Any cricket lovers on here?
Comments
-
Yeah I wasn't thrilled by it I have to say.surrey_commuter said:Did anybody else find YJB’s interview after his 99 incredulous.
He said that he could not be expected to keep wicket properly as he had not been able to train for 9 months. He also found it lovely to be back in the changing room with the support of all his mates.
I love the way Bazball has transformed English cricket but it needs to grow a pair when it comes to selection0 -
I'm rather seriously leaning towards removing DRS as a way of speeding up the game.
Failing that drop it down to only 1 review per side and remove "umpires call". It's either out of it isn't. DRS was meant to taking out the blindingly obvious error. It's being used speculatively instead0 -
I like DRS, it's great fun in the ground - I don't think it's an issue.
Umpire's call needs to stay because it's not actually as simple as out or not out - the technology has a margin of error doesn't it.0 -
Exactly that.bobmcstuff said:
Declaring wouldn't have resulted in us winning either - we'd have had runs to chase instead and it'd still have been a washout.surrey_commuter said:
Not declaring did not result in us winning so where is the logic in your statement?kingstongraham said:
Only got to 90 overs in Australia's first innings half an hour into day two. If they think another ten overs would have made a difference, it's true, they need to look at themselves.verylonglegs said:As Atherton pointed out England bowled 23 overs in two hours yesterday whilst they were chasing a win and knowing bad weather was on the way, it's not good enough. They've no right to complain about umpires taking them off if they can't be bothered to make maximum use of the time that they are given.
At least yesterday made it clear they were right not to declare.
Prioritising a victim surcharge over winning the Ashes is appalling
I tend to think not declaring was the right choice since we were adding runs very quickly at that point whereas who knows how quickly we could have scored with our openers in potentially difficult conditions in the 4th.0 -
That 10th wicket partnership was worth 66 runs at more than 8 an over, it lasted 8 overs and one ball. That would be decent going in an ODI.
If we'd had 66 runs to chase with our openers there's no question the rate would have been lower. With a new ball and especially with potential overheads.
It's just hard to beat a world class opposition in 3 days, that's more or less all there is to it. England did pretty much everything right in this test, Bairstow even kept well. Of course I'd prefer they took more wickets yesterday (since I'd paid 65 quid to go for a start), but we still had them soundly beaten.0 -
We would have had an extra 80 minutes so who knowsbobmcstuff said:
Declaring wouldn't have resulted in us winning either - we'd have had runs to chase instead and it'd still have been a washout.surrey_commuter said:
Not declaring did not result in us winning so where is the logic in your statement?kingstongraham said:
Only got to 90 overs in Australia's first innings half an hour into day two. If they think another ten overs would have made a difference, it's true, they need to look at themselves.verylonglegs said:As Atherton pointed out England bowled 23 overs in two hours yesterday whilst they were chasing a win and knowing bad weather was on the way, it's not good enough. They've no right to complain about umpires taking them off if they can't be bothered to make maximum use of the time that they are given.
At least yesterday made it clear they were right not to declare.
Prioritising a victim surcharge over winning the Ashes is appalling
I tend to think not declaring was the right choice since we were adding runs very quickly at that point whereas who knows how quickly we could have scored with our openers in potentially difficult conditions in the 4th.
If we were chasing 120 how many overs do you think it would take?
When time is of the ssence it makes no sense to risk scoring too many runs in the first innings0 -
I would have declared before lunch.bobmcstuff said:That 10th wicket partnership was worth 66 runs at more than 8 an over, it lasted 8 overs and one ball. That would be decent going in an ODI.
If we'd had 66 runs to chase with our openers there's no question the rate would have been lower. With a new ball and especially with potential overheads.
It's just hard to beat a world class opposition in 3 days, that's more or less all there is to it. England did pretty much everything right in this test, Bairstow even kept well. Of course I'd prefer they took more wickets yesterday (since I'd paid 65 quid to go for a start), but we still had them soundly beaten.
