Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
England Cricket 2023
Comments
-
Wood for Anderson
Foakes for Stokes
Curran for Ali -I know he has not played much red ball but he is match fit and really does have the X FACTOR
Crawley
Duckett
Pope
Root
Brook
Bairstow
Foakes
Curran
Woakes
Wood
Broad1 -
Or if really want a spinner Kent's Parkinson....0
-
Stokes plays with one leg1
-
horrendously out of form since being dropped by england. How many times has that happened to young english spinners?MrOneLung said:Or if really want a spinner Kent's Parkinson....0 -
Yeah, I wasn't being serious, just wanted to big up Kent's new signingkentaddick said:
horrendously out of form since being dropped by england. How many times has that happened to young english spinners?MrOneLung said:Or if really want a spinner Kent's Parkinson....3 -
it's probably kent's best signing for a few years, if he can return to previous form.MrOneLung said:
Yeah, I wasn't being serious, just wanted to big up Kent's new signingkentaddick said:
horrendously out of form since being dropped by england. How many times has that happened to young english spinners?MrOneLung said:Or if really want a spinner Kent's Parkinson....0 -
Both England and Australia fined 40% of their match fee and penalised two ICC Championship points for slow over rate. Until the sanctions actually affect the game in play, any sanction will not change anything.1
-
The other aspect of this match that seems to have been missed by most of us is that we won the toss and batted first. Australia had to bat when, in theory, the wicket was at its worst on that final day. Except, apart from the odd ball, it was pretty dead and didn't aid the bowlers. We've asked for this sort of wicket to be prepared on the basis that it will help us to score runs quickly but, for the reasons I've set out already, I do think affording Australia more time to bat actually aids their cause especially on a wicket offering next to nothing. That said, I'm not sure what the solution is as doing the opposite will only assist Lyon especially if we have to bat last.0
-
Utterly ridiculous to fine the sides and dock points considering that, by 6pm on the final day, four results were still possible.Addick Addict said:Both England and Australia fined 40% of their match fee and penalised two ICC Championship points for slow over rate. Until the sanctions actually affect the game in play, any sanction will not change anything.1 -
England had to bat during the worst conditions of the match on Sunday afternoon, and lost 2 wickets when it was horribly dark and drizzly.North Lower Neil said:I had a great couple of days up there but gutted about that last hour. Should not have lost from having them 230-8.
Fine margins etc, and I do think that under the final days of Root we were playing so badly we'd have lost this by a lot more, but it does feel very worrying we won the toss, got 90% of the luck with the conditions, got Smith & Labuschagne out cheaply twice and still didn't win.
Dropping Foakes was a mistake, the declaration was a mistake, and our bowling (bar Broad) all look injured and/or rusty.
I'm still very worried.3 - Sponsored links:
-
Losing 2 Test championship points will hurt thoughAddick Addict said:Both England and Australia fined 40% of their match fee and penalised two ICC Championship points for slow over rate. Until the sanctions actually affect the game in play, any sanction will not change anything.0 -
So your measure for a slow over rate is based on the match situation on the final day? I'm not sure that helps those people that have paid a lot of money to watch 90 overs of cricket, weather permitting, on days 1 to 4.Chizz said:
Utterly ridiculous to fine the sides and dock points considering that, by 6pm on the final day, four results were still possible.Addick Addict said:Both England and Australia fined 40% of their match fee and penalised two ICC Championship points for slow over rate. Until the sanctions actually affect the game in play, any sanction will not change anything.2 -
It will hurt but it won't be something that is likely to influence captains to move the game on in the game itself. Teams can still win the ICC Championship with two points deducted (especially if the opposition happen to be one of the other two likely winners) whereas a penalty runs deduction will.killerandflash said:
Losing 2 Test championship points will hurt thoughAddick Addict said:Both England and Australia fined 40% of their match fee and penalised two ICC Championship points for slow over rate. Until the sanctions actually affect the game in play, any sanction will not change anything.0 -
Don’t buy this narrative that the declaration cost us. Both batsman could have got our quickly rather than adding these 50 extra runs that everyone assumes we would have got. If we’d have got a wicket on that evening everyone would have been calling it inspired.
