Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

England Cricket 2025

1…94959799100…112

Comments

  • Leuth
    Leuth Posts: 23,308
    Addick Addict said:
    The blame for us losing this falls squarely on the shoulders of the Surrey boys - 96 runs in 8 innings and 10-324 between them. 
    Gus Atkinson has never received violence like this in his life 
  • killerandflash
    killerandflash Posts: 69,816
    He had an average series with the bat (being generous) but the odd thing is that Zak's position at the top of the order is now more secure than ever, thanks to the rusty Bethell contributing nothing in this game. Pope's position is secure too.
  • Addick Addict
    Addick Addict Posts: 39,734
    Leuth said:
    Addick Addict said:
    The blame for us losing this falls squarely on the shoulders of the Surrey boys - 96 runs in 8 innings and 10-324 between them. 
    Gus Atkinson has never received violence like this in his life 
    To be fair, he did OK and just about deserves his place on the plane to the Ashes. The other three were absolute tosh - 68 runs in 6 innings and 2-164. Fully expect them to be replaced. By Rory Burns, Tom Curran and Laurie Evans to keep wicket. 
  • Chizz
    Chizz Posts: 28,322
    golfaddick said:
    And sorry you think I might be clueless. I've never played cricket (apart for a couple of pub teams) and haven't swallowed the rule book.

    My bad.
    Golfie, it was you that said you didn't have a clue.
  • bobmunro
    bobmunro Posts: 20,839
    edited August 4
    golfaddick said:
    Addick Addict said:
    golfaddick said:
    Covered End said:
    Bollocks, drew the series almost certainly due to Woakes dislocating his shoulder.
    Pant gets injured & his sub fielder takes his place behind the stumps.

    So why didnt we have a sub fielder for Woakes who could bowl ?  And if someone says the rules say you cant then why could Pant's sub fielder keep wicket ? 

    Our sub fielder for Woakes was Dawson. Could Dawson have bowled ? Did we have a fast /swing/seam bowler who could have been a substitute ?

    Genuine questions as I've got no clue. 
    It's quite simple. The Laws says that you can sub a fielder and that person can be a specialist keeper but they don't allow a sub fielder to bowl or bat. 
    Why  ?   Is a wicketkeeper such a specialist position but a fast bowler isnt  ?

    Alec Stewart kept wicket to a quiet decent standard but was a top order batsman. Foakes & Smith keep wicket but can bat well too. So they aren't "specialists" in si far as they can't do anything else.

    But you are saying they can be replaced but if Jimmy Anderson (the highest non spinner wicket taker) got injured then you couldn't replace him. His batting was a proper no 11 do you aren't losing out there. 

    Bonkers rules. 

    Nothing bonkers about the rules.

    Batsmen score runs, bowlers take wickets - that's pretty much the game of cricket in a nutshell (it isn't but will do for illustration) and only the named starting 11 can do either of those things.

    Wicket Keeper is a specialist fielding position, but so for example is a slip fielder. Any of the fielding side can do everything a keeper can do, apart from wear gloves and pads. Ok, stumping is always the keeper and is one of the 10 specific ways to get out, but that's only because he is always the nearest fielder to the stumps and a stumping is in reality another form of run out.
  • MarcusH26
    MarcusH26 Posts: 8,016
    Addick Addict said:
    Leuth said:
    Addick Addict said:
    The blame for us losing this falls squarely on the shoulders of the Surrey boys - 96 runs in 8 innings and 10-324 between them. 
    Gus Atkinson has never received violence like this in his life 
    To be fair, he did OK and just about deserves his place on the plane to the Ashes. The other three were absolute tosh - 68 runs in 6 innings and 2-164. Fully expect them to be replaced. By Rory Burns, Tom Curran and Laurie Evans to keep wicket. 
    Can this please be the last we see of Jamie Overton in red ball cricket? Matty Potts or Sam Cook would have done more damage with the ball and Potts isn't too shabby with the bat either. 
  • DennisBooth
    DennisBooth Posts: 146

    My squad for Australia.

