Just don't have a lot of confidence in the attack we've got out there today to actually take wickets. Feels a bit ordinary
Need Stokes to come on. He has that habit of taking one when things aren't happening.
And so he does. As soft a dismissal as you will see for the debutante Sai as he wafts at one down the legside to Stokes to be caught by Smith, just seconds before lunch.
Starting to get some tap here. I'd be shooting my skipper a few looks if he'd won the toss and elected to field when the weather's been like this past weeks and months
Just be happy we wont have to bowl 90 overs. Even though the sun is out, it wont get dark until 10pm and people have paid good money to see a full days play.
Me being a pedantic old sod I'd milk it for all I could if I was England. Bowl 20 overs a session and make India declare a lot later than they would normally.
Only penalty is a fine (?) and loss of points in the Test Championship Table. But as we wont be qualifying for that any time soon it's a soft penalty.
(And yes, I know India contributed to the slow over rate with their player needing treatment for "cramp" on his hand )
Why did Stokes put India in? Our fast bowling attack looks toothless. Woakes is over the hill, Tongue is a novice. Carse was Ok, we are badly missing Wood, Archer and Atkinson. This was a day to bat if I ever saw it.
Why did Stokes put India in? Our fast bowling attack looks toothless. Woakes is over the hill, Tongue is a novice. Carse was Ok, we are badly missing Wood, Archer and Atkinson. This was a day to bat if I ever saw it.
Totally get the frustration - it looked like a good day to bat, and yes, we’re missing our pace firepower. But let’s give Stokes some credit: this wasn't a reckless gamble. There was cloud cover early, a fresh pitch, and a belief in attacking with the ball - something that’s worked before under this leadership. And remember, Bazball isn’t just about smashing runs - it’s about bold calls, unsettling the opposition, and backing your players.
If we'd batted and Crawley and Pope had got out before lunch, would that have made batting first a bad decision?
Woakes may not be 25 anymore, but he’s been exceptional in English conditions, and he's certainly not over the hill. If fit, he should take the new ball in every Test remaining this Summer. Tongue and Carse are developing, and you don’t get experience without game time. Would it be better if Wood, Archer and Atkinson fit? Of course. But you can’t plan around fantasy fitness. You work with who’s available - and back them to perform.
Sometimes the dice don't roll your way early on. But hindsight shouldn’t diminish the courage to take a proactive option. Let’s judge this over the course of the match - not just the first session.
We were never going to win the match on the first day: I think the gamble to bowl was based on the view that batting in the fourth innings - especially at Headingley - is often easier than batting in the first innings.
@Covered End is right though. Today would have been a good day to lose the toss and deal with the consequences.
England need a big day today and basically bowl much better.I dont know if its true or not but at some stage of the days play England only bowled 2 balls at the stumps.If thats true thats truely awful.India will go big today no doubt.Will we get a wicket before tea?
Good game for the England seamers. The ones who aren't playing, I mean. Ollie Robinson, in particular, might wonder why he has been consigned back to the county game. (If he didn't already know)
Broad before the game was worried that Woakes was undercooked, as he needs overs under his belt to be at his best
This is awful bowling from Woakes.Surely there is better out there than him.Knowing McCullum and Stokes they will pick him agsin next test.Him and Tongue hopefully wont play again.
Why did Stokes put India in? Our fast bowling attack looks toothless. Woakes is over the hill, Tongue is a novice. Carse was Ok, we are badly missing Wood, Archer and Atkinson. This was a day to bat if I ever saw it.
Totally get the frustration - it looked like a good day to bat, and yes, we’re missing our pace firepower. But let’s give Stokes some credit: this wasn't a reckless gamble. There was cloud cover early, a fresh pitch, and a belief in attacking with the ball - something that’s worked before under this leadership. And remember, Bazball isn’t just about smashing runs - it’s about bold calls, unsettling the opposition, and backing your players.
If we'd batted and Crawley and Pope had got out before lunch, would that have made batting first a bad decision?
Woakes may not be 25 anymore, but he’s been exceptional in English conditions, and he's certainly not over the hill. If fit, he should take the new ball in every Test remaining this Summer. Tongue and Carse are developing, and you don’t get experience without game time. Would it be better if Wood, Archer and Atkinson fit? Of course. But you can’t plan around fantasy fitness. You work with who’s available - and back them to perform.
