Any cricket lovers on here?

1…4546485051…104

Comments

  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,243
    Broad to Warner 1st over - 4 . . . OUT
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,630
    Proper fast bowling by Wood, something England really struggle with. First over average pace was over 93mph and he hit 96.5mph with a delivery in his second. In the right areas too.
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    verylonglegs said:

    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.

    Interestingly the hook is deemed the easy option when you are uncomfortable with short pitched bowling.
  • shirley_basso
    shirley_basso Posts: 6,195
    42-2.
  • MidlandsGrimpeur2
    MidlandsGrimpeur2 Posts: 2,150
    Fair play to England for the selection call. They were struggling in the last two tests and correctly brought Wood in. Flattish wickets need proper fast bowling to scare the proverbial out of batsmen!
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,630
    A few from Wood up around Smith's chin will get the crowd going nicely.
  • blazing_saddles
    blazing_saddles Posts: 22,731
    Woakes chips in with Labuschagne's wicket.
    "Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.
  • laurentian
    laurentian Posts: 2,572
    Bairstow drops a gloved ball off Smith!
    Wilier Izoard XP
  • laurentian
    laurentian Posts: 2,572
    . . . and then cathes him a few minutes later - Smith gone Aus 85-4
    Wilier Izoard XP
  • verylonglegs
    verylonglegs Posts: 4,023
    He's dropped Head too. They need to stop picking him in that position.
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,630
    laurentian said:

    Bairstow drops a gloved ball off Smith!

    And another off Head. I love him when he's throwing the bat around but surely it's time to get Foakes behind the stumps?
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,243
    91/4 is fantastic.

    The drop of Head was really disappointing though - it was in his gloves.
  • bobmcstuff
    bobmcstuff Posts: 11,445
    Pross said:

    laurentian said:

    Bairstow drops a gloved ball off Smith!

    And another off Head. I love him when he's throwing the bat around but surely it's time to get Foakes behind the stumps?
    I would've brought Foakes in for Pope and bumped everyone else up as they have done.

    Foakes is a good batter anyway.
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,630
    bobmcstuff said:

    Pross said:

    laurentian said:

    Bairstow drops a gloved ball off Smith!

    And another off Head. I love him when he's throwing the bat around but surely it's time to get Foakes behind the stumps?
    I would've brought Foakes in for Pope and bumped everyone else up as they have done.

    Foakes is a good batter anyway.
    Yep, it seemed a logical solution to the problem. I think Stokes is wary about his own ability to bowl so they opted for an extra bowler.
  • JimD666
    JimD666 Posts: 2,293
    My guess on Foakes is he's said something nasty about either Stokes or McCullum's mother.
  • bobmcstuff
    bobmcstuff Posts: 11,445
    JimD666 said:

    My guess on Foakes is he's said something nasty about either Stokes or McCullum's mother.

    I think now they've put Bairstow in they won't take him out as they want to show faith in their decisions and confidence in the players.

    Similar with Crawley.
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    bobmcstuff said:

    JimD666 said:

    My guess on Foakes is he's said something nasty about either Stokes or McCullum's mother.

    I think now they've put Bairstow in they won't take him out as they want to show faith in their decisions and confidence in the players.

    Similar with Crawley.
    I am convinced this thinking comes from a NZ mindset where they are picking from a talent puddle so you are better off sticking with somebody through thick and thin and trying to improve them.

    England have many player who seem to be much of a muchness so why not swap them out based on form and local conditions?
  • bobmcstuff
    bobmcstuff Posts: 11,445
    Need to get rid of Marsh asap
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,630
    Throwing it away with dropped catches.
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,243
    100 off 102 balls - are you not entertained?
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,630
    It's all going pear shaped.
  • JimD666
    JimD666 Posts: 2,293
    kingstongraham said:

    100 off 102 balls - are you not entertained?

    Very. Annoyed but entertained
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,243
    Glad I had the cycling on instead.

    He's finally gone - I think we'd have taken 240-5 with the four alleged danger men all gone, but that session sounds a bit brutal.
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 22,039
    kingstongraham said:

    Glad I had the cycling on instead.

    He's finally gone - I think we'd have taken 240-5 with the four alleged danger men all gone, but that session sounds a bit brutal.

    More brutal due to the drops. Another one just now.
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,243
    Would definitely have taken 253-8.
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,630
    254-9, what might have been if it wasn't for Marsh.
  • jdee84
    jdee84 Posts: 291
    And Extras being the 3rd highest scorer for Aus
  • bobmcstuff
    bobmcstuff Posts: 11,445
    edited July 2023
    Done really well to restrict them to 263 after tea, that middle session was poor.

    Mark Wood though, 🔥
  • bobmcstuff
    bobmcstuff Posts: 11,445
    jdee84 said:

    And Extras being the 3rd highest scorer for Aus

    That's exactly what the Zaltzman article I linked above said - England have just about edged Australia off the bat, but have given away heaps more extras, and that's what's cost them (along with the dropped catches)
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,243
    bobmcstuff said:

    jdee84 said:

    And Extras being the 3rd highest scorer for Aus

    That's exactly what the Zaltzman article I linked above said - England have just about edged Australia off the bat, but have given away heaps more extras, and that's what's cost them (along with the dropped catches)
    Extras would only have been joint third highest if Bairstow had taken that easy catch. The umpire didn't spot that it came off the face of the bat and gave a bye.

Categories