    Crawley,
    Duckett
    Pope, 
    Cox,
    Root,
    Brook,
    Stokes,
    Smith,
    Atkinson,
    Carse,
    Dawson,
    Archer,
    Wood,
    Bethell or AN Other
    Bashir,
    Tongue
  • Lincsaddick
    Lincsaddick Posts: 32,345
    thickandthin63 said:
    Annoyed with Bethell,we needed 57 after tea,we got 13 in two overs and could have just played around and got the rest.why take a stupid swipe like that,no need,just keep in.
    same applies to Brook when England were cruising towards a win, a great batsman but all too often it seems his ego overrides his duty to the team
  • soapboxsam
    soapboxsam Posts: 23,229
    Chizz said:
    Players getting out when the conditions are moving against them is always frustrating.  But that's not the reason we lost the Test.  For that, you shouldn't have to look further than the six dropped catches and the 22 wides.  For that to happen in a match that was a hit away from being tied is unforgivable.  

    We lost it in the field, not while we were batting.  

    Agree, plus we refuse to play steady when the winning post was in sight.
    India dropped the catches in the first test and that cost them the match.

    The series was all about how fit players were from both sides.
    It a long shot that Archer and Stokes can ever stay fit for a series and that came to fruition and the thought of both of them bowling with Atkinson would've seen at least a 2-1 win.

    India were missing many of their stars through recent retirements or fitness issues: Pants and Bumrah showed what they could do in their limited game time and retirements of Kohli,  Rohit Sharma and the spin nemesis Ashwin.

    It feels we snatched defeat from the jaws of victory but we win because of Jeopardy risks and we will lose some, when we won't go down a gear.

    Test cricket lives on. 
  • thai malaysia addick
    thai malaysia addick Posts: 18,331
    bobmunro said:
    golfaddick said:
    Addick Addict said:
    golfaddick said:
    Covered End said:
    Bollocks, drew the series almost certainly due to Woakes dislocating his shoulder.
    Pant gets injured & his sub fielder takes his place behind the stumps.

    So why didnt we have a sub fielder for Woakes who could bowl ?  And if someone says the rules say you cant then why could Pant's sub fielder keep wicket ? 

    Our sub fielder for Woakes was Dawson. Could Dawson have bowled ? Did we have a fast /swing/seam bowler who could have been a substitute ?

    Genuine questions as I've got no clue. 
    It's quite simple. The Laws says that you can sub a fielder and that person can be a specialist keeper but they don't allow a sub fielder to bowl or bat. 
    Why  ?   Is a wicketkeeper such a specialist position but a fast bowler isnt  ?

    Alec Stewart kept wicket to a quiet decent standard but was a top order batsman. Foakes & Smith keep wicket but can bat well too. So they aren't "specialists" in si far as they can't do anything else.

    But you are saying they can be replaced but if Jimmy Anderson (the highest non spinner wicket taker) got injured then you couldn't replace him. His batting was a proper no 11 do you aren't losing out there. 

    Bonkers rules. 

    Nothing bonkers about the rules.

    Batsmen score runs, bowlers take wickets - that's pretty much the game of cricket in a nutshell (it isn't but will do for illustration) and only the named starting 11 can do either of those things.

    Wicket Keeper is a specialist fielding position, but so for example is a slip fielder. Any of the fielding side can do everything a keeper can do, apart from wear gloves and pads. Ok, stumping is always the keeper and is one of the 10 specific ways to get out, but that's only because he is always the nearest fielder to the stumps and a stumping is in reality another form of run out.
    That raises an interesting theoretical question, @bobmunro. If another fielder stands behind the stumps (maybe the keeper with pads and gloves fields at short leg) and the non-keeper whips off the bails, is it still considered stumped? #justcurious
  • Sponsored links:



