England cricket 2019 (4 Viewers)

[Otis]

4 times since 2018 that we have been bowled out for less than 100.

 

---

[Otis]

What is a follow on?

Where you make the team that has just batted, bat again, rather than bat yourself.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

Look at documentaries on captains and especially the ashes one regarding Bob Willis then you will get it

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 to do both. But mentally it always seems to be that their form goes to pot. So we may as well try something different.

Plus there is the batsmen's union who consider themselves far superior and intellectual than bowlers.

 

[Covstu]

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.

Yep fair point!

 

[Covstu]

Sixty fucking seven???

 

[Grendel]

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.

Are you a wum account

Again Botham and Atherton said the same as me.

We haven’t batted with any intent at all. Every batsman retreated and retreated except Roy who just isn’t a test player Once it’s 6 down and the tail left they were dead with the bowlers fresh.

Oh and if the Aussie bowlers had taken your advice and bowled at the stumps we’d be nowhere near the mess we are in now. It’s obvious you never do that unless it’s a player who shuffles deep in the crease

Roots dismissal was a good ball the rest of the batsmen were not. Stokes fair enough it’s a rare error but the rest poor. Burns has had it now. Short ball at pace he fails. Roy can’t open. Denly can’t bat.

 

[Otis]

Sixty fucking seven???

Yeah, doesn't sound so bad when you type it out in letter form does it.

 

[ccfc92]

Where you make the team that has just batted, bat again, rather than bat yourself.

Then would you get 1 or 2 innings, if Aus batted twice in a row?

 

[chiefdave]

Can't see anyway out of this one. Weather forecast looks good and even if Englands bowlers can get the Aussies out for around 200 again there's little chance of England chasing 300 plus.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

Well Nasser Hussain has just this minute said exactly what I said about Denly

I’m going with him over you. He said if he played like that as an opener it’s meaningless - I’m going with Nasser

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 everyone else Denly, even though he rides his luck, does tend to stay around longer than most. Hence why I suggest he opens instead. He tends to get out for modest scores but if it gave the likes of Root the chance to get a bigger score, or Roy to get a few more than he does lower down the order overall it's an improvement. Not much of one but it's a chance.

 

[Grendel]

Stokes - bad shot, Roy - bad shot, Buttler - bad shot, Woakes - bad shot.

Who have I missed? Root got out to a very good ball.

Denly was a walking wicket. I slightly forgive butler as by then he was in the mire anyway. Burns was the most predictable dismissal of the lot

 

[chiefdave]

Then would you get 1 or 2 innings, if Aus batted twice in a row?

Normally team A would bat first then B, then A again then B. If you follow on it goes A, B, then B again and then A if needed.

So if team A scores a shed load of runs and team B is then all out and still more 200 or more behind team A can enforce the follow on. Which means team B bats again straight away. If they then get ahead of team A total then A comes in and bats again.

 

[Otis]

Can't see anyway out of this one. Weather forecast looks good and even if Englands bowlers can get the Aussies out for around 200 again there's little chance of England chasing 300 plus.

We won't get anywhere near chasing 200 either.

 

[Grendel]

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 to do both. But mentally it always seems to be that their form goes to pot. So we may as well try something different.

Plus there is the batsmen's union who consider themselves far superior and intellectual than bowlers.

What bowler would be captain anyway - please don’t say Broad!

 

[Paul Anthony]

Even a miracle isn't going to save us now. An absolutely crap innings by Australia will be enough.

 

[Grendel]

The strength of the appeal got that no wonder Warner is grimacing

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

Are you a wum account

Again Botham and Atherton said the same as me.

We haven’t batted with any intent at all. Every batsman retreated and retreated except Roy who just isn’t a test player Once it’s 6 down and the tail left they were dead with the bowlers fresh.

Oh and if the Aussie bowlers had taken your advice and bowled at the stumps we’d be nowhere near the mess we are in now. It’s obvious you never do that unless it’s a player who shuffles deep in the crease

Roots dismissal was a good ball the rest of the batsmen were not. Stokes fair enough it’s a rare error but the rest poor. Burns has had it now. Short ball at pace he fails. Roy can’t open. Denly can’t bat.

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 pressure on by getting the batsmen feeling they have to play esp. early in a persons innings.

