Cricket 24/7  

Welcome to the Cricket 24/7.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. There are also more forums available to members, such as the Lounge - where members chat about just about anything under the sun except cricket!

Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.


Go Back   Cricket 24/7 > Cricket Discussion Forums > International Cricket
Register FAQDonate Members List Calendar Casino Articles Terms of Use Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11th July 2017, 12:34   #21
Psyduck
Posting God
 
Psyduck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Manchester
Team(s): England, Lancashire, Man Utd
Posts: 15,535
Cook 6
Jennings 5
Ballance 5
Root 9
YJB 7
Stokes 6
Mo 10
Dawson 5
Wood 5
Broad 7
Anderson 6
Psyduck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th July 2017, 14:24   #22
Fatslogger
Self Confessed Mentalist
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hitchin
Team(s): England and Liverpool
Age: 41
Posts: 43,274
Quote:
Originally Posted by Notts Exile View Post
LOL!

Anyone who gives Ballance and Stokes the same scores is deluded. I assume you didn't watch any of the Test?

Collingwood, 82mph? When? And Broad was up around 87mph at times too so I assume my point abut you not watching was probably accurate.

Wood gets more than Broad? How?
Broad bowled much better and batted much better. Otherwise perfectly sensible though. Wood didn't even do a good horse celebration this time.
__________________
Work is the curse of the drinking classes - Wilde
Fatslogger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th July 2017, 14:35   #23
luckyluke
Established International
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,057
I think all the ratings are pretty low considering we absolutely twatted South Africa
__________________
Most heartless decision:

In a women's league match in Denmark, a heavily pregnant woman arrived at the crease, and asked for a runner. Her request was denied, on the grounds that her incapacity had not occured during the course of the match.
luckyluke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th July 2017, 14:46   #24
Jock McTuffnel v3
World Class
 
Jock McTuffnel v3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Cambridge
Team(s): England
Posts: 5,711
Quote:
Originally Posted by luckyluke View Post
I think all the ratings are pretty low considering we absolutely twatted South Africa
Should the ratings consider the calibre and performance of the opposition ?
__________________
Jock McTuffnel v3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th July 2017, 15:22   #25
luckyluke
Established International
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,057
I think you, and several others on here, need to live in the moment a bit more. Instead of droning on about how we lost to India or scaremongering about the forthcoming Ashes, why don't you try to enjoy England's 200 run win over a team they haven't beaten at home since a dead rubber in 2008?

Until we have a team packed with the modern day equivalents of Garner/Holding/Marshall etc and McGrath, Warne, Tendulkar, Gilchrist, I'm afraid we are going to lose some test matches and series from time to time, and undermining every good performance with whinging about past or future series isn't going to change that fact.

We can only hope that the selectors play the best team we have available for each game and that team does the best that it can, enjoy it when it comes off, and take it on the chin and reassess if it doesn't.
__________________
Most heartless decision:

In a women's league match in Denmark, a heavily pregnant woman arrived at the crease, and asked for a runner. Her request was denied, on the grounds that her incapacity had not occured during the course of the match.

Last edited by luckyluke : 11th July 2017 at 16:56. Reason: Our home record against SA is shitter than I'd remembered
luckyluke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th July 2017, 15:48   #26
Jock McTuffnel v3
World Class
 
Jock McTuffnel v3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Cambridge
Team(s): England
Posts: 5,711
Quote:
Originally Posted by luckyluke View Post
I think you, and several others on here, need to live in the moment a bit more. Instead of droning on about how we lost to India or scaremongering about the forthcoming Ashes, why don't you try to enjoy England's 200 run win over a team they haven't beaten at home since a dead rubber in 2012?

Until we have a team packed with the modern day equivalents of Garner/Holding/Marshall etc and McGrath, Warne, Tendulkar, Gilchrist, I'm afraid we are going to lose some test matches and series from time to time, and undermining every good performance with whinging about past or future series isn't going to change that fact.

