Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
England Cricket 2023
Comments
-
It's widely reported that a spell in county cricket is responsible for Marnus' poor form this series. he changes his technique to work against 70mph seamers and now cant adapt back to facing quicker swing bowling. Also destroyed his confidence.FSLN1 said:killerandflash said:
FFS couldn't the useless Aussies have called him up before he scored 81 against Kent today?cantersaddick said:Talk of Maxwell being called into the Aus squad and side as the spinner. Suspect it'll just to be to give them another option in the squad and he's already in the country so it's convenient. But he would certainly strengthen their lower middle order. Runs today against Kent.
Glamorgan are giving a game to Michael Neser who's with the Australian squad and an outside call for a start in the fourth Test.
English cricket loves to shoot itself in the foot. Steve Smith was given a short-term contract with Sussex before the Ashes and here we have Maxwell and Neser playing in the current round of CC matches.
I can't imagine a scenario where members of the England squad would be picked to play in the Sheffield Shield ahead of an Ashes series down under.
Its not as set in stone as you think.0 -
Makes Kumar Sangakkara's numbers even more impressive. Probably the most underappreciated cricketer of all time.killerandflash said:
That's something the selectors always seem to overlook, that keeping wicket is hard work and will affect the keeper's batting, especially is he isn't used to standing out there for 80-120 overs.cantersaddick said:
I don't believe that even stands up because his batting record when he keeps is poor but in the 3rd/4th innings its a disaster. so batting after keeping in the match massively affects him. His record at 7 is shocking compared to his record at 5. Foakes is the perfect number 7 a good foil for the other payers in the side and an infinitely better keeper (on current form if not always).blackpool72 said:
The only possible argument for picking Bairstow over Foakes is for his batting.Chizz said:
I didn't say you did - and I have never met you in a pub as far as I know!Addick Addict said:
Can you tell us exactly what Foakes was told as "you are sure"? By all accounts, Foakes didn't, quite understandably, like or appreciate that message. It is one that has also cost the England team too given the EIGHT chances Bairstow has missed and the fact that he only averages 23.50 with the bat. Foakes was in the team and did nothing wrong. Bairstow wasn't. Being dropped and seeing someone do your job, especially so poorly and costing your country games, is infinitely worse than rumours of someone else taking your place. Foakes had the rumours during the winter but he still did well. His fears were well founded with the decision an ill judged one and now means that, if and when he returns, he finds that he has to justify his position all over again when he shouldn't have had to do so in the first place.Chizz said:
Sure Foakes has had his confidence knocked by being dropped, but I am sure that McCullum and Stokes spoke to him in such a way that he knows exactly where he stands. No, I mean the players in the team who attract disproportionate amounts of criticism from people who didn't want them to be picked. The point about Murphy's confidence that @killerandflash made was with regards to someone that's in the team, but may have had his confidence knocked by the potential call-up of someone from outside the squad.Addick Addict said:Chizz said:
There are several England players whose confidence is often tested in a similar way. Fortunately, I think confidence is something that McCullum and Stokes are both very good at protecting and enhancing.killerandflash said:Can't be good for Murphy's confidence, all this talk of dragging another spinner in after one game.
Like Foakes you mean?
Better examples of the players I mean are Crawley and Bairstow, both of whom receive - in my view - disproportionate criticism for having the audacity of being picked. And both of whom are - again, in my view - probably being handled very well by the coach and captain.
When people are dissatisfied with the team selection, the ire should be thrown in the direction of the selectors. After all, if a fan knows better than the coach and captain, they should let them know, in no uncertain terms. (Although the record of McCullum and Stokes is pretty good so far). I'd much sooner see that than the gleeful attitudes of some pub bores who take great delight when Bairstow fumbles a catch or Crawley nicks a wide one. I've even seen people try to explain why it would be great if Bairstow failed. Each to their own though, I guess.
The point about Murphy is a good one. I hope continued speculation ruins his confidence, thereby giving the Australian selectors an even harder set of choices for the next two Tests.
