Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Cricket .. England in South Africa & Sri Lanka 2019/2020
Comments
-
As I said........golfaddick said:England seem to find ways to get themselves out. Stokes going along nicely & then chips one to mid-off.
I reckon we'll be at least 8 down by the close tonight.......with only around 260 on the board.
Curran leaves one alone & the ball crashes into his off stump. Broad comically gets his bat stuck in his pad & so cant it down in time to stop him being bowled.
Farcical.0 -
We really are poor abroad. Something needs to be done. A full root and branch one. Pun intended as his captaincy is dire.0
-
I reckon Pope should throw the bat now......get runs or get out. Might leave SA 3 or 4 overs to face tonight. Better than scratching around for 20 mins.0
-
Genuinely believe this is the worst English test side for a very long time. Individually some very good players. Collectively they are so inept.
0 -
Bring back 4 day tests.0
-
Good 50 for Pope. And divine intervention keeps him in0
-
He's going to be an England batsman for years.
A rare talent2 -
that is an impressive one day scorecard, but of course made over about 90 overs .. pathetic0
-
I must apologise to Joe Root for being so critical of him electing to bowl first in the opening Test.
The fact is that we are rubbish whether we bat first or second.3 -
Apparently, we got close to the average first day score there, so maybe it's not as bad as we think.0
- Sponsored links:
-
Average first day score is 268/8. Average first innings total 320-something (I think). We'll be lucky to add any more to our overnight total. Still very much behind the 8-ball.Covered End said:Apparently, we got close to the average first day score there, so maybe it's not as bad as we think.0 -
Wow, Canters, calm down ffs.cantersaddick said:
What do you even mean by that you absolute knob?The_President said:
Canters calling someone childish.... Lol.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.
You're they guy who cried on the 100 thread because no one agreed with you and you actually couldn't come up with any coherent arguments and had no response to anyones criticisms. You started throwing out insults then claimed to be the victim
You only come on here to shout about 3 things.
B20 are better than CARD
Charlton should move to the peninsula (ignoring the arguments that it's actually no longer possible)
And the 100 is better than cricket
You haven't worked out yet that no one actually gives a shit.
Do one.
All you are doing is show you are a bit of an idiot as well as childish.2 -
How can the umpire miss those two no balls. Rabada was over the line by 4 or 5 inches on both occasions, not even close. I assume they don't bother looking anymore, cricket VAR.1
-
The umpire immediately signalled for the TV umpire to review the no ball that ended in a "catch".Gammysnr said:How can the umpire miss those two no balls. Rabada was over the line by 4 or 5 inches on both occasions, not even close. I assume they don't bother looking anymore, cricket VAR.0 -
been going on for long time, the logic is that every dismissal is reviewed and if it's a no ball then obviously it's not out. What is a concern is that a quickie can get closer (albeit not by much) to a batsman with a bouncer/short ball, really shake him up and not be penalised. In a game requiring less that split second reactions, that could be dangerousGammysnr said:How can the umpire miss those two no balls. Rabada was over the line by 4 or 5 inches on both occasions, not even close. I assume they don't bother looking anymore, cricket VAR.
1 -
There's more to no balls than not being a legal delivery.......the fact that every one means an extra run AND another delivery having to be bowled.. How many more could England have got if all the no-balls have been called & the bowler had to bowl the extra delivery. Might make a difference in a tight game......WC final & the Headingley Test are just 2 recent games that come to mind.Lincsaddick said:
been going on for long time, the logic is that every dismissal is reviewed and if it's a no ball then obviously it's not out. What is a concern is that a quickie can get closer (albeit not by much) to a batsman with a bouncer/short ball, really shake him up and not be penalised. In a game requiring less that split second reactions, that could be dangerousGammysnr said:How can the umpire miss those two no balls. Rabada was over the line by 4 or 5 inches on both occasions, not even close. I assume they don't bother looking anymore, cricket VAR.1 -
very truegolfaddick said:
There's more to no balls than not being a legal delivery.......the fact that every one means an extra run AND another delivery having to be bowled.. How many more could England have got if all the no-balls have been called & the bowler had to bowl the extra delivery. Might make a difference in a tight game......WC final & the Headingley Test are just 2 recent games that come to mind.Lincsaddick said:
been going on for long time, the logic is that every dismissal is reviewed and if it's a no ball then obviously it's not out. What is a concern is that a quickie can get closer (albeit not by much) to a batsman with a bouncer/short ball, really shake him up and not be penalised. In a game requiring less that split second reactions, that could be dangerousGammysnr said:How can the umpire miss those two no balls. Rabada was over the line by 4 or 5 inches on both occasions, not even close. I assume they don't bother looking anymore, cricket VAR.
