Search results

All of these are more reminiscent of limited overs style play - playing at balls chasing runs. Not test match (or even county championship) play. Every one of these balls should've been left. Roy, Burns, Stokes and Denly Ashes: Australia lead nears 200 after England 67 all out - in-play clips...

You're right that Warner rode his luck and another day would've been out cheap. Broad seems to have one over him at the moment and he's played some poor shots to him, which seems a mental thing. But we kept on missing the edge - we happened to be bowling a bit wide of the stumps. We can never...

Normally you'd assume you'd bat first, but yesterday was overcast which is favoured bowling conditions in this country. The forecast for the following days were still, hot weather. That's favourable batting conditions. So given that was what expected I can understand the choice to bowl. The...

And I've heard Boycott, Vaughan and Cook along with various other members of the TMS team agree with me. Highlights yesterday made a big thing on how we'd only got 8% of the balls in the Warner/Labuschagne partnership hitting the stumps. Boycott can be annoying but he's always going on about how...

Yep. In years gone by that innings would've been described as slightly wayward, undisciplined bowling. They didn't need to try very hard to get wickets at all. If you'd had the likes of Atherton, Nasser, Boycott, Gower etc they have maybe got one wicket by now bowling like that.

God no! We'd have used every review by the end of his second over and he's almost obsessed with short balls because he struggles to play them himself. Anderson is experienced and knows his way around how to get individuals out. But he'd be a short term given his age. I often think a spinner...

I said we should have bowled at the stumps more esp with Labuschagne. They got to 179 because we didn't make that Warner/Labuschagne partnership play at as many as we should early on. Of course you have to mix it up and have them also going away mixed in with the odd short ball, but you put the...

I'm not saying I'd like Denly opening - ideally I'd rather him not playing at all. But given what we've got with nothing seemingly coming through we've got to re-arrange the deckchairs. Boycott said earlier he'd have Denly opening instead of Roy. Roy can't be an opener the way he plays. Of...

And how many times over the years do you see the batsman/keeper given the job see their batting/keeping form collapse? I agree that from a theoretical point it should be a batter - they shouldn't have to worry about captaincy while batting as it's largely a fielding thing so they should be able...

But it's the batting like it's a one-day game that keeps on seeing us get out cheaply. You would hope with so many explosive batsmen at least one could string something together but they never get anyone around long enough for it to happen.

The development proposal had space for numerous office buildings (17 I think), residential apartments and at least one hotel, but did have two originally. It has since changed because they've not managed to get many of the offices built. The government quango ended up next to the Butts instead...

I've never understood why you can't make a bowler captain. They're the ones with the ball in the hand so should be cpable of knowing where to set a field to how they're going to bowl. Captaincy is mainly about fielding and the bowlers will be prepped on the weaknesses of opposition batsmen...

He may be hanging on, but half the time that's what an opening batsmen is there for. It's still more than most of the rest have done for a while now. Ideally you'd want someone else in in his place, but who do you suggest? Everyone concentrates so much on limited overs because it's where the...

We can't follow on because Aus didn't make 200. You have to be 200 runs or more behind after the first innings to be made to follow on.

So which part of the ACTUAL law does it break? Maybe the wording is wrong, but the law is what the wording states. In that case the law states that only a part of the foot needs to be on the line. Therefore under the laws of the game it'd be legal.

But it must be hard to go from being a regular starter to a bit part. Having worked his way into the team he'll probably be a bit narked he's not in now. But like you I think he'll get his chance.

Our failure to bowl at the wickets for Warner/Labauchagne could well prove costly. We went past Warner's edge so many times yesterday that aiming at the wickets he'd have let through or edged one. They're making us play.

It does make a difference. If you're used to coming in with a ball that's 20-25 overs old and softened up a bit and then suddenly coming in with one that's practically new it's like a completely different game. Yes, he needs to get out of the bad spell but a big part of that would be getting...

All depends on injuries. Next game someone could be out for months and he's back in the team as a regular. But he could end up like Davies if that doesn't happen. With McFadz's age I think to lose Hyam would be a loss long-term, even though MR seems to very highly rate Williams.

His move to three hasn't helped. Especially when you've got an opener who won't last more than an hour.