Just for the record, though, I've never shown glee, as you put it, at Crawley's failures with the bat or Bairstow's failure with the bat and gloves and my "ire" has always been directed at the "jobs for the boys" attitude that prevails in county and international cricket. The recent report only scratched the service so far as what has and does go on and it is one that I have pointed out for the last decade on here.
No, I can't tell you exactly what Foakes was told. But I am sure he was spoken to. That's from everything I know and have seen from the way in which McCullum and Stokes go about their business.
I get that you - and others - would prefer to see different selections. (And, in pretty much every series that I have watched since the mid 1970s, I would have preferred to see different selections). But, if you're adamant that the two selectors have made repeated, obvious and serious errors, then it would make sense to call for the heads of the selectors. I wouldn't join that call, because, all things taken into consideration, they've done a spectacularly good job so far.
If you agree with me that undermining a player's confidence is not in the best interest of the player or the team, then that's the end of the conversation. And if you don't, then... same, really.
But as he is badly out of form with both bat and gloves I fail to see why he is still being picked.
Bairstow bats or he doesn't play. IMO
The same thing happened with Alec Stewart and Jack Russell, where by giving Stewart the gloves, they turned an excellent opener into an average middle order player.1 -
English players aren't picked in the Sheffield Shield, as a rule, whether there is an Ashes series or not. It's just not the way they do things. Best our players can hope for are games in Grade 1 club cricket and/or The Big Bash. That said, this will be Neser's sixth game in the CC this season for Glamorgan. He's averaging 64.50 with the bat and has taken 19 wickets at 25.63 with the ball.FSLN1 said:killerandflash said:
FFS couldn't the useless Aussies have called him up before he scored 81 against Kent today?cantersaddick said:Talk of Maxwell being called into the Aus squad and side as the spinner. Suspect it'll just to be to give them another option in the squad and he's already in the country so it's convenient. But he would certainly strengthen their lower middle order. Runs today against Kent.
Glamorgan are giving a game to Michael Neser who's with the Australian squad and an outside call for a start in the fourth Test.
English cricket loves to shoot itself in the foot. Steve Smith was given a short-term contract with Sussex before the Ashes and here we have Maxwell and Neser playing in the current round of CC matches.
I can't imagine a scenario where members of the England squad would be picked to play in the Sheffield Shield ahead of an Ashes series down under.
I used to be very much in the court of "why are we doing this?" but given now how difficult it has become for counties to secure the services of overseas players with so many franchises going on and other internationals taking place we can't exactly blame them for hiring the services of the likes of Neser - they are, after all, also restricted in terms of when England players are available to them even when there are gaps in the international programme. The other aspect is the benefit that these top internationals bring to the dressing room especially to young players making their way in the game.2 -
My favourite current commentator and probably one of the most intelligent ones around too.Pelling1993 said:
Makes Kumar Sangakkara's numbers even more impressive. Probably the most underappreciated cricketer of all time.killerandflash said:
That's something the selectors always seem to overlook, that keeping wicket is hard work and will affect the keeper's batting, especially is he isn't used to standing out there for 80-120 overs.cantersaddick said:
I don't believe that even stands up because his batting record when he keeps is poor but in the 3rd/4th innings its a disaster. so batting after keeping in the match massively affects him. His record at 7 is shocking compared to his record at 5. Foakes is the perfect number 7 a good foil for the other payers in the side and an infinitely better keeper (on current form if not always).blackpool72 said:
The only possible argument for picking Bairstow over Foakes is for his batting.Chizz said:
I didn't say you did - and I have never met you in a pub as far as I know!Addick Addict said:
Can you tell us exactly what Foakes was told as "you are sure"? By all accounts, Foakes didn't, quite understandably, like or appreciate that message. It is one that has also cost the England team too given the EIGHT chances Bairstow has missed and the fact that he only averages 23.50 with the bat. Foakes was in the team and did nothing wrong. Bairstow wasn't. Being dropped and seeing someone do your job, especially so poorly and costing your country games, is infinitely worse than rumours of someone else taking your place. Foakes had the rumours during the winter but he still did well. His fears were well founded with the decision an ill judged one and now means that, if and when he returns, he finds that he has to justify his position all over again when he shouldn't have had to do so in the first place.Chizz said:
Sure Foakes has had his confidence knocked by being dropped, but I am sure that McCullum and Stokes spoke to him in such a way that he knows exactly where he stands. No, I mean the players in the team who attract disproportionate amounts of criticism from people who didn't want them to be picked. The point about Murphy's confidence that @killerandflash made was with regards to someone that's in the team, but may have had his confidence knocked by the potential call-up of someone from outside the squad.Addick Addict said:Chizz said:
There are several England players whose confidence is often tested in a similar way. Fortunately, I think confidence is something that McCullum and Stokes are both very good at protecting and enhancing.killerandflash said:Can't be good for Murphy's confidence, all this talk of dragging another spinner in after one game.