0 -
And from the bowler's point of view, if Rabada had been called out for the previous no ball, he presumably would have adjusted his run up so that the "wicket" taking ball wasn't a no ball!golfaddick said:
There's more to no balls than not being a legal delivery.......the fact that every one means an extra run AND another delivery having to be bowled.. How many more could England have got if all the no-balls have been called & the bowler had to bowl the extra delivery. Might make a difference in a tight game......WC final & the Headingley Test are just 2 recent games that come to mind.Lincsaddick said:
been going on for long time, the logic is that every dismissal is reviewed and if it's a no ball then obviously it's not out. What is a concern is that a quickie can get closer (albeit not by much) to a batsman with a bouncer/short ball, really shake him up and not be penalised. In a game requiring less that split second reactions, that could be dangerousGammysnr said:How can the umpire miss those two no balls. Rabada was over the line by 4 or 5 inches on both occasions, not even close. I assume they don't bother looking anymore, cricket VAR.
I don't understand why Umpires can't do this now. If Dickie Bird could spot when Michael Holding or Jeff Thomson overstepped, why can't modern umpires do the same, it's not as if they have anything more to do when the ball is delivered than their predecessors?0 -
I agree with this, but have two comments. First, we have no idea how many no balls Dickie Bird missed. And second, the person most to blame for Rabada bowling no balls isn't the umpire.killerandflash said:
And from the bowler's point of view, if Rabada had been called out for the previous no ball, he presumably would have adjusted his run up so that the "wicket" taking ball wasn't a no ball!golfaddick said:
There's more to no balls than not being a legal delivery.......the fact that every one means an extra run AND another delivery having to be bowled.. How many more could England have got if all the no-balls have been called & the bowler had to bowl the extra delivery. Might make a difference in a tight game......WC final & the Headingley Test are just 2 recent games that come to mind.Lincsaddick said:
been going on for long time, the logic is that every dismissal is reviewed and if it's a no ball then obviously it's not out. What is a concern is that a quickie can get closer (albeit not by much) to a batsman with a bouncer/short ball, really shake him up and not be penalised. In a game requiring less that split second reactions, that could be dangerousGammysnr said:How can the umpire miss those two no balls. Rabada was over the line by 4 or 5 inches on both occasions, not even close. I assume they don't bother looking anymore, cricket VAR.
I don't understand why Umpires can't do this now. If Dickie Bird could spot when Michael Holding or Jeff Thomson overstepped, why can't modern umpires do the same, it's not as if they have anything more to do when the ball is delivered than their predecessors?1 -
You calm down. You're the one whose been making snide remarks and calling me names on random threads on and off for the past couple of months. You've dont it without @ing me so I've had to stumble across them because you are a coward and a twat. I've chosen to ignore most of them because you're clueless and a twat but this was one too many.The_President said:
Wow, Canters, calm down ffs.cantersaddick said:
What do you even mean by that you absolute knob?The_President said:
Canters calling someone childish.... Lol.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.
You're they guy who cried on the 100 thread because no one agreed with you and you actually couldn't come up with any coherent arguments and had no response to anyones criticisms. You started throwing out insults then claimed to be the victim
You only come on here to shout about 3 things.
B20 are better than CARD
Charlton should move to the peninsula (ignoring the arguments that it's actually no longer possible)
And the 100 is better than cricket
You haven't worked out yet that no one actually gives a shit.
Do one.
All you are doing is show you are a bit of an idiot as well as childish.
As for calling me an idiot I doubt you've got enough brain cells to play catch with. As I said before do one.4 - Sponsored links:
-
In both 2013 and 2014 a young Australian was playing cricket for Sandwich in the Kent Cricket League.
The Aussie in question is, of course, Marnus Labushagne who us currently on 163* against NZ. That makes it 1,140 runs at an average of 88 since he made history in taking over from Smith when the latter suffered concussion against England. Steve Smith also played for Sevenoaks Vine in 2007 in the KPL too.
In recent seasons Joe Denly has been publicly critical of the standard of the KPL claiming that no decent players were being produced. All I can say is that playing in the KPL didn't do those two too much harm and must have helped them in adjusting to different conditions.
Edit - Labishagne was out eventually for 215 making his scores since the Ashes 185 & 162 (against Pakistan) and 143, 50, 63, 19 & 215 (against NZ). He was run out in the one and only innings he failed to make a 50.3 -
269 all out
SA off to a flyer with 17-0 off 2 overs!0 -
Broad gets the debutante Malan caught well by Root in the slips
26-10 -
Didn’t realise we’d transferred him !Addick Addict said:Broad gets the debutante Malan caught well by Root in the slips
26-15 -
Another to Broad. Great catch by Stokes to get Hamza
38-20 -
Pieter is one of three brothers who are all pro cricketers. But not related to Dawid even though he was brought up in South Africa too.oohaahmortimer said:
Didn’t realise we’d transferred him !Addick Addict said:Broad gets the debutante Malan caught well by Root in the slips
26-10 -
FAF gone - another catch to Stokes off Jimmy's bowling
40-31 -
No idea how to rotate.7 -
Hold the phone the other way?suzisausage said:No idea how to rotate.
1 -
2
