England Cricket Tours 2018-19 (and everything off the field during that period)
Comments
-
For a very good stat man like you that is a ridiculous statement!Addick Addict said:
Well the Windies didn't choose to bat on it did they? And nine times out of ten the team that wins the toss decides to bat. Unless you know that the track has something that suits your bowlers or your Nasser!BR3red said:We have just scored 642 runs in FOUR test innings... 160 an innings.
These batsmen for England are good enough to beat any team in the world.
We had no mental strength, executed poor shots and were not disciplined enough.
To blame the pitch is like blaming the loss of a toss.0 -
(1) I doubt that Brathwaite and Bravo would have lasted as long against the likes of Starc, Cummins, Steyn, Rabada etc etc on that pitch.Riviera said:
Sorry but what point are you making? I'm not being funny by the way.Addick Addict said:
West Indies in the series yes. But I will bet anyone (and it's hypothetical so I can't lose anyway) that South Africa or Australia would have bowled them out for less than 150 on this pitch.Riviera said:
Agreed @Addick Addict but it is irrelevant in relation to our performance. Look at what Bravo did.Addick Addict said:
I also said that our batting isn't good enough. This is not a Test wicket though.BR3red said:Talk about the pitch all you want
Very poor dismissals by England
Moeen lazy soft shot when you need to dig in to save a test
We are averaging around 16 runs per wicket in the series, WI almost 39. Our highest total in the series is lower than the WI's lowest.
So a technically flawed batting line up plus an aged and relatively slow bowling attack is not going to get us anywhere.
(2) None of our batsmen are currently Test batsmen capable of batting in all conditions.
(3) The pitch is not of Test quality0 -
Not if you bold the second part too it doesn't.Riviera said:
For a very good stat man like you that is a ridiculous statement!Addick Addict said:
Well the Windies didn't choose to bat on it did they? And nine times out of ten the team that wins the toss decides to bat. Unless you know that the track has something that suits your bowlers or your Nasser!BR3red said:We have just scored 642 runs in FOUR test innings... 160 an innings.
These batsmen for England are good enough to beat any team in the world.
We had no mental strength, executed poor shots and were not disciplined enough.
To blame the pitch is like blaming the loss of a toss.0 -
Well played Wet Indies. For all the failings hyped on here, on the TV and on the radio, this series was won by a team playing well, not lost by a team playing badly.
On to the third test. With some England players surely looking for a good display to avoid fears about their careers ahead of the year's most important test series, the Ashes.0 -
No, but they scored as many (save a dozen or so) in one innings than we did in two.Addick Addict said:
Well the Windies didn't choose to bat on it did they? And nine times out of ten the team that wins the toss decides to bat. Unless you know that the track has something that suits your bowlers or your Nasser!BR3red said:We have just scored 642 runs in FOUR test innings... 160 an innings.
These batsmen for England are good enough to beat any team in the world.
We had no mental strength, executed poor shots and were not disciplined enough.
To blame the pitch is like blaming the loss of a toss.
0 -
No it doesn't, just makes it obvious!Addick Addict said:
Not if you bold the second part too it doesn't.Riviera said:
For a very good stat man like you that is a ridiculous statement!Addick Addict said:
Well the Windies didn't choose to bat on it did they? And nine times out of ten the team that wins the toss decides to bat. Unless you know that the track has something that suits your bowlers or your Nasser!BR3red said:We have just scored 642 runs in FOUR test innings... 160 an innings.
These batsmen for England are good enough to beat any team in the world.
We had no mental strength, executed poor shots and were not disciplined enough.
To blame the pitch is like blaming the loss of a toss.0 -
Addick Addict said:
(1) I doubt that Brathwaite and Bravo would have lasted as long against the likes of Starc, Cummins, Steyn, Rabada etc etc on that pitch. IrelleventRiviera said:
Sorry but what point are you making? I'm not being funny by the way.Addick Addict said:
West Indies in the series yes. But I will bet anyone (and it's hypothetical so I can't lose anyway) that South Africa or Australia would have bowled them out for less than 150 on this pitch.Riviera said:
Agreed @Addick Addict but it is irrelevant in relation to our performance. Look at what Bravo did.Addick Addict said:
I also said that our batting isn't good enough. This is not a Test wicket though.BR3red said:Talk about the pitch all you want
Very poor dismissals by England
Moeen lazy soft shot when you need to dig in to save a test
We are averaging around 16 runs per wicket in the series, WI almost 39. Our highest total in the series is lower than the WI's lowest.
So a technically flawed batting line up plus an aged and relatively slow bowling attack is not going to get us anywhere.
(2) None of our batsmen are currently Test batsmen capable of batting in all conditions. Agreed
(3) The pitch is not of Test quality Irellevent. Why do you keep on about this?0 -
Addick Addict said:
Ignoring the clear stupidity if not playing Broad, the fact is that our batsmen were appalling.
I asked myself this question - if I had a gun to my head, how would I describe each of our so called top to middle order batsmen against the best bowling attacks in the world on difficult tracks to bat on i.e. Test, One Day, both or neither. This is what I came up with:
Jennings - neither
Burns - neither (Test yet to be proven)
Bairstow - one day
Root - both
Stokes - one day
Buttler - one day
Foakes - one day (Test yet to be proven)
Ali - neither
It is no coincidence that only one of those averages 40 plus in Tests - Root. Without being over critical, the issue with Root is that his average of 49.87 is made up of not that many 100s when compared to the number of times he has reached 50 (15 vs 41). So, he will, more often than not get a 50 but not regularly, by comparison, convert. The best batsman in the world, Kohli, for example, has 25 100s vs 15 50s.