Aussies eventually didn't need to bowl at stumps because we were playing in one-day mode and slashing at everything regardless, when the balls should have just been left. That's why we shouldn't be in one day mode. Harder ball, no fielding restrictions. If that worked why even bother with test cricket. You say we should go into one-day mode then say Roy isn't a test batsmen. He's arguably our best one-day batsman, so which is it?

Stats show highest method of dismissal is caught behind/slips. You get those by making people play at balls they think are going to hit. After that it's lbw and bowled. By their very nature the ball has to be hitting the stumps for those to occur.

 

[ccfc92]

Early wicket for Aus...

 

[Paul Anthony]

Stokes - bad shot, Roy - bad shot, Buttler - bad shot, Woakes - bad shot.

Who have I missed? Root got out to a very good ball.

Thing is AUS know all they've got to do is put in an area where it can get an edge or off a glove, and it'll be a wicket most times. There's no defensive play. They can't just play the dot ball and defend the wicket. They want to go at everything. It just doesn't work in test cricket.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

What bowler would be captain anyway - please don’t say Broad!

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 might be a good choice but we haven't got a decent one. Archer too young and inexperienced but longer term maybe. Same with Curran.

I'm not saying that captain should definitely be a bowler, I'm saying I don't see why they're almost automatically dismissed. It might be that captaincy would ruin their bowling just as it seems to do with the batters, but their experience and knowledge should be the main consideration for captaincy, not whether you bat or bowl.

 

[Grendel]

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 pressure on by getting the batsmen feeling they have to play esp. early in a persons innings.

Aussies eventually didn't need to bowl at stumps because we were playing in one-day mode and slashing at everything regardless, when the balls should have just been left. That's why we shouldn't be in one day mode. Harder ball, no fielding restrictions. If that worked why even bother with test cricket. You say we should go into one-day mode then say Roy isn't a test batsmen. He's arguably our best one-day batsman, so which is it?

Stats show highest method of dismissal is caught behind/slips. You get those by making people play at balls they think are going to hit. After that it's lbw and bowled. By their very nature the ball has to be hitting the stumps for those to occur.

It’s amazing you seem to know more than all the sky sports experts who’ve disagreed with everything you’ve said.

Perhaps you should be captain? You seem to know more than Atherton, Hussain, Gower, botham and Holding who take the opposite view to pretty much everything you say.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

Thing is AUS know all they've got to do is put in an area where it can get an edge or off a glove, and it'll be a wicket most times. There's no defensive play. They can't just play the dot ball and defend the wicket. They want to go at everything. It just doesn't work in test cricket.

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.

 

[Covstu]

It’s amazing you seem to know more than all the sky sports experts who’ve disagreed with everything you’ve said.

Perhaps you should be captain? You seem to know more than Atherton, Hussain, Gower, botham and Holding who take the opposite view to pretty much everything you say.

He was criticised yesterday for bowling and was proved right. The only person in this setup who could possibly replace Root as cap is Stokes in my opinion but he's a liability at times too.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

It’s amazing you seem to know more than all the sky sports experts who’ve disagreed with everything you’ve said.

Perhaps you should be captain? You seem to know more than Atherton, Hussain, Gower, botham and Holding who take the opposite view to pretty much everything you say.

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 early on you've got to test a batsman's defence. You only do that by making them play and a decent batsmen at 1st class cricket will leave anything missing the wickets unless it's in their favoured scoring areas.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

He was criticised yesterday for bowling and was proved right. The only person in this setup who could possibly replace Root as cap is Stokes in my opinion but he's a liability at times too.

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 reason we're not batting now is because we batted with absolutely no discipline whatsoever. Years gone by with a 'proper' test batsmen we'd have been batting all day easily.

Stokes is a very capable player but as we need him to bat and bowl maybe added pressure of captaincy would be too much.

 

[Grendel]

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 early on you've got to test a batsman's defence. You only do that by making them play and a decent batsmen at 1st class cricket will leave anything missing the wickets unless it's in their favoured scoring areas.

They scored runs due to one bad session which stokes and woakes bowled poorly

99 times out of 100 Warner would have gone early but rode his luck - broad has had him out every time

Woakes and stokes had one very loose spell and went for a lot of runs after lunch

Even then it’s countered by the fact they went in total for a bad score

It’s the one day mentality theory I really don’t get. We scored 50 runs in two hours of play

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

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 know but bowling closer to the stumps those edges might've occurred and he'd have actually been out rather than nearly out.