I think the bigger issue, and where we didn’t hammer home our advantage, was the second innings. Well set batsman getting out to rash shots meant we scraped up to setting them 280 rather than 320 or so.3 -
England did but then we only had themselves to blame for that because it is less likely to have happened had we not declaredkillerandflash said:
England had to bat during the worst conditions of the match on Sunday afternoon, and lost 2 wickets when it was horribly dark and drizzly.North Lower Neil said:I had a great couple of days up there but gutted about that last hour. Should not have lost from having them 230-8.
Fine margins etc, and I do think that under the final days of Root we were playing so badly we'd have lost this by a lot more, but it does feel very worrying we won the toss, got 90% of the luck with the conditions, got Smith & Labuschagne out cheaply twice and still didn't win.
Dropping Foakes was a mistake, the declaration was a mistake, and our bowling (bar Broad) all look injured and/or rusty.
I'm still very worried.1 -
That was the 10%!killerandflash said:
England had to bat during the worst conditions of the match on Sunday afternoon, and lost 2 wickets when it was horribly dark and drizzly.North Lower Neil said:I had a great couple of days up there but gutted about that last hour. Should not have lost from having them 230-8.
Fine margins etc, and I do think that under the final days of Root we were playing so badly we'd have lost this by a lot more, but it does feel very worrying we won the toss, got 90% of the luck with the conditions, got Smith & Labuschagne out cheaply twice and still didn't win.
Dropping Foakes was a mistake, the declaration was a mistake, and our bowling (bar Broad) all look injured and/or rusty.
I'm still very worried.
We batted in great conditions day 10 -
No. I'm saying that a finely-balanced match that ends in a thrilling, unpredictable result in the final few minutes of a match in which significant numbers of overs were lost to rain shouldn't be traduced by a punishment to the teams.Addick Addict said:
So your measure for a slow over rate is based on the match situation on the final day? I'm not sure that helps those people that have paid a lot of money to watch 90 overs of cricket, weather permitting, on days 1 to 4.Chizz said:
Utterly ridiculous to fine the sides and dock points considering that, by 6pm on the final day, four results were still possible.Addick Addict said:Both England and Australia fined 40% of their match fee and penalised two ICC Championship points for slow over rate. Until the sanctions actually affect the game in play, any sanction will not change anything.
I've said before that there should be 30 over sessions. I also think that fining both teams for a slow over rate in a memorable, exciting Test match won't change anything.0 -
But that is being selective and won't change anything. The punishment has to be one that is consistent otherwise, as I say, fans will continue to be cheated. The sessions lost to rain are irrelevant as the over rate takes that into account. And what would you say had the match ended as a draw with Australia 9 down and still needing half a dozen to win? Surely two of the three results would have been directly affected by the loss of overs wouldn't they?Chizz said:
No. I'm saying that a finely-balanced match that ends in a thrilling, unpredictable result in the final few minutes of a match in which significant numbers of overs were lost to rain shouldn't be traduced by a punishment to the teams.Addick Addict said:
So your measure for a slow over rate is based on the match situation on the final day? I'm not sure that helps those people that have paid a lot of money to watch 90 overs of cricket, weather permitting, on days 1 to 4.Chizz said:
Utterly ridiculous to fine the sides and dock points considering that, by 6pm on the final day, four results were still possible.Addick Addict said:Both England and Australia fined 40% of their match fee and penalised two ICC Championship points for slow over rate. Until the sanctions actually affect the game in play, any sanction will not change anything.
