out on .. cricketing turkeys voting for less Christmas presents will never happen .. e.g. Denly is showing that there are talented 'older' players in county cricket .. but they never get a chance due to the central contract mafiaAddick Addict said:Time for a completely different Test side to the T20/ODI line up - with the possible exception of three players namely Stokes, Curran and Archer who would have to be "managed" accordingly.
0 -
Why so angry?cantersaddick said:
WUM is strong with this one.Chizz said:
Crikey! That's quite an aggressive response. It just seems very odd to suggest that the failure of the team in their first innings would have been mitigated if only two players who were unavailable had been picked instead. It seems reasonable that six of the top seven places in the current team go to the six players who have scored the most Test runs for England this year. The one addition is the newish opener.cantersaddick said:
Here he is. WUM. Last time I engage you.Chizz said:
Just to be clear, you would have picked, for this, First Test, one player who is not in the squad and one who is ill?cantersaddick said:Buttler and Bairstow should not be in this side ffs.
Foakes and Pope.
Days like today I want to hear what Bob Willis would have to say.
Clearly for this test their hands were tied with Pope. The point is, it's been obvious since last winter that Foakes should be pur keeper and even more obvious after the summer that he should have been on the tours.
Bairstow should be nowhere near the side. He was dropped after a shocking couple of years and tole he needed to go and play some red ball cricket in order to get picked again. Hes then recalled to the squad after playing exactly zero red ball cricket. Joke.
I would have no objection to Pope playing, were he fit. He's not. But I am not sure it's wise to drop one of your better players for a wicket keeper who wasn't chosen to tour.
Did I suggest the failure of the team was down to 2 players? You know full well I didn't say anything of the sort. I simply pointed 2 players who have consistently failed in the side for more than 2 years and said they shouldn't be there. I also suggested the 2 player I want to replace them with going forwards (the same 2 players most people on social media are calling for).
You then did your annoying little WUM stuff twisting what had been said, ignoring a reasoned response and trying to shout someone down. It's boring and you ruin every cricket thread by picking someone to repeatedly do this to. Get back in your hole. Child0 -
The difference is that central contracts were only for Test players originally. Now there is a meaningful payment for one day players and it is those that are going to be in demand for all the franchises around the world e.g. Buttler, Bairstow, Roy, Hales, Woakes, Wood, Ali, Rashid etc etcLincsaddick said:
great idea, however think of the money that the 'stars' would lose out on .. cricketing turkeys voting for less Christmas presents will never happen .. e.g. Denly is showing that there are talented 'older' players in county cricket .. but they never get a chance due to the central contract mafiaAddick Addict said:Time for a completely different Test side to the T20/ODI line up - with the possible exception of three players namely Stokes, Curran and Archer who would have to be "managed" accordingly.
A young player like Banton, for example, is making his name as a T20 player but might progress to Tests but he would have to be the exception whereas the likes of Northeast, Pope and Foakes who have yet to be given little or no chance previously could concentrate on the longer form of the game and still play for their county as and when available to in one day cricket.2 -
And rootAddick Addict said:Time for a completely different Test side to the T20/ODI line up - with the possible exception of three players namely Stokes, Curran and Archer who would have to be "managed" accordingly.0 -
Why so twattish?Chizz said:
Why so angry?cantersaddick said:
WUM is strong with this one.Chizz said:
Crikey! That's quite an aggressive response. It just seems very odd to suggest that the failure of the team in their first innings would have been mitigated if only two players who were unavailable had been picked instead. It seems reasonable that six of the top seven places in the current team go to the six players who have scored the most Test runs for England this year. The one addition is the newish opener.cantersaddick said:
Here he is. WUM. Last time I engage you.Chizz said:
Just to be clear, you would have picked, for this, First Test, one player who is not in the squad and one who is ill?cantersaddick said:Buttler and Bairstow should not be in this side ffs.
Foakes and Pope.
Days like today I want to hear what Bob Willis would have to say.
Clearly for this test their hands were tied with Pope. The point is, it's been obvious since last winter that Foakes should be pur keeper and even more obvious after the summer that he should have been on the tours.
Bairstow should be nowhere near the side. He was dropped after a shocking couple of years and tole he needed to go and play some red ball cricket in order to get picked again. Hes then recalled to the squad after playing exactly zero red ball cricket. Joke.
I would have no objection to Pope playing, were he fit. He's not. But I am not sure it's wise to drop one of your better players for a wicket keeper who wasn't chosen to tour.