We scored so few runs because everyone was getting out quick so no-one had got the pace of the pitch etc.

Best way to keep the run rate down is get wickets. We were giving away wickets because we were in one day mode slashing at everything. Run rate picks up once a batsmen has played himself in and got the pace of the wicket etc and can play a few shots..

Maybe on a luckier day we'd have slashed at those and they'd have ended up flying to the boundary. But far more often they end up getting caught. Same reason why in football you don't always shoot the second you get within 25 yards of the goal. Looks great when it works but the vast majority of the time it doesn't.

 

[Grendel]

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 know but bowling closer to the stumps those edges might've occurred and he'd have actually been out rather than nearly out.

We scored so few runs because everyone was getting out quick so no-one had got the pace of the pitch etc.

Best way to keep the run rate down is get wickets. We were giving away wickets because we were in one day mode slashing at everything. Run rate picks up once a batsmen has played himself in and got the pace of the wicket etc and can play a few shots..

Maybe on a luckier day we'd have slashed at those and they'd have ended up flying to the boundary. But far more often they end up getting caught. Same reason why in football you don't always shoot the second you get within 25 yards of the goal. Looks great when it works but the vast majority of the time it doesn't.

We didn’t slash at anything - were you watching a video of Ian botham instead of the live action

Denly and burns couldn’t attack to save their lives. Root lasted two balls and stokes played a rash shot. Bairstow went cheaply to a good ball and when you are that many down you can’t really look at the tail as by then they had to just try and get some runs

Honestly don’t know what you were watching - we just stood and surrendered until it was too late

 

[Grendel]

That’s an example of a one day shot

 

[Gazolba]

Australia have a plan to get every England batsman out, and England play right into their hands by doing exactly what Australia predicted they would do.

 

[Saddlebrains]

Its just fucking abject all round. Shambles

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

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, radio & text

These are mainly top-order batsmen. Once again the middle and lower order were left to try and play more sensibly and try to get some sort of score. Today they weren't up to it. Headingley is a difficult pitch at the best of times and they were always going to fail at some point - batting isn't their forte..

Root got a peach, Bairstow pushed at a ball he was worried was hitting, Woakes similar, Archer just left his bat hanging for no reason.

Leach - here's an example of bowling at the stumps. Yes he's a tailender but it's a case of "you miss, I hit"
Ashes: Australia lead nears 200 after England 67 all out - in-play clips, radio & text

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

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 pressure on by getting the batsmen feeling they have to play esp. early in a persons innings.

Aussies eventually didn't need to bowl at stumps because we were playing in one-day mode and slashing at everything regardless, when the balls should have just been left. That's why we shouldn't be in one day mode. Harder ball, no fielding restrictions. If that worked why even bother with test cricket. You say we should go into one-day mode then say Roy isn't a test batsmen. He's arguably our best one-day batsman, so which is it?

Stats show highest method of dismissal is caught behind/slips. You get those by making people play at balls they think are going to hit. After that it's lbw and bowled. By their very nature the ball has to be hitting the stumps for those to occur.

Disagree, the hardest balls to face tend to be those swinging away outside off stump at a decent length. If anything you are less likely to play at snorters going straight at the stumps and so unless they are LBW addicts like Shane Watson a few years ago it's best saved for the tail or an occasional surprise weapon. What is really missing is a wise old head a la Cook to bide his time and avoid the suicidal stuff on show

 

[Grendel]

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, radio & text

These are mainly top-order batsmen. Once again the middle and lower order were left to try and play more sensibly and try to get some sort of score. Today they weren't up to it. Headingley is a difficult pitch at the best of times and they were always going to fail at some point - batting isn't their forte..

Root got a peach, Bairstow pushed at a ball he was worried was hitting, Woakes similar, Archer just left his bat hanging for no reason.

Leach - here's an example of bowling at the stumps. Yes he's a tailender but it's a case of "you miss, I hit"
Ashes: Australia lead nears 200 after England 67 all out - in-play clips, radio & text

Leach - fucking hell hes a number 11 and was shuffling all over the place that’s the point you bowl straight at him

Chasing runs? We did the opposite which is why Denly perished and burns hates stuff round his head

I give up you are beyond reason

 

[Grendel]

Great effort by stokes bowling non stop for 14 overs - 2 dropped catches and out a wicket ruled out for a no ball - could have had 5 in the end