We can only hope that the selectors play the best team we have available for each game and that team does the best that it can, enjoy it when it comes off, and take it on the chin and reassess if it doesn't.
So to summarise we should accept mediocrity, pay our money, shut up and accept we are going to win now and then against poor teams but not against average/better teams. Then repeat over and over.

Are you Andrew Strauss ?
__________________
Jock McTuffnel v3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th July 2017, 16:13   #27
Summer of '77
World Class
 
Summer of '77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: London-Essex
Team(s): Kent, Essex, Surrey Stars
Posts: 7,517
Quote:
Originally Posted by luckyluke View Post
I think you, and several others on here, need to live in the moment a bit more. Instead of droning on about how we lost to India or scaremongering about the forthcoming Ashes, why don't you try to enjoy England's 200 run win over a team they haven't beaten at home since a dead rubber in 2012?

Until we have a team packed with the modern day equivalents of Garner/Holding/Marshall etc and McGrath, Warne, Tendulkar, Gilchrist, I'm afraid we are going to lose some test matches and series from time to time, and undermining every good performance with whinging about past or future series isn't going to change that fact.

We can only hope that the selectors play the best team we have available for each game and that team does the best that it can, enjoy it when it comes off, and take it on the chin and reassess if it doesn't.

Absolutely spot on. In fact, part of the fun of supporting England is their constantly mercurial character...which, to be honest, has been the case ever since Test cricket began. You never know what you're going to get, which is surely manna from heaven for a sports fan?
Summer of '77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th July 2017, 16:16   #28
Michelle Fivefer
Posting Goddess
 
Michelle Fivefer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: North West England
Team(s): England, Lancashire
Posts: 41,791
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jock McTuffnel v3 View Post
Should the ratings consider the calibre and performance of the opposition ?
Only when one wants an excuse to discredit a commonly derided England player.
__________________
As balanced and focused as the next man
Michelle Fivefer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th July 2017, 16:54   #29
luckyluke
Established International
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,057
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jock McTuffnel v3 View Post
So to summarise we should accept mediocrity, pay our money, shut up and accept we are going to win now and then against poor teams but not against average/better teams. Then repeat over and over.

Are you Andrew Strauss ?
Do what you like mate, but there's enough crap going on in the world to castatrophize about without adding the cricket to the mix, so in the interests of your general well-being I'd advise cheering the **** up.
__________________
Most heartless decision:

In a women's league match in Denmark, a heavily pregnant woman arrived at the crease, and asked for a runner. Her request was denied, on the grounds that her incapacity had not occured during the course of the match.
luckyluke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th July 2017, 18:19   #30
mustardcharlie
Established International
 
mustardcharlie's Avatar
You know there ain't no devil: It's just God when he's drun
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bedfordshire
Team(s): Yorkshire, England, LUFC, Otley RFC.
Age: 65
Posts: 4,639
Might I just say I have nothing against Broad, Stokes and Anderson. They were innocuous. Stokes got a 50 and sub 10 and Ballance got about the same. Stokes bowled tripe. Dawson? Tell me again why he got picked ahead of Rashid. Mo fully deserved the MoM ahead of Rootster. Yes 190 to his name but I thought his captaincy was rather conservative. Jimmy and Stu were getting it up around 85-87 at times but a lot of it was low eighties.

Given that "there has been some weather about", Trent Bridge should be a serious Test. Bonehead Rabada is sadly out. If the sun comes, the seamers should be rubbing their hands in glee. "Ha, Mr Amla isn't it? I'm sure you know where my first ball is going hehehe"