Sometimes the dice don't roll your way early on. But hindsight shouldn’t diminish the courage to take a proactive option. Let’s judge this over the course of the match - not just the first session.
We were never going to win the match on the first day: I think the gamble to bowl was based on the view that batting in the fourth innings - especially at Headingley - is often easier than batting in the first innings.
@Covered End is right though. Today would have been a good day to lose the toss and deal with the consequences.
Why did Stokes put India in? Our fast bowling attack looks toothless. Woakes is over the hill, Tongue is a novice. Carse was Ok, we are badly missing Wood, Archer and Atkinson. This was a day to bat if I ever saw it.
Totally get the frustration - it looked like a good day to bat, and yes, we’re missing our pace firepower. But let’s give Stokes some credit: this wasn't a reckless gamble. There was cloud cover early, a fresh pitch, and a belief in attacking with the ball - something that’s worked before under this leadership. And remember, Bazball isn’t just about smashing runs - it’s about bold calls, unsettling the opposition, and backing your players.
If we'd batted and Crawley and Pope had got out before lunch, would that have made batting first a bad decision?
Woakes may not be 25 anymore, but he’s been exceptional in English conditions, and he's certainly not over the hill. If fit, he should take the new ball in every Test remaining this Summer. Tongue and Carse are developing, and you don’t get experience without game time. Would it be better if Wood, Archer and Atkinson fit? Of course. But you can’t plan around fantasy fitness. You work with who’s available - and back them to perform.
Sometimes the dice don't roll your way early on. But hindsight shouldn’t diminish the courage to take a proactive option. Let’s judge this over the course of the match - not just the first session.
We were never going to win the match on the first day: I think the gamble to bowl was based on the view that batting in the fourth innings - especially at Headingley - is often easier than batting in the first innings.
@Covered End is right though. Today would have been a good day to lose the toss and deal with the consequences.
Stokes got it totally wrong. India are really bullying our bowlers. If this was anybody but Stokes making this decision he would be getting pelters. Just listen to what Michael Vaughan says about it. Our second string bowling attack are just not good enough. Bashir looks our best bowler.
Comments
92-2 (25.4)
221-3
Me being a pedantic old sod I'd milk it for all I could if I was England. Bowl 20 overs a session and make India declare a lot later than they would normally.
Only penalty is a fine (?) and loss of points in the Test Championship Table. But as we wont be qualifying for that any time soon it's a soft penalty.
(And yes, I know India contributed to the slow over rate with their player needing treatment for "cramp" on his hand )
Gill 127* (175)
Pant 65* (102)
missing Wood, Archer and Atkinson.
This was a day to bat if I ever saw it.
Totally get the frustration - it looked like a good day to bat, and yes, we’re missing our pace firepower. But let’s give Stokes some credit: this wasn't a reckless gamble. There was cloud cover early, a fresh pitch, and a belief in attacking with the ball - something that’s worked before under this leadership. And remember, Bazball isn’t just about smashing runs - it’s about bold calls, unsettling the opposition, and backing your players.
If we'd batted and Crawley and Pope had got out before lunch, would that have made batting first a bad decision?
Woakes may not be 25 anymore, but he’s been exceptional in English conditions, and he's certainly not over the hill. If fit, he should take the new ball in every Test remaining this Summer. Tongue and Carse are developing, and you don’t get experience without game time. Would it be better if Wood, Archer and Atkinson fit? Of course. But you can’t plan around fantasy fitness. You work with who’s available - and back them to perform.
Sometimes the dice don't roll your way early on. But hindsight shouldn’t diminish the courage to take a proactive option. Let’s judge this over the course of the match - not just the first session.
We were never going to win the match on the first day: I think the gamble to bowl was based on the view that batting in the fourth innings - especially at Headingley - is often easier than batting in the first innings.
@Covered End is right though. Today would have been a good day to lose the toss and deal with the consequences.
Ollie Robinson, in particular, might wonder why he has been consigned back to the county game. (If he didn't already know)