Like Foakes you mean?
Better examples of the players I mean are Crawley and Bairstow, both of whom receive - in my view - disproportionate criticism for having the audacity of being picked. And both of whom are - again, in my view - probably being handled very well by the coach and captain.
When people are dissatisfied with the team selection, the ire should be thrown in the direction of the selectors. After all, if a fan knows better than the coach and captain, they should let them know, in no uncertain terms. (Although the record of McCullum and Stokes is pretty good so far). I'd much sooner see that than the gleeful attitudes of some pub bores who take great delight when Bairstow fumbles a catch or Crawley nicks a wide one. I've even seen people try to explain why it would be great if Bairstow failed. Each to their own though, I guess.
The point about Murphy is a good one. I hope continued speculation ruins his confidence, thereby giving the Australian selectors an even harder set of choices for the next two Tests.
Just for the record, though, I've never shown glee, as you put it, at Crawley's failures with the bat or Bairstow's failure with the bat and gloves and my "ire" has always been directed at the "jobs for the boys" attitude that prevails in county and international cricket. The recent report only scratched the service so far as what has and does go on and it is one that I have pointed out for the last decade on here.
No, I can't tell you exactly what Foakes was told. But I am sure he was spoken to. That's from everything I know and have seen from the way in which McCullum and Stokes go about their business.
I get that you - and others - would prefer to see different selections. (And, in pretty much every series that I have watched since the mid 1970s, I would have preferred to see different selections). But, if you're adamant that the two selectors have made repeated, obvious and serious errors, then it would make sense to call for the heads of the selectors. I wouldn't join that call, because, all things taken into consideration, they've done a spectacularly good job so far.
If you agree with me that undermining a player's confidence is not in the best interest of the player or the team, then that's the end of the conversation. And if you don't, then... same, really.
But as he is badly out of form with both bat and gloves I fail to see why he is still being picked.
Bairstow bats or he doesn't play. IMO
The same thing happened with Alec Stewart and Jack Russell, where by giving Stewart the gloves, they turned an excellent opener into an average middle order player.5 -
This sums up why I had no issues with Sussex signing Steve Smith - he didn't contribute hugely beyond one 80+ score with the bat but having him and Cheteswar Pujara around a very young group of batters was absolutely invaluable in terms of the knowledge they could pass on - 2 players that have probably seen everything international cricket can throw at a batsman.0
-
a joy to listen to.Addick Addict said:
My favourite current commentator and probably one of the most intelligent ones around too.Pelling1993 said:
Makes Kumar Sangakkara's numbers even more impressive. Probably the most underappreciated cricketer of all time.killerandflash said:
That's something the selectors always seem to overlook, that keeping wicket is hard work and will affect the keeper's batting, especially is he isn't used to standing out there for 80-120 overs.cantersaddick said:
I don't believe that even stands up because his batting record when he keeps is poor but in the 3rd/4th innings its a disaster. so batting after keeping in the match massively affects him. His record at 7 is shocking compared to his record at 5. Foakes is the perfect number 7 a good foil for the other payers in the side and an infinitely better keeper (on current form if not always).blackpool72 said:
The only possible argument for picking Bairstow over Foakes is for his batting.Chizz said:
I didn't say you did - and I have never met you in a pub as far as I know!Addick Addict said:
Can you tell us exactly what Foakes was told as "you are sure"? By all accounts, Foakes didn't, quite understandably, like or appreciate that message. It is one that has also cost the England team too given the EIGHT chances Bairstow has missed and the fact that he only averages 23.50 with the bat. Foakes was in the team and did nothing wrong. Bairstow wasn't. Being dropped and seeing someone do your job, especially so poorly and costing your country games, is infinitely worse than rumours of someone else taking your place. Foakes had the rumours during the winter but he still did well. His fears were well founded with the decision an ill judged one and now means that, if and when he returns, he finds that he has to justify his position all over again when he shouldn't have had to do so in the first place.Chizz said:
