Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
England Cricket Tour Of Bangladesh & India
Comments
-
I was tired, we'd all had a drink, it could happen to anyone....The_President said:No Wood ?
4 -
I think there are circumstances where Wood would be in front of Anderson,Broad and Woakes, in that he provides something the other three dont have - out and out pace - so, if you going to play 2/3 spinners then the other 2/3 for me would be Stokes (given) and Wood , with perm one from the other three.Chizz said:
I wouldn't pick him ahead of Anderson, Broad or Stokes. And, with those three in the team, Woakes offers far more than Wood.The_President said:No Wood ?
1 -
Pleased for Batty.0
-
Interesting now at tea, can they chase 108 down??
With these 2 in its possible. Well played the bangladeshi's0 -
Well to be honest I don't think Buttler has it between the ears to bat at test level. Much like Hales doesn't. Very good one day player and good county players but never a test batsman.The_President said:cant believe that anyone would consider that Foakes should be a better option than Buttler- especially as a batter.
But if you look at what I've said I never said I prefer him as a batsman. I prefer him as a keeper. And his exceptional keeping will save us more runs than his batting will cost us.0 -
I haven't said that anywhere. I've simply said he should be in the squad as second keeper ahead of Buttler. As that's what he's there to do. Keep.The_President said:
Im not asking him to keep wicket, JB's got the job- but to suggest that Foakes is a better Test batter...nah- not even close.killerandflash said:
Buttler is a mediocre keeper though, England pushed him to leave Somerset as he wasn't playing as a keeper there, but since then he's done done nothing to disprove the feeling that he's a brilliant white ball batsman and adequate white ball keeper, bit nowhere near good enough to keep wicket in red ball cricketThe_President said:cant believe that anyone would consider that Foakes should be a better option than Buttler- especially as a batter.
0 -
On a winter tour like this (and India), the keeping skills needed are different and much harder than keeping to seamers at Headingley in June. A keeper missing a stumping of Kohli could be very expensive1
-
Baitstow dropped Sabbir on 34. I'm no cricket expert but looked a takeable catch1
-
WE are in exactly the sort of situation now where we need someone like Wood. BanglaDEsh are not getting any probs playing Broad or Woakes - they're not quick enough, whereas Wood would have them jumping - in the same way that Oz would bring in Johnson or SA would bring on Morkel/SteynThe_President said:
I think there are circumstances where Wood would be in front of Anderson,Broad and Woakes, in that he provides something the other three dont have - out and out pace - so, if you going to play 2/3 spinners then the other 2/3 for me would be Stokes (given) and Wood , with perm one from the other three.Chizz said:
I wouldn't pick him ahead of Anderson, Broad or Stokes. And, with those three in the team, Woakes offers far more than Wood.The_President said:No Wood ?
0 -
WICKET! The ball really took off from the pitch
Mushfiqur c Ballance b Batty 391 - Sponsored links:
-
Mushfiqur Rahim out. c Ballance b Batty
Bangladesh need 57 to win. England need 4 wickets.1 -
Mahedi LBW to Broad1
-
Stokes getting some unreal swing1
-
Islam Rabbi is out - first Jewish Muslim to play cricket. !2
-
COP day four. 253-80
-
Well, I feel as though I will have to see the end of this at 5am tomorrow.0
-
I'm not confident Wood will ever return to the highest level.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/376009520 -
So sad. People ITK (including MIchael Holding) have been saying for some time that he needs to modify his action to prolong his career- he does put an awful lot of energy into such a short run-up- and , if i remember correctly, has never played more than 3 consecutive matches without getting injured.Covered End said:I'm not confident Wood will ever return to the highest level.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/37600952
Then again, look at what happened when they tried to change Jimmy's action !3 -
Dharmesena gives yet another batsman not out only for it to be overturned!!! One to Stokes with the last man in and 23 still needed.0
-
Unbelievably two balls late Dharmasena give the number 11 out LBW, it is reviewed but the decision is this time confirmed.