I've said before that there should be 30 over sessions. I also think that fining both teams for a slow over rate in a memorable, exciting Test match won't change anything.0 -
In the hypothetical scenario you describe, I wouldn't see how either captain had engineered a favourable result by slowing the over-rate.Addick Addict said:
But that is being selective and won't change anything. The punishment has to be one that is consistent otherwise, as I say, fans will continue to be cheated. The sessions lost to rain are irrelevant as the over rate takes that into account. And what would you say had the match ended as a draw with Australia 9 down and still needing half a dozen to win? Surely two of the three results would have been directly affected by the loss of overs wouldn't they?Chizz said:
No. I'm saying that a finely-balanced match that ends in a thrilling, unpredictable result in the final few minutes of a match in which significant numbers of overs were lost to rain shouldn't be traduced by a punishment to the teams.Addick Addict said:
So your measure for a slow over rate is based on the match situation on the final day? I'm not sure that helps those people that have paid a lot of money to watch 90 overs of cricket, weather permitting, on days 1 to 4.Chizz said:
Utterly ridiculous to fine the sides and dock points considering that, by 6pm on the final day, four results were still possible.Addick Addict said:Both England and Australia fined 40% of their match fee and penalised two ICC Championship points for slow over rate. Until the sanctions actually affect the game in play, any sanction will not change anything.
I've said before that there should be 30 over sessions. I also think that fining both teams for a slow over rate in a memorable, exciting Test match won't change anything.
I think fining teams won't change anything. And this Test match goes a long way to proving it.
The way to get teams to bowl 90 overs in a day is to continue playing each session until at least thirty have been bowled. Not by catching them out afterwards.1 -
Hindsight is 20-20killerandflash said:If they didn't want to go with a rookie spinner, or indeed no spinner, Liam Dawson averages 32 with the bat with 11 first class centuries, and has been playing red ball cricket for Hampshire this season, so bringing Moeen out of red ball retirement was an unnecessary gamble.1 - Sponsored links:
-
It's not about engineering a result though - you can't do that on day one by bowling less overs. It is about bowling the requisite number of overs each and every day. Bowling 10 overs less on each and every one of the previous four days could have a direct affect on the result.Chizz said:
In the hypothetical scenario you describe, I wouldn't see how either captain had engineered a favourable result by slowing the over-rate.Addick Addict said:
But that is being selective and won't change anything. The punishment has to be one that is consistent otherwise, as I say, fans will continue to be cheated. The sessions lost to rain are irrelevant as the over rate takes that into account. And what would you say had the match ended as a draw with Australia 9 down and still needing half a dozen to win? Surely two of the three results would have been directly affected by the loss of overs wouldn't they?Chizz said:
No. I'm saying that a finely-balanced match that ends in a thrilling, unpredictable result in the final few minutes of a match in which significant numbers of overs were lost to rain shouldn't be traduced by a punishment to the teams.Addick Addict said:
So your measure for a slow over rate is based on the match situation on the final day? I'm not sure that helps those people that have paid a lot of money to watch 90 overs of cricket, weather permitting, on days 1 to 4.Chizz said:
Utterly ridiculous to fine the sides and dock points considering that, by 6pm on the final day, four results were still possible.Addick Addict said:Both England and Australia fined 40% of their match fee and penalised two ICC Championship points for slow over rate. Until the sanctions actually affect the game in play, any sanction will not change anything.
I've said before that there should be 30 over sessions. I also think that fining both teams for a slow over rate in a memorable, exciting Test match won't change anything.
I think fining teams won't change anything. And this Test match goes a long way to proving it.
The way to get teams to bowl 90 overs in a day is to continue playing each session until at least thirty have been bowled. Not by catching them out afterwards.
As for your suggestion of not leaving the field until 30 overs have been bowled in a session will not work because there is still added time at the end of the day and you can't have 90mph bowlers steaming in at the end of the day in failing light. So you still lose overs unless the rule is that lunch and tea are curtailed in which case the ruling body runs the risk of being sued when a player collapses due to dehydration.