  • raytreacy
    raytreacy Posts: 54
    Lincsaddick said:
    thickandthin63 said:
    Annoyed with Bethell,we needed 57 after tea,we got 13 in two overs and could have just played around and got the rest.why take a stupid swipe like that,no need,just keep in.
    same applies to Brook when England were cruising towards a win, a great batsman but all too often it seems his ego overrides his duty to the team
    I totally agree. Difficult to criticise a batsman going so well. But his ego got in the way. I also think we would have won if Woakes had stayed fit. But India deserved to draw the series.
  • bobmunro
    bobmunro Posts: 20,839
    thai malaysia addick said:
    bobmunro said:
    golfaddick said:
    Addick Addict said:
    golfaddick said:
    Covered End said:
    Bollocks, drew the series almost certainly due to Woakes dislocating his shoulder.
    Pant gets injured & his sub fielder takes his place behind the stumps.

    So why didnt we have a sub fielder for Woakes who could bowl ?  And if someone says the rules say you cant then why could Pant's sub fielder keep wicket ? 

    Our sub fielder for Woakes was Dawson. Could Dawson have bowled ? Did we have a fast /swing/seam bowler who could have been a substitute ?

    Genuine questions as I've got no clue. 
    It's quite simple. The Laws says that you can sub a fielder and that person can be a specialist keeper but they don't allow a sub fielder to bowl or bat. 
    Why  ?   Is a wicketkeeper such a specialist position but a fast bowler isnt  ?

    Alec Stewart kept wicket to a quiet decent standard but was a top order batsman. Foakes & Smith keep wicket but can bat well too. So they aren't "specialists" in si far as they can't do anything else.

    But you are saying they can be replaced but if Jimmy Anderson (the highest non spinner wicket taker) got injured then you couldn't replace him. His batting was a proper no 11 do you aren't losing out there. 

    Bonkers rules. 

    Nothing bonkers about the rules.

    Batsmen score runs, bowlers take wickets - that's pretty much the game of cricket in a nutshell (it isn't but will do for illustration) and only the named starting 11 can do either of those things.

    Wicket Keeper is a specialist fielding position, but so for example is a slip fielder. Any of the fielding side can do everything a keeper can do, apart from wear gloves and pads. Ok, stumping is always the keeper and is one of the 10 specific ways to get out, but that's only because he is always the nearest fielder to the stumps and a stumping is in reality another form of run out.
    That raises an interesting theoretical question, @bobmunro. If another fielder stands behind the stumps (maybe the keeper with pads and gloves fields at short leg) and the non-keeper whips off the bails, is it still considered stumped? #justcurious

    Only the fielder immediately behind the stumps can wear gloves and pads.
  • Chizz
    Chizz Posts: 28,322
    bobmunro said:
    thai malaysia addick said:
    bobmunro said:
    golfaddick said:
    Addick Addict said:
    golfaddick said:
    Covered End said:
    Bollocks, drew the series almost certainly due to Woakes dislocating his shoulder.
    Pant gets injured & his sub fielder takes his place behind the stumps.

    So why didnt we have a sub fielder for Woakes who could bowl ?  And if someone says the rules say you cant then why could Pant's sub fielder keep wicket ? 

    Our sub fielder for Woakes was Dawson. Could Dawson have bowled ? Did we have a fast /swing/seam bowler who could have been a substitute ?

    Genuine questions as I've got no clue. 
    It's quite simple. The Laws says that you can sub a fielder and that person can be a specialist keeper but they don't allow a sub fielder to bowl or bat. 
    Why  ?   Is a wicketkeeper such a specialist position but a fast bowler isnt  ?

    Alec Stewart kept wicket to a quiet decent standard but was a top order batsman. Foakes & Smith keep wicket but can bat well too. So they aren't "specialists" in si far as they can't do anything else.

    But you are saying they can be replaced but if Jimmy Anderson (the highest non spinner wicket taker) got injured then you couldn't replace him. His batting was a proper no 11 do you aren't losing out there. 

