Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
England Cricket 2023
Comments
-
The problem with playing Tongue and Wood is how many overs can they bowl in a row? Wouldn't be a problem if Stokes could bowl or we had a "proper" spinner who could hold down an end.kinveachyaddick said:
Tongue has to come in for Anderson. Get him and Wood steaming in at them. Hopefully the spectre of becoming the first team since 2001 to lose a home ashes series will inspire themAddick Addict said:In case some have forgotten, there is still one match to go starting on Thursday and the chance to draw the series. Same 14 man squad named but I really would be surprised if Anderson does play. He has, actually, been our most economical bowler but he really hasn't threatened in the way that we have grown our greatest ever bowler to which is reflected by his 4 wickets at 76.50. In the same home conditions, Broad has taken 18 wickets at 28.55, Woakes has 12 at 19.50 and Wood 11 at 17.00.
I am really shocked that people are so quick to write off someone who has been our best bowler for 15 years, and was the number 1 ranked bowler 6 months ago after, basically, one and a half test matches.3 -
Not writing him off but he has bowled 114 overs in the last three Tests and only Broad and Cummins have bowled more overs from either side in the whole SeriesCafc43v3r said:
The problem with playing Tongue and Wood is how many overs can they bowl in a row? Wouldn't be a problem if Stokes could bowl or we had a "proper" spinner who could hold down an end.kinveachyaddick said:
Tongue has to come in for Anderson. Get him and Wood steaming in at them. Hopefully the spectre of becoming the first team since 2001 to lose a home ashes series will inspire themAddick Addict said:In case some have forgotten, there is still one match to go starting on Thursday and the chance to draw the series. Same 14 man squad named but I really would be surprised if Anderson does play. He has, actually, been our most economical bowler but he really hasn't threatened in the way that we have grown our greatest ever bowler to which is reflected by his 4 wickets at 76.50. In the same home conditions, Broad has taken 18 wickets at 28.55, Woakes has 12 at 19.50 and Wood 11 at 17.00.
I am really shocked that people are so quick to write off someone who has been our best bowler for 15 years, and was the number 1 ranked bowler 6 months ago after, basically, one and a half test matches.0 -
Nobody would love to see Anderson have one final hurrah than me but have you actually watched him bowl this series? Hasn’t looked in the slightest bit threatening and I fear it would be more if the same if he plays on ThursdayCafc43v3r said:
The problem with playing Tongue and Wood is how many overs can they bowl in a row? Wouldn't be a problem if Stokes could bowl or we had a "proper" spinner who could hold down an end.kinveachyaddick said:
Tongue has to come in for Anderson. Get him and Wood steaming in at them. Hopefully the spectre of becoming the first team since 2001 to lose a home ashes series will inspire themAddick Addict said:In case some have forgotten, there is still one match to go starting on Thursday and the chance to draw the series. Same 14 man squad named but I really would be surprised if Anderson does play. He has, actually, been our most economical bowler but he really hasn't threatened in the way that we have grown our greatest ever bowler to which is reflected by his 4 wickets at 76.50. In the same home conditions, Broad has taken 18 wickets at 28.55, Woakes has 12 at 19.50 and Wood 11 at 17.00.
I am really shocked that people are so quick to write off someone who has been our best bowler for 15 years, and was the number 1 ranked bowler 6 months ago after, basically, one and a half test matches.0 -
The confusing thing is why Jimmy has been so ineffective this series. It's not as if he's slower than last winter, it's more that his skills seems to have deserted him.5
-
Yep and it's not like he has been missing his lines and lengths because he is knackered or trying to hard. I remember Dizzy in 05, fun as it was it was actually quite sad.killerandflash said:The confusing thing is why Jimmy has been so ineffective this series. It's not as if he's slower than last winter, it's more that his skills seems to have deserted him.
I would have thought Jimmy could have, if he wanted to, played a seriously high level of cricket for a long time yet. I mean look at Stevo and he would be the first to admit he didn't have a fraction of the skill Anderson has got.
I still think this is a form is temporary class is permanent scenario. If he was bowling as badly as some are making out the Aussies would have tucked into him by now.1 -
He's still accurate. The movement is what's gone2
-
I don't think anyone has said he's bowling badly, he just doesn't look like taking wickets. Equally, just because he might not move the ball in the air or off the pitch in the way he once consistently did does not mean the Aussies are going to take liberties especially if his pace isn't down, he's bowling a consistently good length and more often that not at 6th/7th stump. The Aussies have not tried to match us in the way that we have attacked that line and length.Cafc43v3r said:
Yep and it's not like he has been missing his lines and lengths because he is knackered or trying to hard. I remember Dizzy in 05, fun as it was it was actually quite sad.killerandflash said:The confusing thing is why Jimmy has been so ineffective this series. It's not as if he's slower than last winter, it's more that his skills seems to have deserted him.