Having said that, if we had 5 Test batsmen that averaged 50 I wouldn't even be talking about Root. It is that ability to "dig in" and "bat and bat" that is missing but quite how we produce batsmen that do that when all the emphasis is nowadays on run rates is difficult to see.
I doubt that you will find many county academy sessions that are geared towards survival and recognising the ball that you shouldn't be throwing your hands at as opposed to sessions that are all about "can I hit this ball for 6, if not 4, if not 2 etc etc". And therein lies the problem. T20s and one day games, for counties, is where the money is. Not 4 day Championship matches.
Revised to:
Denly - probably neither
Jennings - neither
Burns - probably neither
Bairstow - one day
Root - one day only at present
Stokes - one day
Buttler - one day
Foakes - possibly neither
Ali - neither1 - Sponsored links:
-
I'll leave this and just repeat what Bob Willis has just said:
"They had the best of the conditions in this match no doubt about that, a very good toss to have won and a bit of a rogue pitch - you have to be honest about that - but credit to their batsmen. To get a score of 300 plus on that pitch was a fantastic achievement"
So getting 300 was a "fantastic achievement". Not many Tests last more than 3 days when 300 runs is "fantastic".0 -
-
I think we may be getting mixed up here. Can't argue with Big Bob and never do really. Whatever the pitch conditions, whoever won the toss and whether 300 was fantastic or not the West Indies did it. They scored 300+ regardless, we got nowhere near that score in two attempts. There is no way the pitch improved for their innings in between ours. They showed application and a degree of patience that we just do not appear to possess these days. Our bowlers bowled very well too.Addick Addict said:I'll leave this and just repeat what Bob Willis has just said:
"They had the best of the conditions in this match no doubt about that, a very good toss to have won and a bit of a rogue pitch - you have to be honest about that - but credit to their batsmen. To get a score of 300 plus on that pitch was a fantastic achievement"
So getting 300 was a "fantastic achievement". Not many Tests last more than 3 days when 300 runs is "fantastic".1 -
The only way to improve the batting is for them to go off somewhere and have a few 20 over games.5
-
Well that's not a bad point - we get more in T20s than we did in this Test match!MrOneLung said:The only way to improve the batting is for them to go off somewhere and have a few 20 over games.
0 -
Sometimes you just have to accept that you have been outplayed.
The toss was a good one for the Windies to win.
But.
When our bowlers were bowling well the Windies batsmen dug in and grafted.
When the Windies bowlers bowled well our batsman came up well short.4 -
The Windies have played very well in both Tests and I and many would love to see them back as real force in Test cricket.7
-
I am really annoyed at our performances in these two tests. Several thousand people paid several pounds each to go and watch these matches.
Firstly I must say that WIndes did perform well and are a much better side than we were led to believe.
However that doesn't explain our inept performances.
So a few things to get off my chest
1. Preparation or lack of. No proper warm games is ridiculous. So different conditions from England or Sri Lanka so disgraceful and an insult to England fans and those few players who care about test cricket. Denley, will be criticised but I don't think he's played a first class match since September and is asked to open in a test match. Apparently the schedule for NZ next year, even though it is part of World Cup, is similar.
2. Batting coach. Why Rampakash? our biggest problem is mental preparation so we choose a coach who couldn't bat in a test match to save his life.
3. Team selection. The leaving of Broad out in the 1st test was absurd and set the tone. Anderson was bowling well but for each tight over we had Curran bowling slow medium and getting wacked to relieve any pressure. They got 255 whereas I believe if Broad had played we could have got them out for 100 less. Even after the acknowledged mistakes in the 1st test Curran keeps his place. Woakes would have been a much better bet in these conditions, or even Wood.
4. Batting attitude. Even having seen the Windes bat did any of batsman take any of that on board. At least 2 (maybe 3) were bowled between bat and pad!
5. Is Root a captain? The way he treated Anderson and Broad I have severe doubts. Anderson was so annoyed and wound up with Root. Hope I'm wrong but unless something happens we may be nearing the end of seeing our only truly world class player.5 - Sponsored links:
-
Holder suspended for the third test by the ICC because of a slow over rate.0
-
How ridiculous!EpsomAddick said:Holder suspended for the third test by the ICC because of a slow over rate.
0 -
He knew it was coming as he mentioned it in his post match interview. It does seem crazy but something has to be done about over rates. Fines didn't work, can't say I know the answer. Penalty runs would be wrong imo.0
-
If they speed the over rates up, we could be down to two day tests, the way England are batting at the momentRiviera said:He knew it was coming as he mentioned it in his post match interview. It does seem crazy but something has to be done about over rates. Fines didn't work, can't say I know the answer. Penalty runs would be wrong imo.
2 -
A shame we won’t get to see Holder play.0
-
-
Can’t get fella with cup in front of face at front or fella at back with hand in front of face and fella back left behind GG I recognise his face but can’t put a name to it aaaah0
-
Keith Medlycott I think. I played London Schools cricket with him.oohaahmortimer said:Can’t get fella with cup in front of face at front or fella at back with hand in front of face and fella back left behind GG I recognise his face but can’t put a name to it aaaah
1 -
By process of elimination Rob Bailey.oohaahmortimer said:Can’t get fella with cup in front of face at front or fella at back with hand in front of face and fella back left behind GG I recognise his face but can’t put a name to it aaaah
1 -
The physio Laurie Brown.oohaahmortimer said:Can’t get fella with cup in front of face at front or fella at back with hand in front of face and fella back left behind GG I recognise his face but can’t put a name to it aaaah
1