    Bonkers rules. 

    Nothing bonkers about the rules.

    Batsmen score runs, bowlers take wickets - that's pretty much the game of cricket in a nutshell (it isn't but will do for illustration) and only the named starting 11 can do either of those things.

    Wicket Keeper is a specialist fielding position, but so for example is a slip fielder. Any of the fielding side can do everything a keeper can do, apart from wear gloves and pads. Ok, stumping is always the keeper and is one of the 10 specific ways to get out, but that's only because he is always the nearest fielder to the stumps and a stumping is in reality another form of run out.
    That raises an interesting theoretical question, @bobmunro. If another fielder stands behind the stumps (maybe the keeper with pads and gloves fields at short leg) and the non-keeper whips off the bails, is it still considered stumped? #justcurious

    Only the fielder immediately behind the stumps can wear gloves and pads.
    ...also, only the wicket keeper can effect a stumping
  • Callumcafc
    Callumcafc Posts: 63,734
    I can see it now. Bethell will get a run in the 4th and 5th Tests down under when the series is already lost.
  • Kap10
    Kap10 Posts: 15,558
    killerandflash said:
    Brook got a bit carried away when he got out, but England were 301-4 when he departed. At the time, nobody thought that was the game, we still should have won easily from there. 
    That's basically what Brook said.  he wanted to get 30 quick runs to close the door on India and there were 6 wickets left including that of the best batsman in the world.  With hind sight the wrong decision but it looked like a calculated risk at the time.
  • Starinnaddick
    Starinnaddick Posts: 4,341
    You can talk about x or y not scoring enough runs etc. but in my opinion the number of dropped catches cost us the game. 
  • sillav nitram
    sillav nitram Posts: 10,156
    Uboat said:
    Real shame. Can’t really argue with 2-2 though. 
    Agree, thought India played very well even in the defeats.

    Just shocking that 4 England batsmen couldn't knock off 35 runs. Had Brook and Root not lost their wickets then I think we'd have been home and dry.
  • wmcf123
    wmcf123 Posts: 5,823
    Starinnaddick said:
    You can talk about x or y not scoring enough runs etc. but in my opinion the number of dropped catches cost us the game. 
    Losing Woakes cost us the the game .  And Brook being careless , which he admitted .  
  • Starinnaddick
    Starinnaddick Posts: 4,341
    wmcf123 said:
    Starinnaddick said:
    You can talk about x or y not scoring enough runs etc. but in my opinion the number of dropped catches cost us the game. 
    Losing Woakes cost us the the game .  And Brook being careless , which he admitted .  
    England dropped 3 catches in the first 15 overs of Indians second  innings and they went on to score 370.The target should have been much lower. 
  • wmcf123
    wmcf123 Posts: 5,823
    Starinnaddick said:
    wmcf123 said:
    Starinnaddick said:
    You can talk about x or y not scoring enough runs etc. but in my opinion the number of dropped catches cost us the game. 
    Losing Woakes cost us the the game .  And Brook being careless , which he admitted .  
    England dropped 3 catches in the first 15 overs of Indians second  innings and they went on to score 370.The target should have been much lower. 
    With 3 bowlers , one of whom was Overton.  Even then, we should have won easily, had Brook been more sensible 
  • Sponsored links:



  • Addick Addict
    Addick Addict Posts: 39,734
    The last 7 series against Australia and India have resulted in 2-2 (4) draws at home and 3-1, 4-0 and 4-1 defeats away. I'm not sure that the upcoming Ashes will buck that trend. 

