Any cricket lovers on here?

Pross

Wheelspinner said:

I take it you've all watched the footage of Bairstow doing the exact same thing two days prior IN THIS SAME TEST MATCH, attempting to "stump" Labuschagne?. No issue? Other than the fact he missed the stumps?

Hardly a shock for him to miss the stumps. Even a standard stumping is outside his skillset as a keeper.

JimD666

The atmospheric at Headingley, the bastion of warm and polite applause, is going to be.....interesting. 🤯

Jezyboy

Wheelspinner said:

I take it you've all watched the footage of Bairstow doing the exact same thing two days prior IN THIS SAME TEST MATCH, attempting to "stump" Labuschagne?. No issue? Other than the fact he missed the stumps?

That was the second ball of the over, and a batsman setting up a head of the crease rather than walking out at the end of the over...

wallace_and_gromit

The stumping / run out of Bairstow is simply payback for Bodyline. What goes around comes around.

secretsqirrel

Aussies will be loving this, give the poms something to whinge about.

laurentian

In my humble opinion, he was out fair and square. Carey threw the ball at the stumps as soon as he caught it (perhaps having noticed JB walking out of his crease before the ball was dead several times previously).

Having said that, I read "the shopping trolley test" analogy yesterday which goes something like:

"It is perfectly legal to unload your shopping from your trolley in the car park and leave it where it is rather than returning it to one of the storage bays . . . it just makes you a bit of a tw@t . . ."

Wheelspinner

Jezyboy said:

Wheelspinner said:

I take it you've all watched the footage of Bairstow doing the exact same thing two days prior IN THIS SAME TEST MATCH, attempting to "stump" Labuschagne?. No issue? Other than the fact he missed the stumps?

That was the second ball of the over, and a batsman setting up a head of the crease rather than walking out at the end of the over...

Ah ok I see. The batsman is already setting up waiting for the next (fast bowler) ball, is outside his crease, yet for some reason the wicketkeeper still has the ball from the previous delivery. Makes perfect sense.

MidlandsGrimpeur2

Controversies aside, it will be interesting to see what happens from Thursday.

Both tests have been decided by a few runs and there is clearly little between both sides.

I think so far the Aussies have just controlled the key moments better than England. If we can get our decision making better in key moments and win the third test then we could go to the wire.

I do think Australia have the far better bowling attack though, so you would have to say this, plus a 2-0 lead should see them home.

Wheelspinner

kingstongraham said:

Wheelspinner said:

I take it you've all watched the footage of Bairstow doing the exact same thing two days prior IN THIS SAME TEST MATCH, attempting to "stump" Labuschagne?. No issue? Other than the fact he missed the stumps?

And that it was a completely different situation. Labuschagne was standing outside his crease to face the bowling, and hadn't made it back into his crease when Bairstow threw the ball.

All this time I thought Bairstow was the England wicketkeeper. If the batsman is ready to face the next ball, why does the keeper still have it?

Have you ever watched batsmen in test cricket? Before every delivery, they do their little routine of check pitch, check field placement, check side screens, fiddle with pads etc. They do all this while the ball is “dead”.

But if the keeper still has the ball, and clearly he thinks it is still in play as he attempts a stumping, then how on earth do you get to the conclusion you have?

Genuinely amused and confused

verylonglegs

MidlandsGrimpeur2 said:

I do think Australia have the far better bowling attack though, so you would have to say this, plus a 2-0 lead should see them home.

I was going to say the Bairstow dismissal is gone, what England need to think about is somehow being better as a bowling unit. Australia are more capable of producing those unplayable deliveries that will defeat any batter, we've not seen much of that from England so far. I guess there will be changes for Headingley but what is there to pick from...Wood, Woakes and Potts?

kingstongraham

Wheelspinner said:

kingstongraham said:

Wheelspinner said:

I take it you've all watched the footage of Bairstow doing the exact same thing two days prior IN THIS SAME TEST MATCH, attempting to "stump" Labuschagne?. No issue? Other than the fact he missed the stumps?