Did I suggest the failure of the team was down to 2 players? You know full well I didn't say anything of the sort. I simply pointed 2 players who have consistently failed in the side for more than 2 years and said they shouldn't be there. I also suggested the 2 player I want to replace them with going forwards (the same 2 players most people on social media are calling for).
You then did your annoying little WUM stuff twisting what had been said, ignoring a reasoned response and trying to shout someone down. It's boring and you ruin every cricket thread by picking someone to repeatedly do this to. Get back in your hole. Child
I know of at least 5 posters who no longer contribute to cricket threads because of you constantly acting like this. You get away with it on the politics stuff because everyone acts like a child there but some of us want to just have a chat about cricket without some twat twisting every word that is said and turning it into an argument.
You've admitted to this in the past and I suspect you get some kind of kick out of it. Its childish you actually know very little about cricket but like to shout everyone else down all the same. You hate it when you get called out on it as shown by all the PM's you sent me last time you tried it on me. Grow up. Get over yourself and stop ruining it for others.
I for one wont let you push me from these threads but I'm just gonna ignore whatever crap you vomit onto the keyboard from now on.8 -
I'm not convinced that Root, certainly as captain, should be playing all three formats. He's certainly not indispensable in T20 and whilst I actually think that he is actually better in 50 over cricket than Tests, he has to make up his mind whether he can do both. His Central Contract is worth more as captain and the various extra sponsorships that the position carries hardly makes him a pauper.cantersaddick said:
And rootAddick Addict said:Time for a completely different Test side to the T20/ODI line up - with the possible exception of three players namely Stokes, Curran and Archer who would have to be "managed" accordingly.0 -
72-4 and a lead of 175
Wouldn't fancy us chasing 2501 -
Good point. In my view he is too good in one day cricket to lose. Agree T20 isnt his best format and he probably wouldn't get in our strongest 11. One day cricket also shows to me how much he has thrived when not captain - but that's another issue.Addick Addict said:
I'm not convinced that Root, certainly as captain, should be playing all three formats. He's certainly not indispensable in T20 and whilst I actually think that he is actually better in 50 over cricket than Tests, he has to make up his mind whether he can do both. His Central Contract is worth more as captain and the various extra sponsorships that the position carries hardly makes him a pauper.cantersaddick said:
And rootAddick Addict said:Time for a completely different Test side to the T20/ODI line up - with the possible exception of three players namely Stokes, Curran and Archer who would have to be "managed" accordingly.1 -
You have to accept that some people don't agree with everything you post. That's why I suggested that including two unavailable players ahead of two of our highest scoring batsmen this year isn't a faultless solution.cantersaddick said:
Why so twattish?Chizz said:
Why so angry?cantersaddick said:
WUM is strong with this one.Chizz said:
Crikey! That's quite an aggressive response. It just seems very odd to suggest that the failure of the team in their first innings would have been mitigated if only two players who were unavailable had been picked instead. It seems reasonable that six of the top seven places in the current team go to the six players who have scored the most Test runs for England this year. The one addition is the newish opener.cantersaddick said:
Here he is. WUM. Last time I engage you.Chizz said:
Just to be clear, you would have picked, for this, First Test, one player who is not in the squad and one who is ill?cantersaddick said:Buttler and Bairstow should not be in this side ffs.
Foakes and Pope.
Days like today I want to hear what Bob Willis would have to say.
Clearly for this test their hands were tied with Pope. The point is, it's been obvious since last winter that Foakes should be pur keeper and even more obvious after the summer that he should have been on the tours.
Bairstow should be nowhere near the side. He was dropped after a shocking couple of years and tole he needed to go and play some red ball cricket in order to get picked again. Hes then recalled to the squad after playing exactly zero red ball cricket. Joke.
I would have no objection to Pope playing, were he fit. He's not. But I am not sure it's wise to drop one of your better players for a wicket keeper who wasn't chosen to tour.
Did I suggest the failure of the team was down to 2 players? You know full well I didn't say anything of the sort. I simply pointed 2 players who have consistently failed in the side for more than 2 years and said they shouldn't be there. I also suggested the 2 player I want to replace them with going forwards (the same 2 players most people on social media are calling for).
You then did your annoying little WUM stuff twisting what had been said, ignoring a reasoned response and trying to shout someone down. It's boring and you ruin every cricket thread by picking someone to repeatedly do this to. Get back in your hole. Child
I know of at least 5 posters who no longer contribute to cricket threads because of you constantly acting like this. You get away with it on the politics stuff because everyone acts like a child there but some of us want to just have a chat about cricket without some twat twisting every word that is said and turning it into an argument.