I also rejoice in kicking Saffer butt. 211 runs is a big win. Other sides will not be so lenient, if we lose 4-6 wickets in a morning session.
__________________
Answers 3d
Answers (requiring thought) 6d
Answers (correct) 1s
mustardcharlie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th July 2017, 18:54   #31
sanskritsimon
Legendary
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Team(s): Arkholme Bees, Hackney Grasshoppers, Holy Cross Academicals
Posts: 9,904
Quote:
Originally Posted by mustardcharlie View Post
... Dawson? Tell me again why he got picked ahead of Rashid. ...
Judging from recent discussions on the "spin conundrum" thread, this question should be split into two questions. Firstly, why was Rashid not picked? Answer, because the selectors think he's not good enough. Secondly, why was Dawson picked? Well, you saw the pitch. The seamers were largely ineffective, especially in the second innings, so a second spinner was a no-brainer, and bearing in mind the answer to question one, it obviously had to be Dawson, who didn't do badly in the previous test.
sanskritsimon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th July 2017, 22:40   #32
Fatslogger
Self Confessed Mentalist
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hitchin
Team(s): England and Liverpool
Age: 41
Posts: 43,274
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanskritsimon View Post
Judging from recent discussions on the "spin conundrum" thread, this question should be split into two questions. Firstly, why was Rashid not picked? Answer, because the selectors think he's not good enough. Secondly, why was Dawson picked? Well, you saw the pitch. The seamers were largely ineffective, especially in the second innings, so a second spinner was a no-brainer, and bearing in mind the answer to question one, it obviously had to be Dawson, who didn't do badly in the previous test.
To be fair to the seamers, they bowled 10-3-24-2 second innings, so did just fine, but obviously conditions suited the spinners more and given the magnificence of Ali, they didn't get much of a go. If we'd lost the toss and bowled first, we'd have probably used the seamers more in both innings than we did. Otherwise agree though, certainly around the rationale behind the selection.
__________________
Work is the curse of the drinking classes - Wilde
Fatslogger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th July 2017, 22:45   #33
Ali TT
Posting God
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 16,609
Quote:
Originally Posted by mustardcharlie View Post
Might I just say I have nothing against Broad, Stokes and Anderson. They were innocuous. Stokes got a 50 and sub 10 and Ballance got about the same. Stokes bowled tripe. Dawson? Tell me again why he got picked ahead of Rashid. Mo fully deserved the MoM ahead of Rootster. Yes 190 to his name but I thought his captaincy was rather conservative. Jimmy and Stu were getting it up around 85-87 at times but a lot of it was low eighties.

Given that "there has been some weather about", Trent Bridge should be a serious Test. Bonehead Rabada is sadly out. If the sun comes, the seamers should be rubbing their hands in glee. "Ha, Mr Amla isn't it? I'm sure you know where my first ball is going hehehe"

I also rejoice in kicking Saffer butt. 211 runs is a big win. Other sides will not be so lenient, if we lose 4-6 wickets in a morning session.
I've watched a lot of Broad and Anderson bowling over the years. I would say that bowling in the low eighties is pretty much standard for them both.
__________________
WARNING
Reading the above post may cause bouts of nausea.
Ali TT is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11th July 2017, 23:50   #34
JRC67
International Material
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 1,425
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanskritsimon View Post
Judging from recent discussions on the "spin conundrum" thread, this question should be split into two questions. Firstly, why was Rashid not picked? Answer, because the selectors think he's not good enough. Secondly, why was Dawson picked? Well, you saw the pitch. The seamers were largely ineffective, especially in the second innings, so a second spinner was a no-brainer, and bearing in mind the answer to question one, it obviously had to be Dawson, who didn't do badly in the previous test.
Dawson seems to have become the bete noir of cricket purists who believe a spinner should only be able to bat at 11 and be broadly comical when fielding. Not too sure how well studied he has been by some of his critics, I've seen him bowl one in County Cricket so really have no real opinion. When he Captained the U19s it was as a specialist spinner and he did return the best ever U19 bowling figures. When he got in to The Hampshire team his batting improved and at times he was behind others as a spin bowler. I do believe he actually has the best test average of all English spinners currently playing professional cricket, so I'd say he had a reasonable start to his career. I'll keep an open mind until he's played a couple more tests, but he in the final India test he looked good and after a nervous first spell bowled quite well for an English spinner at Lords. He managed to get some reasonable turn in both innings which surprised me a little.
JRC67 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th July 2017, 10:29   #35
sanskritsimon
Legendary
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Team(s): Arkholme Bees, Hackney Grasshoppers, Holy Cross Academicals
Posts: 9,904
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRC67 View Post
Dawson seems to have become the bete noir of cricket purists who believe a spinner should only be able to bat at 11 and be broadly comical when fielding. ...
I'm fairly sure there are no such people as the ones in bold.
sanskritsimon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th July 2017, 10:34   #36
billyguntheballs
County Pro
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 586
Quote:
Originally Posted by luckyluke View Post
I think you, and several others on here, need to live in the moment a bit more. Instead of droning on about how we lost to India or scaremongering about the forthcoming Ashes, why don't you try to enjoy England's 200 run win over a team they haven't beaten at home since a dead rubber in 2008?