We win by 22 runs. MOM has to be Stokes.0 - Sponsored links:
-
Well bowled Ben !0
-
As pointed out by Sky, the recent change in DRS, where not so much of the ball has to be hitting for the decision to be given to the bowler, meant that the first LBW call could be reversed.
The second LBW was only out because, despite the batsman was clearly outside the line, it was only an afterthought to play a shot.
Such are the margins of victory and defeat.0 -
And for those, like me, who were unaware of the changes, here they are in black and white:
By how much has the zone increased?
Previously, for not-out decisions to be overturned, more than half the ball needed to hit the pad in line with a zone between the middle of off stump and the middle of leg stump, and from the bottom of the bails downwards. Now, the zone is between the outside of off stump and the outside of leg stump. The bottom-of-the bails limit has not changed.
And previously, for not-out decisions to be overturned, the ball-tracking projection needed to show more than half the ball hitting the stumps between the middle of off stump and the middle of leg stump, and from the bottom of the bails downwards. Now, the zone is from the outside of off stump and the outside of leg stump. The bottom-of-the-bails limit has not changed.
The increase in the width of the zone is about 3.8 centimetres: half a stump's width (1.9 centimetres) on either side.
How will this impact the game?
Under the previous DRS conditions, for a not-out lbw decision to be overturned, the ball needed to have hit the pad well in line with the stumps and the projection needed to show the ball pretty much crashing into the stumps. Now, for such decisions to be overturned, more than half the ball still needs to hit the pad in line with the stumps, but not as much as before, and more than half the ball still needs to hit the stumps, but not as centrally as before.
So there you have it - who would be an umpire?0 -
The only aspect that was somewhat bizarre this morning was that Sky actually missed covering the first three overs of the day on SS2 - presumably due to the over-running American Football match - and only started showing the game for Stokes winning over. Five minutes later and they would have missed it completely!0
-
So you would go into every game without one or both of England's first- and third-greatest wicket-takers ever?The_President said:
I think there are circumstances where Wood would be in front of Anderson,Broad and Woakes, in that he provides something the other three dont have - out and out pace - so, if you going to play 2/3 spinners then the other 2/3 for me would be Stokes (given) and Wood , with perm one from the other three.Chizz said:
I wouldn't pick him ahead of Anderson, Broad or Stokes. And, with those three in the team, Woakes offers far more than Wood.The_President said:No Wood ?
0 -
No indication from Trevor Bayliss that Ballance will be dropped. "Like a lot of the others he is working hard at his game".
One other observation - Bangladesh's last four batsmen scored 40 runs in the match whereas ours made 117 (Woakes 55, Rashid 35, Broad 23 and Batty 4). And that was the difference between winning and losing here because, overall, they actually bowled better than we did.1 -
Sky now showing the full coverage of the morning's play - including the three overs that they didn't beam earlier!0
-
I watched it on SS4?0
-
I think Ballance is in the last chance saloon. If he fails twice in the second Test he should be history. The top order need to start firing. Hardly any runs for Cook Duckett and Snail.0
-
Jimmy's record outside England isn't amazing and his body needs protecting given his age. I don't think it's unreasonable to pick other bowlers ahead of him on tours.Chizz said:
So you would go into every game without one or both of England's first- and third-greatest wicket-takers ever?The_President said:
I think there are circumstances where Wood would be in front of Anderson,Broad and Woakes, in that he provides something the other three dont have - out and out pace - so, if you going to play 2/3 spinners then the other 2/3 for me would be Stokes (given) and Wood , with perm one from the other three.Chizz said:
I wouldn't pick him ahead of Anderson, Broad or Stokes. And, with those three in the team, Woakes offers far more than Wood.The_President said:No Wood ?
Anyway well done Bangladesh for making this such an exciting Test Match, it's great to see how far they've come.2