I would have thought Jimmy could have, if he wanted to, played a seriously high level of cricket for a long time yet. I mean look at Stevo and he would be the first to admit he didn't have a fraction of the skill Anderson has got.
I still think this is a form is temporary class is permanent scenario. If he was bowling as badly as some are making out the Aussies would have tucked into him by now.
It could be something simple that has crept in as a result of his state of mind or body that might, for example, mean that he isn't standing the seam up in the way and/or the height he normally does. In addition to the quote about the state of the pitches and possibly "being done for the Ashes", this is what he said prior to the last Test - "Looking back on the first two games of the series, I was too serious and too intense. At Old Trafford I am going to go out with a smile on my face." I didn't see too many signs of that but more someone who looked like he was frustrated at not being able to contribute in the way he has been used to doing.
As for Stevo, it was quite obvious last season that he wasn't performing at the level he once had - his return in the CC was 126-31-374-4 and not dissimilar to Anderson's in the Ashes of 114-24-307-4. Again, he was going at less than 3 an over so batsmen weren't taking him apart but he just wasn't taking wickets. Why did Stevens stop to threaten? After all, this was a bloke with almost 900 wickets as a pro to his name. I asked a Kent player a good few years ago why Stevens was opening the bowling in the CC and was told because he is a "genius" and "has the ball and on a string". The only reason that he never became an international is because his average pace was 70mph and yet his First Class average per wicket was 24.78 with an ER of 2.78. Anderson's is 24.50 with an ER of 2.79. There's nothing in it statistically apart from 10mph-15mph. But that is a lot. There is one other difference though. Remarkably, Stevo did not really become a bowler until he came to Kent and didn't take his first 5 fer 'til he was 30. So actually, Anderson has had a longer career as a bowler and more miles on the clock given he has bowled 71,635 balls as opposed to the 40,886 balls that Stevens delivered.
I really hope that if Anderson plays at the Oval he takes a hatful. It won't be a selection made on sentiment but one that McCullum, Stokes and Anderson think it is the correct one. Whatever happens, he will still be England's greatest ever bowler and no one will ever take that away from him. Anderson has nothing to prove.0 -
He should be ‘dropped’ for his feeble drops at Lord’s alone !1
-
Again that was totally out of character. He has had one of the safest pairs of hands around in his England career. Though he wasn't unique. Root and Bairstow have dropped more than a few during the course of the series.oohaahmortimer said:He should be ‘dropped’ for his feeble drops at Lord’s alone !1 -
It's a similar scenario that older footballers often complain about, that if they have a bad game or two, that they're over the hill, rather than just a bit out of form or lacking confidence.
If Anderson had been 29, we'd all just be saying he was out of form, he was just having a bad series. That's the thing I can't decide, is he just having a bad series, or has he "hit the cliff"?2 - Sponsored links:
-
I think the universal opinion is his lines are good, his length is good, he can come back for a 3rd or even 4th spell. What's missing is the movement.killerandflash said:It's a similar scenario that older footballers often complain about, that if they have a bad game or two, that they're over the hill, rather than just a bit out of form or lacking confidence.
If Anderson had been 29, we'd all just be saying he was out of form, he was just having a bad series. That's the thing I can't decide, is he just having a bad series, or has he "hit the cliff"?
That can only be from his wrist position, his arm angle or his fingers on the ball. None of which, really can have anything to do with his age. He is 40, not 60.
Is he even actually having a bad series? Yes by his standards but... he bowled on a kryptonite pitch at Edgbaston and was under cooked. Bowled better than his wickets suggested at Lord's and OT. I think he has bowled better than Robinson TBH.
And that's the choice for me, without Stokes bowling and the fact Mo should be used as a "strike" bowler we can't afford to play two out and out quicks else we will break someone in the first innings.
If we play Anderson and lose it will.be because we played him and not x. If we don't play Anderson and lose it will be "why did we leave the goat out?". And if we win it will be the same.