You really think this England team would take more than 8 overs chasing 66? Think of it as 66 to go in a ODI with 10 wickets up the clouds are circling and Duckworth Lewis says you are behind0 -
Anyway what do we think of the theory that Jimmy had a bigger influence on the destination of the Ashes than Jonny?0
-
I think the real issue with timings is that in England, even in high summer, the risk of moisture in the air and on the pitch outside of traditional playing hours is quite high. So being forced to bad at 10am or after 7pm would skew the game somewhat unfairly. Even batting in the morning session with conventional hours can be bit of a challenge with overnight moisture on the pitch and early cloud cover “burning off”.Pross said:TV though innit plus even on bright days they start querying the light at 7pm for some reason. I never quite understand it when amateur teams will have midweek 20 over matches that don’t start until 6.30 or 7pm.
FWIW, the England “establishment” highlighting issues re weather is more to deflect attention away from obvious tactical failing earlier in the series, which is where the damage to the chances of winning the Ashes was really done eg playing Bairstow when unfit (and not good enough as a keeper) and the headless chicken batting to the short ball barrage at Lords. If the roles had been reversed, England would have trousered the rain breaks to claim a favourable result. (As has happened in relatively recent series.)
0 -
Problem with that is that the bowling side could take their time whilst batting conditions are good and force the blameless batting side to bat in poor light, on a damp pitch etc. ie materially worse batting conditions in the evening session.bobmcstuff said:
Sure, there needs to be more penalty for that on both sides, I'd always prefer a result to a rain draw, even if in 2013 I was happy enough to retain the ashes it still felt hollow (but then we won the next game anyway).JimD666 said:
Let's be fair about it. We've done exactly the same many times before. And we'll do the same again at some point. Possibly not with Stokes as skipper but it'll happen again.bobmcstuff said:Australia batters were massively time wasting throughout to be fair - the bowling side doesn't have full control over the speed. Yesterday it was taking Labuschagne 30 seconds to get back in his crease after each ball, he was getting a lot of abuse from the crowd.
Then we had to piss around with the light meter for a bit.
Apparently most of the outfield is covered in puddles. About time for the umpires to grow a pair and call the ruddy thing off.
I think they should just play to the conditions until they've done the 90 overs personally.
0 -
I was expecting the declaration at lunch tbf, I think we all were in the ground.surrey_commuter said:
I would have declared before lunch.bobmcstuff said:That 10th wicket partnership was worth 66 runs at more than 8 an over, it lasted 8 overs and one ball. That would be decent going in an ODI.
If we'd had 66 runs to chase with our openers there's no question the rate would have been lower. With a new ball and especially with potential overheads.
It's just hard to beat a world class opposition in 3 days, that's more or less all there is to it. England did pretty much everything right in this test, Bairstow even kept well. Of course I'd prefer they took more wickets yesterday (since I'd paid 65 quid to go for a start), but we still had them soundly beaten.
You really think this England team would take more than 8 overs chasing 66? Think of it as 66 to go in a ODI with 10 wickets up the clouds are circling and Duckworth Lewis says you are behind0 -
I think Tongue would have been a better pick for this match.surrey_commuter said:Anyway what do we think of the theory that Jimmy had a bigger influence on the destination of the Ashes than Jonny?
0 -
and Woakes in the others.bobmcstuff said:
I think Tongue would have been a better pick for this match.surrey_commuter said:Anyway what do we think of the theory that Jimmy had a bigger influence on the destination of the Ashes than Jonny?
Across both team the biggest influence has probably been Lyon0 -
And Leach second?surrey_commuter said:
and Woakes in the others.bobmcstuff said:
I think Tongue would have been a better pick for this match.surrey_commuter said:Anyway what do we think of the theory that Jimmy had a bigger influence on the destination of the Ashes than Jonny?
Across both team the biggest influence has probably been Lyon0 -
The Bazball Establishment is very good at controlling the narrative, I have to keep reminding myself that we have lost because moral victories do not count.wallace_and_gromit said:
I think the real issue with timings is that in England, even in high summer, the risk of moisture in the air and on the pitch outside of traditional playing hours is quite high. So being forced to bad at 10am or after 7pm would skew the game somewhat unfairly. Even batting in the morning session with conventional hours can be bit of a challenge with overnight moisture on the pitch and early cloud cover “burning off”.Pross said:TV though innit plus even on bright days they start querying the light at 7pm for some reason. I never quite understand it when amateur teams will have midweek 20 over matches that don’t start until 6.30 or 7pm.