Until we have a team packed with the modern day equivalents of Garner/Holding/Marshall etc and McGrath, Warne, Tendulkar, Gilchrist, I'm afraid we are going to lose some test matches and series from time to time, and undermining every good performance with whinging about past or future series isn't going to change that fact.

We can only hope that the selectors play the best team we have available for each game and that team does the best that it can, enjoy it when it comes off, and take it on the chin and reassess if it doesn't.
I wholeheartedly agree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ali TT View Post
I've watched a lot of Broad and Anderson bowling over the years. I would say that bowling in the low eighties is pretty much standard for them both.
Yeah, I haven't really since Braod be all that fiery since 09.

Jimmy's always been on the lower side of the pace scale but his swing and accuracy always made up for it and to a certain extent, still does.
__________________

I can accept failure...I can not accept not trying again.
billyguntheballs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th July 2017, 10:35   #37
billyguntheballs
County Pro
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 586
As for the Rashid v Dawson question, I feel it should not even be a question. Rashid is England's most in form bowler when it comes to ODI cricket and he has been doing pretty well in tests too. On top of all that, he is a very good batsmen when he has enough time to bat, so why Dawson was picked is beyond me or anyone with an ounce of sense.
__________________

I can accept failure...I can not accept not trying again.
billyguntheballs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th July 2017, 20:27   #38
blackeyedangles
County 1st Team
 
blackeyedangles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 409
Would definitely pick Rashid over Dawson. I think there was a line pushed that Dawson would bowl tight while Moeen bowled loose and took wickets (as is his way) but given that Dawson didn't bowl all that tight you're better off with the wicket-taker and the variety if you have two spinners.
blackeyedangles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th July 2017, 20:42   #39
luckyluke
Established International
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,057
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackeyedangles View Post
Would definitely pick Rashid over Dawson. I think there was a line pushed that Dawson would bowl tight while Moeen bowled loose and took wickets (as is his way) but given that Dawson didn't bowl all that tight you're better off with the wicket-taker and the variety if you have two spinners.
Yes, on the basis of one test let's chop and change again. I'm a bit worried about this Y2K bug
__________________
Most heartless decision:

In a women's league match in Denmark, a heavily pregnant woman arrived at the crease, and asked for a runner. Her request was denied, on the grounds that her incapacity had not occured during the course of the match.
luckyluke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th July 2017, 11:38   #40
Notts Exile
International Cricketer
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Berkshire
Team(s): Notts and Forest
Posts: 2,030
Quote:
Originally Posted by billyguntheballs View Post
Yeah, I haven't really since Braod be all that fiery since 09.

Jimmy's always been on the lower side of the pace scale but his swing and accuracy always made up for it and to a certain extent, still does.
Both have relied on control and movement over pace in recent times. Yes, they could reach the nineties in times gone by but those who bowl that fast for extended periods don't have lengthy Test careers. Look at Mitch Johnson and Dale Steyn.
Notts Exile is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:21.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Cricket247.org