There has to be a meaningful, in the game, penalty if things are going to change. Equally, Umpires should be encouraged to be more pro active and to have more on the field authority. In the Kent League there is a points deduction if 50 overs aren't bowled, overall, at 16 overs per hour. Umpires will tell the fielding captain if his team are falling behind for that reason.1 -
Plenty of people were suggesting Dawson as a like for like replacement for Leach at the time.cantersaddick said:
Hindsight is 20-20killerandflash said:If they didn't want to go with a rookie spinner, or indeed no spinner, Liam Dawson averages 32 with the bat with 11 first class centuries, and has been playing red ball cricket for Hampshire this season, so bringing Moeen out of red ball retirement was an unnecessary gamble.
1 -
the no balls and dropped catches from bairstow were the killer imho. Take those and cut those out and we'd have won comfortably.3
-
Ifs, buts and maybes. I wish we had Wood at the end there to clear up Cummins, Lyon & Hazlewood though.0
-
I will stand corrected but the Test average for Bairstow is 37 and Foakes is 32. So the gloves should surely come off for Jonny and he's either picked as as batter or not at all ?
I know it's not all about averages or Crawley wouldn't get picked as his average is 28.
I saw Zak score a big hundred at Canterbury ( may have been his first 🤔) and he got a duck in the 2nd innings !
This is a stronger Australian team than the one that went 1up against the Botham/Willis team and probably stronger than the Aussie team that went 1up against Michael Vaughan's side once they lost McGrath.
1 -
disagree, but there's not much in it.soapboxsam said:I will stand corrected but the Test average for Bairstow is 37 and Foakes is 32. So the gloves should surely come off for Jonny and he's either picked as as batter or not at all ?
I know it's not all about averages or Crawley wouldn't get picked as his average is 28.
I saw Zak score a big hundred at Canterbury ( may have been his first 🤔) and he got a duck in the 2nd innings !
This is a stronger Australian team than the one that went 1up against the Botham/Willis team and probably stronger than the Aussie team that went 1up against Michael Vaughan's side once they lost McGrath.0 -
Two very evenly matched teams,should be a great series,however,one big difference will I fear swing it Australias way,Nathan Lyon,we do not have a spinner in his class,and he can bat a bit.3
-
Exactly this. Spinner becomes even more important with the requested pitches being 'good'. Inexcusable that Virdi isn't getting regular games for someone, he was the onethickandthin63 said:Two very evenly matched teams,should be a great series,however,one big difference will I fear swing it Australias way,Nathan Lyon,we do not have a spinner in his class,and he can bat a bit.2 -
Yes, it's ridiculous. If the averages you quote are correct Bairstow gives us an extra 10 runs per match and his drops and missed stumpings probably cost 100+.soapboxsam said:I will stand corrected but the Test average for Bairstow is 37 and Foakes is 32. So the gloves should surely come off for Jonny and he's either picked as as batter or not at all ?
I know it's not all about averages or Crawley wouldn't get picked as his average is 28.
I saw Zak score a big hundred at Canterbury ( may have been his first 🤔) and he got a duck in the 2nd innings !
This is a stronger Australian team than the one that went 1up against the Botham/Willis team and probably stronger than the Aussie team that went 1up against Michael Vaughan's side once they lost McGrath.
It's places for mates.
Foakes must keep and if you have to play your mate then leave out another batsman.1 -
I think there's light years difference between Australia's 2005 team and this one.kentaddick said:
disagree, but there's not much in it.soapboxsam said:I will stand corrected but the Test average for Bairstow is 37 and Foakes is 32. So the gloves should surely come off for Jonny and he's either picked as as batter or not at all ?
I know it's not all about averages or Crawley wouldn't get picked as his average is 28.
I saw Zak score a big hundred at Canterbury ( may have been his first 🤔) and he got a duck in the 2nd innings !
This is a stronger Australian team than the one that went 1up against the Botham/Willis team and probably stronger than the Aussie team that went 1up against Michael Vaughan's side once they lost McGrath.1