And that it was a completely different situation. Labuschagne was standing outside his crease to face the bowling, and hadn't made it back into his crease when Bairstow threw the ball.

All this time I thought Bairstow was the England wicketkeeper. If the batsman is ready to face the next ball, why does the keeper still have it?

Have you ever watched batsmen in test cricket? Before every delivery, they do their little routine of check pitch, check field placement, check side screens, fiddle with pads etc. They do all this while the ball is “dead”.

But if the keeper still has the ball, and clearly he thinks it is still in play as he attempts a stumping, then how on earth do you get to the conclusion you have?

Genuinely amused and confused

If you think the issue is that everyone thinks Bairstow was ready to face the next ball, I don't think there's going to be any convincing you that it was a snide thing to do.

surrey_commuter

MidlandsGrimpeur2 said:

Controversies aside, it will be interesting to see what happens from Thursday.

Both tests have been decided by a few runs and there is clearly little between both sides.

I think so far the Aussies have just controlled the key moments better than England. If we can get our decision making better in key moments and win the third test then we could go to the wire.

I do think Australia have the far better bowling attack though, so you would have to say this, plus a 2-0 lead should see them home.

On the other hand we lost the first test but pretended to win it so justifying not making anything other than enforced changes to personnel or tactics.

We lost the second test playing against ten men.

To succeed Bazball needs to learn to evolve.

bobmcstuff

surrey_commuter said:

MidlandsGrimpeur2 said:

Controversies aside, it will be interesting to see what happens from Thursday.

Both tests have been decided by a few runs and there is clearly little between both sides.

I think so far the Aussies have just controlled the key moments better than England. If we can get our decision making better in key moments and win the third test then we could go to the wire.

I do think Australia have the far better bowling attack though, so you would have to say this, plus a 2-0 lead should see them home.

On the other hand we lost the first test but pretended to win it so justifying not making anything other than enforced changes to personnel or tactics.

We lost the second test playing against ten men.

To succeed Bazball needs to learn to evolve.

I think they just need to do better at not losing their heads at key moments and giving the game away, both games have come down to a couple of key moments where England have failed to capitalise on a good position. I don't think that's "Bazball", that's just sensible...

Stokes' batting this last Test is a good example, you can be aggressive and score quickly without hacking at bouncers.

bobmcstuff

verylonglegs said:

MidlandsGrimpeur2 said:

I do think Australia have the far better bowling attack though, so you would have to say this, plus a 2-0 lead should see them home.

I was going to say the Bairstow dismissal is gone, what England need to think about is somehow being better as a bowling unit. Australia are more capable of producing those unplayable deliveries that will defeat any batter, we've not seen much of that from England so far. I guess there will be changes for Headingley but what is there to pick from...Wood, Woakes and Potts?

I think it was a mistake asking for "flat quick pitches" myself - if you look back at this Australia side in England they only struggle when the ball is moving (Broad 8/15...). When you have Broad and Anderson (OK Anderson has looked out of sorts as well), it seems daft to deliberately blunt your main strength.

Although tbf Crawley can't cope with a moving ball either (or any other balls, but not quite to the same extent). But that seems to be a lost cause.

I still think not bringing Foakes was a huge mistake. He has a decent average (40 in tests in England) and you'd probably take a bet that he would have taken most of Bairstow's dropped catches in the first test. If you have one of the best keepers out there, you should bring them surely!

I did think maybe if Pope was out that they would add Foakes and push everyone else up the order - Bairstow has historically batted better when he's not also keeping as well.

I wish Archer was fit...

MidlandsGrimpeur2

I guess there will be changes for Headingley but what is there to pick from...Wood, Woakes and Potts?