Sure Foakes has had his confidence knocked by being dropped, but I am sure that McCullum and Stokes spoke to him in such a way that he knows exactly where he stands. No, I mean the players in the team who attract disproportionate amounts of criticism from people who didn't want them to be picked. The point about Murphy's confidence that @killerandflash made was with regards to someone that's in the team, but may have had his confidence knocked by the potential call-up of someone from outside the squad.Addick Addict said:Chizz said:
There are several England players whose confidence is often tested in a similar way. Fortunately, I think confidence is something that McCullum and Stokes are both very good at protecting and enhancing.killerandflash said:Can't be good for Murphy's confidence, all this talk of dragging another spinner in after one game.
Like Foakes you mean?
Better examples of the players I mean are Crawley and Bairstow, both of whom receive - in my view - disproportionate criticism for having the audacity of being picked. And both of whom are - again, in my view - probably being handled very well by the coach and captain.
When people are dissatisfied with the team selection, the ire should be thrown in the direction of the selectors. After all, if a fan knows better than the coach and captain, they should let them know, in no uncertain terms. (Although the record of McCullum and Stokes is pretty good so far). I'd much sooner see that than the gleeful attitudes of some pub bores who take great delight when Bairstow fumbles a catch or Crawley nicks a wide one. I've even seen people try to explain why it would be great if Bairstow failed. Each to their own though, I guess.
The point about Murphy is a good one. I hope continued speculation ruins his confidence, thereby giving the Australian selectors an even harder set of choices for the next two Tests.
Just for the record, though, I've never shown glee, as you put it, at Crawley's failures with the bat or Bairstow's failure with the bat and gloves and my "ire" has always been directed at the "jobs for the boys" attitude that prevails in county and international cricket. The recent report only scratched the service so far as what has and does go on and it is one that I have pointed out for the last decade on here.
No, I can't tell you exactly what Foakes was told. But I am sure he was spoken to. That's from everything I know and have seen from the way in which McCullum and Stokes go about their business.
I get that you - and others - would prefer to see different selections. (And, in pretty much every series that I have watched since the mid 1970s, I would have preferred to see different selections). But, if you're adamant that the two selectors have made repeated, obvious and serious errors, then it would make sense to call for the heads of the selectors. I wouldn't join that call, because, all things taken into consideration, they've done a spectacularly good job so far.
If you agree with me that undermining a player's confidence is not in the best interest of the player or the team, then that's the end of the conversation. And if you don't, then... same, really.
But as he is badly out of form with both bat and gloves I fail to see why he is still being picked.
Bairstow bats or he doesn't play. IMO
The same thing happened with Alec Stewart and Jack Russell, where by giving Stewart the gloves, they turned an excellent opener into an average middle order player.1 -
Come on girls, get this one over the line!0
-
Tight this, come on England!1
-
Two more wins for both England teams will do it....2
-
Not the best photo because I didn’t want to be too obvious. But in my hotel in Bristol, the ladies cricket team.
8 - Sponsored links:
-
Both the men's and women's teams could really, really do with dropping their wicketkeeper. I suspect neither will0
-
I feel confident in saying he was not 8 in all those innings.Addick Addict said:Smith is the one we need to get. That stat of him averaging 87.57 in the first innings of a match in Test cricket is absolutely staggering - 4,641 runs in 61 innings of which he was not 8 times0 -
Justin Langer's interview the other day was really interesting on Smith, he said Smith can't sleep during Tests at all - not just sleeps badly, just basically doesn't sleep.