You've admitted to this in the past and I suspect you get some kind of kick out of it. Its childish you actually know very little about cricket but like to shout everyone else down all the same. You hate it when you get called out on it as shown by all the PM's you sent me last time you tried it on me. Grow up. Get over yourself and stop ruining it for others.
I for one wont let you push me from these threads but I'm just gonna ignore whatever crap you vomit onto the keyboard from now on.
I'm glad you're going to continue to post here though, because some of your posts are interesting. But it would be great if you'd reduce the amount of invective you aim at other posters. It's possible to disagree without resorting to name-calling.I
0 - Sponsored links:
-
Piss off trying to come across all gracious when you know exactly what you are doing.Chizz said:
You have to accept that some people don't agree with everything you post. That's why I suggested that including two unavailable players ahead of two of our highest scoring batsmen this year isn't a faultless solution.cantersaddick said:
Why so twattish?Chizz said:
Why so angry?cantersaddick said:
WUM is strong with this one.Chizz said:
Crikey! That's quite an aggressive response. It just seems very odd to suggest that the failure of the team in their first innings would have been mitigated if only two players who were unavailable had been picked instead. It seems reasonable that six of the top seven places in the current team go to the six players who have scored the most Test runs for England this year. The one addition is the newish opener.cantersaddick said:
Here he is. WUM. Last time I engage you.Chizz said:
Just to be clear, you would have picked, for this, First Test, one player who is not in the squad and one who is ill?cantersaddick said:Buttler and Bairstow should not be in this side ffs.
Foakes and Pope.
Days like today I want to hear what Bob Willis would have to say.
Clearly for this test their hands were tied with Pope. The point is, it's been obvious since last winter that Foakes should be pur keeper and even more obvious after the summer that he should have been on the tours.
Bairstow should be nowhere near the side. He was dropped after a shocking couple of years and tole he needed to go and play some red ball cricket in order to get picked again. Hes then recalled to the squad after playing exactly zero red ball cricket. Joke.
I would have no objection to Pope playing, were he fit. He's not. But I am not sure it's wise to drop one of your better players for a wicket keeper who wasn't chosen to tour.
Did I suggest the failure of the team was down to 2 players? You know full well I didn't say anything of the sort. I simply pointed 2 players who have consistently failed in the side for more than 2 years and said they shouldn't be there. I also suggested the 2 player I want to replace them with going forwards (the same 2 players most people on social media are calling for).
You then did your annoying little WUM stuff twisting what had been said, ignoring a reasoned response and trying to shout someone down. It's boring and you ruin every cricket thread by picking someone to repeatedly do this to. Get back in your hole. Child
I know of at least 5 posters who no longer contribute to cricket threads because of you constantly acting like this. You get away with it on the politics stuff because everyone acts like a child there but some of us want to just have a chat about cricket without some twat twisting every word that is said and turning it into an argument.
You've admitted to this in the past and I suspect you get some kind of kick out of it. Its childish you actually know very little about cricket but like to shout everyone else down all the same. You hate it when you get called out on it as shown by all the PM's you sent me last time you tried it on me. Grow up. Get over yourself and stop ruining it for others.
I for one wont let you push me from these threads but I'm just gonna ignore whatever crap you vomit onto the keyboard from now on.
I'm glad you're going to continue to post here though, because some of your posts are interesting. But it would be great if you'd reduce the amount of invective you aim at other posters. It's possible to disagree without resorting to name-calling.I
I am quite happy to disagree with somone - see my conversation with AA above and multiple other conversations.
What I am not happy with is having my words twisted so the point where you are making them mean the opposite of what I actually said just so that you can disagree with it.
I repeat as you've chosen to ignore it. I was talking about going forwards. For this game they had no option but to pick Buttler and Bairstow but that doesn't stop me from beimg allowed to say they shouldn't be in the squad going forwards and making the point that Foakes should have been in the squad ahead of both.
But whatever. You catry on twisting words and ignoring points so you can get your sad little kicks.2 -
OK. Well, for what it's worth, I reckon Simone probably has a great point.cantersaddick said:
Piss off trying to come across all gracious when you know exactly what you are doing.Chizz said:
You have to accept that some people don't agree with everything you post. That's why I suggested that including two unavailable players ahead of two of our highest scoring batsmen this year isn't a faultless solution.cantersaddick said:
Why so twattish?Chizz said:
Why so angry?cantersaddick said:
WUM is strong with this one.Chizz said:
Crikey! That's quite an aggressive response. It just seems very odd to suggest that the failure of the team in their first innings would have been mitigated if only two players who were unavailable had been picked instead. It seems reasonable that six of the top seven places in the current team go to the six players who have scored the most Test runs for England this year. The one addition is the newish opener.cantersaddick said:
Here he is. WUM. Last time I engage you.Chizz said:
Just to be clear, you would have picked, for this, First Test, one player who is not in the squad and one who is ill?cantersaddick said:Buttler and Bairstow should not be in this side ffs.