    It will, almost certainly, come down to our batting against their bowling. I can't help thinking that our best batter of all time will need to break his duck of no hundreds in Australia if we are to bring something back as he is that one person you can guarantee will enable others to bat around him.  
  • MarcusH26
    MarcusH26 Posts: 8,016
    I think the other interesting thing to look out for will be who's in the Lions squad that's effectively going as a shadow squad. There's bound to be a couple of absolute wildcard picks in that especially in the pace department. Would expect the likes of Cook,Hull, Pennington maybe Saqib Mahmood to be the main quicks for that but they'll probably take a couple of young picks - maybe Sonny Baker , Henry Crocombe, Ajeet Singh Dale. 
  • killerandflash
    killerandflash Posts: 69,816
    Addick Addict said:
    The last 7 series against Australia and India have resulted in 2-2 (4) draws at home and 3-1, 4-0 and 4-1 defeats away. I'm not sure that the upcoming Ashes will buck that trend. 

    It will, almost certainly, come down to our batting against their bowling. I can't help thinking that our best batter of all time will need to break his duck of no hundreds in Australia if we are to bring something back as he is that one person you can guarantee will enable others to bat around him.  
    I'm more optimistic about the next Ashes at home and the tour down under in 4 years time, as by that stage their brilliant bowling attack, which has kept going for a decade will surely have been broken up, and will be so hard to replace.
  • MarcusH26
    MarcusH26 Posts: 8,016
    I'd be very surprised if it wasn't Fergus O'Neill leading the next Aussie attack in an Ashes over here. Not out and out rapid but looked exceptional for Nottinghamshire in the Championship in a brief spell. 
  • fenaddick
    fenaddick Posts: 10,945
    Do we think the ECB will take a punt on Dan Worrall? At the very least he knows how to play on Aussie pitches 
  • North Lower Neil
    North Lower Neil Posts: 22,926
    fenaddick said:
    Do we think the ECB will take a punt on Dan Worrall? At the very least he knows how to play on Aussie pitches 
    No.

    I get the logic but I can't see it - I don’t think he's the type of bowler McCullum and Stokes think they want for it, he's not been noticeably successful in Australia, and at 34 I'm not sure they'll think it's worth the stories about calling up an Aussie etc.
  • golfaddick
    golfaddick Posts: 33,598
    edited August 5
    Jeez......how short is David Warner !!

    I know Stuart Broad is tall but seeing them being interviewed on Sky just before the Hundred kicks off made me do a double take 👀 👀

    Also The Hundred hasnt really brought in many players from overseas has it ?  About a dozen or so when the IPL has 3 or 4 overseas players per team. 
  • cantersaddick
    cantersaddick Posts: 16,903
    North Lower Neil said:
    fenaddick said:
    Do we think the ECB will take a punt on Dan Worrall? At the very least he knows how to play on Aussie pitches 
    No.

    I get the logic but I can't see it - I don’t think he's the type of bowler McCullum and Stokes think they want for it, he's not been noticeably successful in Australia, and at 34 I'm not sure they'll think it's worth the stories about calling up an Aussie etc.
    He's quick enough though. And I thibk they will want a swing bowler of sorts in there who can bowl a lot of overs and allow the others to be rotated in short spells. 

    Is an outside bet but with Woakes injured now there is a vacancy for that type of bowler.
  • Chizz
    Chizz Posts: 28,322
    golfaddick said:
    Jeez......how short is David Warner !!

    I know Stuart Broad is tall but seeing them being interviewed on Sky just before the Hundred kicks off made me do a double take 👀 👀

    Also The Hundred hasnt really brought in many players from overseas has it ?  About a dozen or so when the IPL has 3 or 4 overseas players per team. 
    I think each team is restricted to three overseas players per squad and they all - or most - have that many
  • blackpool72
    blackpool72 Posts: 23,659
    golfaddick said:
    Jeez......how short is David Warner !!

    I know Stuart Broad is tall but seeing them being interviewed on Sky just before the Hundred kicks off made me do a double take 👀 👀

    Also The Hundred hasnt really brought in many players from overseas has it ?  About a dozen or so when the IPL has 3 or 4 overseas players per team. 
    Apart from being short he also has the most punchable face ever.
    When he landed one on Root,  Root should have ironed the fucking gargoyle out.

Categories

“Marketplace”