FWIW, the England “establishment” highlighting issues re weather is more to deflect attention away from obvious tactical failing earlier in the series, which is where the damage to the chances of winning the Ashes was really done eg playing Bairstow when unfit (and not good enough as a keeper) and the headless chicken batting to the short ball barrage at Lords. If the roles had been reversed, England would have trousered the rain breaks to claim a favourable result. (As has happened in relatively recent series.)
If we had not made basic selection and tactical mistakes then our only moan aboutthe weather would be that it thwarted a whitewash0 -
I think that's a bit unfair on Jimmy. Apart from the first test, he has bowled quite tidily and been unfortunate to not pick up many wickets. I fear he is going to be retired as a result which is a shame.surrey_commuter said:Anyway what do we think of the theory that Jimmy had a bigger influence on the destination of the Ashes than Jonny?
Picking a wicket keeper that can catch is always going to be helpful.0 -
Went on Discovery + just now to see when the cycling coverage starts and discovered they are showing Major League Cricket from the US, I never even realised it existed. I assume the teams are chock full of former top players who are now past their best and looking for a pay day before retirement but might have a nose.0
-
I believe it is just setting up, like Liv golf the biggets names are probably past their best.Pross said:Went on Discovery + just now to see when the cycling coverage starts and discovered they are showing Major League Cricket from the US, I never even realised it existed. I assume the teams are chock full of former top players who are now past their best and looking for a pay day before retirement but might have a nose.
0 -
It's year 1 and has the support of several of the IPL franchises so certainly has funding behind it. It could grow to undermine the English summer if it becomes successful. I think all games are being played in Houston this year but as more grounds come online it will start to spread around to the cities represented. There are large Asian ex-pat communities that could drive this quite well. Some fairly big names taking part as "overseas" players too.Pross said:Went on Discovery + just now to see when the cycling coverage starts and discovered they are showing Major League Cricket from the US, I never even realised it existed. I assume the teams are chock full of former top players who are now past their best and looking for a pay day before retirement but might have a nose.
0 -
One of the bigger baseball YouTube Channels has been pushing it. As well as creating this melange.
(and before you smirk too much, I can tell you that I learnt more about baseball watching one of the early episodes of their baseball only equivalent than Ive picked up my whole life...)We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
Baseball is better live.0
-
Keeping Jimmy in the starting 11 - I'd have gone for Tongue myself.0
-
Think I probably would have too. Oval can be a bit of a road and not Jimmy's strength0
-
Listening to Radio 5 last night and they were saying how the Aussies basically refuse to play Anderson's game so he has brilliant economy figures but the worst average and strike rate. Their debate was between Anderson and Robinson with Tongue not even getting a mention while I was listening. The concluded Anderson would probably keep his place because Robinson is a bit injury prone.0
-
Saw this today...
Open One+ BMC TE29 Seven 622SL On One Scandal Cervelo RS0 -
Yeah I heard that in the podcast today, presume it was the same discussion but published in podcast form.Pross said:Listening to Radio 5 last night and they were saying how the Aussies basically refuse to play Anderson's game so he has brilliant economy figures but the worst average and strike rate. Their debate was between Anderson and Robinson with Tongue not even getting a mention while I was listening. The concluded Anderson would probably keep his place because Robinson is a bit injury prone.
I see the point, he has looked really tidy with lots of maidens. And he was beating the bat a lot, I thought he was unlucky to only get the one wicket at Old Trafford. But I've thought that all series - he's looked unlucky not to get wickets every game. So maybe there is something to be said for Australia just not playing his game.
They were saying it creates chances for the other bowlers, which might be true as it creates pressure on the scoring rate, but I doubt it would have made as much difference at Old Trafford because Australia seemed to be playing for time rather than to win...0 -
Probably will lose a decent chunk of the afternoon tomorrow - looks like rain from 1-2 till 4-5ish0
-
Looking out the window, looked like a good toss to win.
Weather looks worse for later on, maybe good news for England!0 -
Bad drop by Carey, thankfully. Looks like the ball is moving around even for Australia this time.0
-
Hmmmmmm
Was going very well.
Now not so well.
But we could be 80-7 with all those drops, so I will take that!
Good sign for us if it is moving around as I think there will be decent bowling overheads for a while, based on the forecast.0