Foakes and Pope.
Days like today I want to hear what Bob Willis would have to say.
Clearly for this test their hands were tied with Pope. The point is, it's been obvious since last winter that Foakes should be pur keeper and even more obvious after the summer that he should have been on the tours.
Bairstow should be nowhere near the side. He was dropped after a shocking couple of years and tole he needed to go and play some red ball cricket in order to get picked again. Hes then recalled to the squad after playing exactly zero red ball cricket. Joke.
I would have no objection to Pope playing, were he fit. He's not. But I am not sure it's wise to drop one of your better players for a wicket keeper who wasn't chosen to tour.
Did I suggest the failure of the team was down to 2 players? You know full well I didn't say anything of the sort. I simply pointed 2 players who have consistently failed in the side for more than 2 years and said they shouldn't be there. I also suggested the 2 player I want to replace them with going forwards (the same 2 players most people on social media are calling for).
You then did your annoying little WUM stuff twisting what had been said, ignoring a reasoned response and trying to shout someone down. It's boring and you ruin every cricket thread by picking someone to repeatedly do this to. Get back in your hole. Child
I know of at least 5 posters who no longer contribute to cricket threads because of you constantly acting like this. You get away with it on the politics stuff because everyone acts like a child there but some of us want to just have a chat about cricket without some twat twisting every word that is said and turning it into an argument.
You've admitted to this in the past and I suspect you get some kind of kick out of it. Its childish you actually know very little about cricket but like to shout everyone else down all the same. You hate it when you get called out on it as shown by all the PM's you sent me last time you tried it on me. Grow up. Get over yourself and stop ruining it for others.
I for one wont let you push me from these threads but I'm just gonna ignore whatever crap you vomit onto the keyboard from now on.
I'm glad you're going to continue to post here though, because some of your posts are interesting. But it would be great if you'd reduce the amount of invective you aim at other posters. It's possible to disagree without resorting to name-calling.I
I am quite happy to disagree with Simone see my conversation with AA above and multiple other conversations.
What I am not happy with is having my words twisted so the point where you are making them mean the opposite of what I actually said just so that you can disagree with it.
I repeat as you've chosen to ignore it. I was talking about going forwards. For this game they had no option but to pick Buttler and Bairstow but that doesn't stop me from beimg allowed to say they shouldn't be in the squad going forwards and making the point that Foakes should have been in the squad ahead of both.
But whatever. You continue to twist words and ignore points so You can get your sad little kicks.0 -
Can't recall if I originally saw this on here but Root's clear annoyance at Archer only serves to confirm that they don't, perhaps, have the best of relationships:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yChoSH34YoM
2 -
Tasty!Addick Addict said:Can't recall if I originally saw this on here but Root's clear annoyance at Archer only serves to confirm that they don't, perhaps, have the best of relationships:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yChoSH34YoM
What on earth was going on with Archer's lady over today? And more importantly what Root said to him at the end of the over? I don't think the captain came off brilliantly.0 -
off topic .. it's ironic that in the year 2020 with all the potential marketing opportunities to promote 20/20 cricket, the powers that be have opted for 'The Hundred'4
-
The point is Foakes should have been on the tour n’est ce pas ?3
-
It’s not true that Foakes and Pope are unavailable though is it. They took Buttler and Bairstow over Cants point is valid on that one. Admittedly the selectors would probably have picked Pope, it’s just unfortunate he was ill so Buttler probably deserved to play at 6. Foakes could be out there keeping and batting at 7.Chizz said:
You have to accept that some people don't agree with everything you post. That's why I suggested that including two unavailable players ahead of two of our highest scoring batsmen this year isn't a faultless solution.cantersaddick said:
Why so twattish?Chizz said:
Why so angry?cantersaddick said:
WUM is strong with this one.Chizz said:
Crikey! That's quite an aggressive response. It just seems very odd to suggest that the failure of the team in their first innings would have been mitigated if only two players who were unavailable had been picked instead. It seems reasonable that six of the top seven places in the current team go to the six players who have scored the most Test runs for England this year. The one addition is the newish opener.cantersaddick said:
Here he is. WUM. Last time I engage you.Chizz said:
Just to be clear, you would have picked, for this, First Test, one player who is not in the squad and one who is ill?cantersaddick said:Buttler and Bairstow should not be in this side ffs.