Part of the problem is the slower flat pitches Stokes has asked for to assist the batting. There has been very little movement so Anderson has largely been redundant, I think thy will wait to see what conditions are like before selection, but regardless I would go with Wood for Tongue and also be tempted to go Woakes for Anderson, particularly as he brings something extra with his batting.

surrey_commuter

bobmcstuff said:

surrey_commuter said:

MidlandsGrimpeur2 said:

Controversies aside, it will be interesting to see what happens from Thursday.

Both tests have been decided by a few runs and there is clearly little between both sides.

I think so far the Aussies have just controlled the key moments better than England. If we can get our decision making better in key moments and win the third test then we could go to the wire.

I do think Australia have the far better bowling attack though, so you would have to say this, plus a 2-0 lead should see them home.

On the other hand we lost the first test but pretended to win it so justifying not making anything other than enforced changes to personnel or tactics.

We lost the second test playing against ten men.

To succeed Bazball needs to learn to evolve.

I think they just need to do better at not losing their heads at key moments and giving the game away, both games have come down to a couple of key moments where England have failed to capitalise on a good position. I don't think that's "Bazball", that's just sensible...

Stokes' batting this last Test is a good example, you can be aggressive and score quickly without hacking at bouncers.

I don't think it is "losing their heads" I think that is Bazball. When it works they are geniuses when it doesn't they are brainless. Consider the reaction if Stokes had been caught at fine leg before he got going.

Don't forget we crumbled against NZ bowling 80mph bouncers. Australia learned a lesson from that and we did not.

bobmcstuff

MidlandsGrimpeur2 said:

I guess there will be changes for Headingley but what is there to pick from...Wood, Woakes and Potts?

Part of the problem is the slower flat pitches Stokes has asked for to assist the batting. There has been very little movement so Anderson has largely been redundant, I think thy will wait to see what conditions are like before selection, but regardless I would go with Wood for Tongue and also be tempted to go Woakes for Anderson, particularly as he brings something extra with his batting.

See I think this is wrong-headed, cos it also helps the Australian batters and their bowlers are better on that kind of pitch.

As above the only time those guys seem to really struggle is when the ball moves around.

bobmcstuff

Pope ruled out anyway - seems Dan Lawrence is the most likely replacement...

I still think Foakes in and bump the rest up the order is a better option.

Pross

bobmcstuff said:

Pope ruled out anyway - seems Dan Lawrence is the most likely replacement...

I still think Foakes in and bump the rest up the order is a better option.

Agreed, it feels like the logical way of getting the gloves off Bairstow without dropping him completely.

MidlandsGrimpeur2

See I think this is wrong-headed, cos it also helps the Australian batters and their bowlers are better on that kind of pitch.

As above the only time those guys seem to really struggle is when the ball moves around.

I would tend to agree. I think Stokes felt at the beginning of this series that with runs on the board, he would still fancy his bowlers to get wickets even in less favourable conditions. It has seemingly neutralised our bowling threat and failed to capitalise on Australian weakness against the moving ball though, as you say.

bobmcstuff

MidlandsGrimpeur2 said:

See I think this is wrong-headed, cos it also helps the Australian batters and their bowlers are better on that kind of pitch.

As above the only time those guys seem to really struggle is when the ball moves around.

I would tend to agree. I think Stokes felt at the beginning of this series that with runs on the board, he would still fancy his bowlers to get wickets even in less favourable conditions. It has seemingly neutralised our bowling threat and failed to capitalise on Australian weakness against the moving ball though, as you say.

Sounds like Stokes is right to some extent: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/66097255

England have scored more runs off the bat than Australia - they have a higher batting average than Australia. But they are giving away far more in byes and extras.

Giving away more byes seems to especially supports Foakes over Bairstow, to me...

bobmcstuff

I thought it was basically set that they'd bring in Dan Lawrence at 3 for Pope but instead they've gone with Wood, Woakes and Ali...