A brave man leaves him out.2 -
Re speed..its what it does off the pitch if its not swinging and he's lost the zip ...he should have said goodbye at OT ..the figures speak for themselves0
-
his economy remains one of the best in the team, though. If that was going too i'd be inclined to agree, just seems like he's had a duff series.0
-
I reckon he will still be going next summer and will do well against weaker opposition. He will sign off on a high next year.1
-
This. He has actually been very economical and tied up an end in lieu of a decent retaining spinner. Hope he gets more tests next year and can walk off to a standing ovation rather than disappearing after a rain affected matchcantersaddick said:I reckon he will still be going next summer and will do well against weaker opposition. He will sign off on a high next year.0 -
Only question has to be who is most likely to get wickets at the Oval so we bowl them out twice and win the game. For me the order of likelihood based on what we've seen over the past six weeks is Tongue then Robinson then Anderson...0
-
I think Tongue will play I accept the point raised above about how many overs can he bowl and with Wood in the side is that a risk. But we have a spinner plus Root was looking threatening in at OT. We should use them and back them. You cant select on what if's. Also Stokes was apparently able to bowl at OT if required and was seen bowling in warm ups and between sessions. Hopefully the additional break has meant that he can fill in with the odd 4 over spell if required. 1-2 spells in a day if it comes to that would be more than enough to make up the difference.1
-
Current Betfair Exchange odds for the Final Test:
England 2.44
Australia 2.76
Draw 4.30
0 -
Listening to commentary on the Notts v Kent match and one contributor made a suggestion to speed up over rates and that is that a team cannot take the next new ball until such time as they are up with the over rate. That might not work in all circumstances but I don't think many teams would fancy having to play catch up when they are a dozen overs behind at the time the new ball is due. And of course that should carry on to the next day too.3
-
that's a pretty good idea... although the batsman could simply timewaste?Addick Addict said:Listening to commentary on the Notts v Kent match and one contributor made a suggestion to speed up over rates and that is that a team cannot take the next new ball until such time as they are up with the over rate. That might not work in all circumstances but I don't think many teams would fancy having to play catch up when they are a dozen overs behind at the time the new ball is due. And of course that should carry on to the next day too.1 - Sponsored links:
-
Then the Umpires would need to step in. Under the Laws of the game the batsman has to be ready to receive the ball. At least one of the two sides has a vested interest in speeding up play whereas at the moment neither seem to.kentaddick said:
that's a pretty good idea... although the batsman could simply timewaste?Addick Addict said:Listening to commentary on the Notts v Kent match and one contributor made a suggestion to speed up over rates and that is that a team cannot take the next new ball until such time as they are up with the over rate. That might not work in all circumstances but I don't think many teams would fancy having to play catch up when they are a dozen overs behind at the time the new ball is due. And of course that should carry on to the next day too.1 -
The easy solution is schedule play to start 8 and a half hours before it naturally starts to get dark. Then bowl the overs. It's not rocket science.Addick Addict said:Listening to commentary on the Notts v Kent match and one contributor made a suggestion to speed up over rates and that is that a team cannot take the next new ball until such time as they are up with the over rate. That might not work in all circumstances but I don't think many teams would fancy having to play catch up when they are a dozen overs behind at the time the new ball is due. And of course that should carry on to the next day too.
If you have to take lunchen at high noon, then after noon tea at 3 then have a 4 hour evening session tough sugar. Just bowl the bloody overs.
If you do lose overs one day due to light, just start earlier the next.0 -
oohaahmortimer said:
An interesting schedule of venues that hardly ever host Test cricket.
Hyderabad - 5 Tests (between 2010 and 2018)
Vizag - 2 Tests (2016, 2019)
Rajkot - 2 Tests (2016, 2018)
Ranchi - 2 Tests (2017, 2019)
Dharamshala - 1 Test (2017)
1 -
https://www.metrobankonline.co.uk/about-us/press-releases/news/metro-bank-to-become-official-title-partner-for-one-day-cricket/
I'd missed the announcement that Metro Bank are now the official sponsors of England ODIs, and that they are also sponsoring the domestic 50 over cup as well, avoiding the indignity of that trophy not being sponsored!0 -
Yes, a strange selection. Feels weird to not be playing at any of the "famous" grounds, and indeed cities.Callumcafc said:oohaahmortimer said:
An interesting schedule of venues that hardly ever host Test cricket.
Hyderabad - 5 Tests (between 2010 and 2018)
Vizag - 2 Tests (2016, 2019)
Rajkot - 2 Tests (2016, 2018)
Ranchi - 2 Tests (2017, 2019)
Dharamshala - 1 Test (2017)
0 -
Are the BCCI giving it to the ECB with that strange selection 🤷♂️
Had discussed with a few of the Indian dads from my sons cricket team about going to Mumbai , that’s out the window .
Some going to see the World Cup , can’t be bothered with that want some Test action0 -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Himachal_Pradesh_Cricket_Association_Stadium
This is the last Test venue. Not a bad view
5 -
If you were inclined to make the trip, Dharamshala is most definitely the pick of the venues.
2 -
Jimmy Anderson has confirmed that he has no intention of retiring. So that puts that one to bed. He does admit that he wished that he had made a bigger contribution and had he been a lot younger there would be speculation as to whether he should be dropped as opposed to whether he should hang his boots up.
So it's now down to Stokes and McCullum to decide whether he does or not.1