Foakes and Pope.
Days like today I want to hear what Bob Willis would have to say.
Clearly for this test their hands were tied with Pope. The point is, it's been obvious since last winter that Foakes should be pur keeper and even more obvious after the summer that he should have been on the tours.
Bairstow should be nowhere near the side. He was dropped after a shocking couple of years and tole he needed to go and play some red ball cricket in order to get picked again. Hes then recalled to the squad after playing exactly zero red ball cricket. Joke.
I would have no objection to Pope playing, were he fit. He's not. But I am not sure it's wise to drop one of your better players for a wicket keeper who wasn't chosen to tour.
Did I suggest the failure of the team was down to 2 players? You know full well I didn't say anything of the sort. I simply pointed 2 players who have consistently failed in the side for more than 2 years and said they shouldn't be there. I also suggested the 2 player I want to replace them with going forwards (the same 2 players most people on social media are calling for).
You then did your annoying little WUM stuff twisting what had been said, ignoring a reasoned response and trying to shout someone down. It's boring and you ruin every cricket thread by picking someone to repeatedly do this to. Get back in your hole. Child
I know of at least 5 posters who no longer contribute to cricket threads because of you constantly acting like this. You get away with it on the politics stuff because everyone acts like a child there but some of us want to just have a chat about cricket without some twat twisting every word that is said and turning it into an argument.
You've admitted to this in the past and I suspect you get some kind of kick out of it. Its childish you actually know very little about cricket but like to shout everyone else down all the same. You hate it when you get called out on it as shown by all the PM's you sent me last time you tried it on me. Grow up. Get over yourself and stop ruining it for others.
I for one wont let you push me from these threads but I'm just gonna ignore whatever crap you vomit onto the keyboard from now on.
I'm glad you're going to continue to post here though, because some of your posts are interesting. But it would be great if you'd reduce the amount of invective you aim at other posters. It's possible to disagree without resorting to name-calling.I0 -
Much of the squad is debatable. That Bess has been flown in as cover for Leach doesn't show a great deal of confidence in Parkinson!
Dropping Bairstow for one small part of the winter schedule seemed odd anyway, as it's not as if he could rebuild his red ball technique outside the Test team in December anyway. You either keep him in the squad, and work on his technique there OR you drop him completely, and don't pick him until he's shown decent form for Yorkshire next summer. What's they've done with him makes no sense.1 -
Bairstow is utter turd with the bat outside of ODIs and T20s. He should be nowhere near the red ball team. Pick Foakes, pick Crawley, pick anyone but the bloke who can’t defend his stumps.2
-
Ben Stokes, Joe Root, Jos Buttler, Eoin Morgan, Trevor Bayliss and... Alan Knott all got gongs1
- Sponsored links:
-
Surprised Knotty never got one before. Mind you they hand them out more easily these days than they used to in my opinion.4
-
Lol!Chizz said:Been Stokes, Joe Root, Joe Buttler, Eoin Morgan, Trevor Bayliss and... Alan Knott all got gongs1 -
Only 80 years to 2100Lincsaddick said:off topic .. it's ironic that in the year 2020 with all the potential marketing opportunities to promote 20/20 cricket, the powers that be have opted for 'The Hundred'0 -
Jos Buttler is ill now so Bairstow is keeping0
-
Those byes are a reminder of why it was well overdue to give the gloves to Buttler.0
-
If de Koch is in for an hour we will have lost this Test. Assuming we haven't already that is!1
-
Morgan is Irish .. he gets the order of the Golden ShamrockNomadicAddick said:
Lol!Chizz said:Been Stokes, Joe Root, Joe Buttler, Eoin Morgan, Trevor Bayliss and... Alan Knott all got gongs
0 -
And Archer is somewhat feeding his addiction to hit the ball!!!!Addick Addict said:If de Koch is in for an hour we will have lost this Test. Assuming we haven't already that is!0 -
300 lead at lunch for SA with de Koch still at the crease. Archer trying to bounce him out rather than hitting the top of off and Stokes having a spat with Broad/Root. Both Root and Buttler off the pitch.
It's all going very well for England,0 -
Addick Addict said:If de Koch is in for an hour we will have lost this Test. Assuming we haven't already that is!
I would like de Koch in for an hour0