Combined with the fact that his first innings average is so much better than his second innings one, you have to wonder if the key is basically getting him into bat as late into Tests as you can.1 -
Bob Willis destroyed the Aussie”s with one hell of an eight wicket haul that I’ve yet to see bettered.Cafc43v3r said:I can't say a remember a bowler deserving a 5for more.1 -
https://wisden.com/series-stories/ashes-2023/ollie-robinson-ashes-makes-me-proud-to-be-englishWoody’s just got this mad, unique energy. There’s no one else like him. You think he’s drunk half the time yet he doesn’t touch a drop. Bear in mind this is a bloke who, 10 minutes before we went out, literally at 10:50am, was on all-fours barking on the changing room floor, going, “There’s a dog in the dressing room. There’s a dog in here, lads…”10
-
But in the last test we had him out twice before tea time (not tea) on the second day.North Lower Neil said:Justin Langer's interview the other day was really interesting on Smith, he said Smith can't sleep during Tests at all - not just sleeps badly, just basically doesn't sleep.
Combined with the fact that his first innings average is so much better than his second innings one, you have to wonder if the key is basically getting him into bat as late into Tests as you can.0 -
And who knows how well he would have done if he batted at noon on day 1!!Cafc43v3r said:
But in the last test we had him out twice before tea time (not tea) on the second day.North Lower Neil said:Justin Langer's interview the other day was really interesting on Smith, he said Smith can't sleep during Tests at all - not just sleeps badly, just basically doesn't sleep.
Combined with the fact that his first innings average is so much better than his second innings one, you have to wonder if the key is basically getting him into bat as late into Tests as you can.0 -
Jaiswal's reign of terror has begun, btw0
-
Bazball Nous? Non, je ne Bazball pas.soapboxsam said:Bazball Nous is not an oxymoron.0 -
Saw the highlights, looked so accomplished for 21.Leuth said:Jaiswal's reign of terror has begun, btw
0 - Sponsored links:
-
Just the 9 bowlers used so far by the WindiesNorth Lower Neil said:
Saw the highlights, looked so accomplished for 21.Leuth said:Jaiswal's reign of terror has begun, btw0 -
Happy fourth anniversary to the Champagne Super Over.
The barest of margins...
England's six balls...
...New Zeland's seven0 -
MrOneLung said:
Just the 9 bowlers used so far by the WindiesNorth Lower Neil said:
Saw the highlights, looked so accomplished for 21.Leuth said:Jaiswal's reign of terror has begun, btw
It's fair enough for the keeper not to have to take his pads and bowl but Tagenarine Chanderpaul must wonder if he's done something to upset the skipper3 -
Being played in Dominica, not somewhere I recall England playing before0
-
Jaiswal and Rohit Sharma grinding out hundreds in a Test is all very well, but such players can never hope to make it in the more prestigious short form of the game1
-
A bit Sunday afternoon village green, right who hasn't had a bowl yet?MrOneLung said:
Just the 9 bowlers used so far by the WindiesNorth Lower Neil said:
Saw the highlights, looked so accomplished for 21.Leuth said:Jaiswal's reign of terror has begun, btw1 -
Just caught a bit of it while channel hopping, did you manage to count the crowd?0
-
West Indies all out for 130 in their second innings meaning that they made 280-20 in the match with their 11 batsman scoring a total of 266 in their two innings. Jaiswal and Sharma scored more than that between them in their one and only innings. Absolutely awful. Many associate countries would put up a better fight.1
-
Yup and they beat us 15 months ago...Addick Addict said:West Indies all out for 130 in their second innings meaning that they made 280-20 in the match with their 11 batsman scoring a total of 266 in their two innings. Jaiswal and Sharma scored more than that between them in their one and only innings. Absolutely awful. Many associate countries would put up a better fight.1 -
Bar Narine playing T20s at Surrey and Kemar Roach do any of the counties have West Indian overseas this season? I know Sussex were supposed to have Jayden Seales for the start of the CC but he had to have knee surgery instead.0