I guess they think the pitch is going to be more bowler friendly.

surrey_commuter

bobmcstuff said:

I thought it was basically set that they'd bring in Dan Lawrence at 3 for Pope but instead they've gone with Wood, Woakes and Ali...

I guess they think the pitch is going to be more bowler friendly.

surely the other way round, put in another bowler as wickets will be at a premium

or they are all good laughs with a low handicap

kingstongraham

bobmcstuff said:

I thought it was basically set that they'd bring in Dan Lawrence at 3 for Pope but instead they've gone with Wood, Woakes and Ali...

I guess they think the pitch is going to be more bowler friendly.

Most of the batters were quite bowler friendly at Lords.

bobmcstuff

kingstongraham said:

bobmcstuff said:

I thought it was basically set that they'd bring in Dan Lawrence at 3 for Pope but instead they've gone with Wood, Woakes and Ali...

I guess they think the pitch is going to be more bowler friendly.

Most of the batters were quite bowler friendly at Lords.

Well as per that Zaltzman article England have actually scored marginally better off the bat, they've just given away heaps of extras (which is why they need Foakes).

Anyway I like the bowling lineup better. Woakes isn't a bad batter either, and Ali should be better than he has been - apparently he struggles with Lyon who's out (repeating what they said on the TMS podcast...)

surrey_commuter

bobmcstuff said:

kingstongraham said:

bobmcstuff said:

I thought it was basically set that they'd bring in Dan Lawrence at 3 for Pope but instead they've gone with Wood, Woakes and Ali...

I guess they think the pitch is going to be more bowler friendly.

Most of the batters were quite bowler friendly at Lords.

Well as per that Zaltzman article England have actually scored marginally better off the bat, they've just given away heaps of extras (which is why they need Foakes).

Anyway I like the bowling lineup better. Woakes isn't a bad batter either, and Ali should be better than he has been - apparently he struggles with Lyon who's out (repeating what they said on the TMS podcast...)

Ali lost his bottle against the short ball, he is worse than Broad.

Other than that the team looks stronger. Probably the only change I would make would be Foakes for Ali

MidlandsGrimpeur2

I said Wood and Woakes were good shouts. Definitely think they are the right selections. Don't have an issue with Moeen either, as long as his injured finger has fully healed.

kingstongraham

bobmcstuff said:

kingstongraham said:

bobmcstuff said:

I thought it was basically set that they'd bring in Dan Lawrence at 3 for Pope but instead they've gone with Wood, Woakes and Ali...

I guess they think the pitch is going to be more bowler friendly.

Most of the batters were quite bowler friendly at Lords.

Well as per that Zaltzman article England have actually scored marginally better off the bat, they've just given away heaps of extras (which is why they need Foakes).

Duckett and Stokes got two thirds of the runs in the second innings though - most of the batters were very generous.

verylonglegs

surrey_commuter said:

bobmcstuff said:

kingstongraham said:

bobmcstuff said:

I thought it was basically set that they'd bring in Dan Lawrence at 3 for Pope but instead they've gone with Wood, Woakes and Ali...

I guess they think the pitch is going to be more bowler friendly.

Most of the batters were quite bowler friendly at Lords.

Well as per that Zaltzman article England have actually scored marginally better off the bat, they've just given away heaps of extras (which is why they need Foakes).

Anyway I like the bowling lineup better. Woakes isn't a bad batter either, and Ali should be better than he has been - apparently he struggles with Lyon who's out (repeating what they said on the TMS podcast...)

Ali lost his bottle against the short ball, he is worse than Broad.

I do remember there were a fair few dismissals to utterly rank hook shots at the end of his last stint of test cricket but was it losing his bottle? I thought it was just laziness at trying to play the limited overs way in a test match but it is entirely possible I am remembering it differently to why it happened.

bobmcstuff

The women's t20 was very entertaining tonight (making the most of the Sky Sports sub I took out for the Ashes...). Had a bit in it till the end, but Australia's first loss in something like 24 games.