Jump to content
Wanderers Ways. Neil Thompson 1961-2021

NZ tour


Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, Casino said:

The batsmen scored 150 short

The bowlers arent good enough

A captain is as good as his players

Really? Other than a spinner we surely have one of the best pace attacks around?

The pitch was flat and one paced. Our performance in the field wasn't very good. Sure.

But we batted first - and on day one scored 241-4. Given how flat the pitch, small and fast the outfield and only losing 4 wickets we were between 60 and 100 runs short of where you'd expect. Say 310-4 day 1. Then day 2 - we added 110 runs for loss of 6. Come on. On that pitch should have been an extra 200 at least.

Post 500 first innings and its a completely different game. 

The failing in this England test side, time and time and time again is the batting. Its not good enough. With Root off form I'd say only Stokes is what you can consider a genuine test quality batsman - and lets face it, he's a number 5 or 6 based off his average and his game. That's it. You can't get through test matches with players who can only defend or can't defend. And that's what we've got at this level. Compare it to having Strauss and Cook and Pietersen etc....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Site Supporter
15 hours ago, Casino said:

The batsmen scored 150 short

The bowlers arent good enough

A captain is as good as his players

Then replace him with someone in better form with the bat.

Or listen to comments from pundits about some of his decision making on the field. Observing performances confirms a huge lack of consistency, as a cricket captain he has more influence over selection than other sports, and is also partly responsible for the team's motivation.

He's also suffering from form issues with stats showing a drop in averages since taking on the role.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
13 hours ago, bwfcfan5 said:

Really? Other than a spinner we surely have one of the best pace attacks around?

The pitch was flat and one paced. Our performance in the field wasn't very good. Sure.

But we batted first - and on day one scored 241-4. Given how flat the pitch, small and fast the outfield and only losing 4 wickets we were between 60 and 100 runs short of where you'd expect. Say 310-4 day 1. Then day 2 - we added 110 runs for loss of 6. Come on. On that pitch should have been an extra 200 at least.

Post 500 first innings and its a completely different game. 

The failing in this England test side, time and time and time again is the batting. Its not good enough. With Root off form I'd say only Stokes is what you can consider a genuine test quality batsman - and lets face it, he's a number 5 or 6 based off his average and his game. That's it. You can't get through test matches with players who can only defend or can't defend. And that's what we've got at this level. Compare it to having Strauss and Cook and Pietersen etc....

As I said, 150 short

But as for the bowling, it isn't good enough

Its ok at home but on flat tracks with a shit ball, forget it

It isn't just pace as I think southeee is at 75mph and wagners no superstar, but nowt lost giving saqib a run and tell him he needs to get it 22 yards as quick as he can

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
11 hours ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

Then replace him with someone in better form with the bat.

Or listen to comments from pundits about some of his decision making on the field. Observing performances confirms a huge lack of consistency, as a cricket captain he has more influence over selection than other sports, and is also partly responsible for the team's motivation.

He's also suffering from form issues with stats showing a drop in averages since taking on the role.

There's no better batsmen available than an out of form root, if sibley and pope are owt to go off

I've more idea playing spin than sibley

Burns is trying hard and doing reasonably but I reckon he will be gone in 12 months

Pope is likely the new ramprakash

20 odd recalls and never really make it

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Casino said:

As I said, 150 short

But as for the bowling, it isn't good enough

Its ok at home but on flat tracks with a shit ball, forget it

It isn't just pace as I think southeee is at 75mph and wagners no superstar, but nowt lost giving saqib a run and tell him he needs to get it 22 yards as quick as he can

The counter point would be - Southee would have (and did for periods) looked completely unthreatening and pedestrian if we'd batted properly....

I think with Archer we have pace, bounce and then Broad/Curran/Woakes/Anderson are a match for most if its moving and if it isn't are good enough to be disciplined. We lack a top rate wicket taking spinner and clearly will struggle against India etc because of that.

But for me our major issues are the batting. Get the runs and suddenly your bowlers look a lot better with a proper target to go at. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can someone explain the logic in the review system.

The lad given out LBW after he nicked it but chose not to review, why does the 3rd umpire not intervene.

How is an LBW when you hit it any less a matter of fact than a no ball; one gets reviewed automatically but the other the team has to take a punt on a review??

It happened last year Stokes given out caught in WC SF when never hit ball, clearly shouldn't have been out but no reviews left, yet had to wait to see if a no ball saved him (it didn't!). So they're reviewing it anyway but won't reverse a clearly incorrect decision? So you can be out if you haven't hit it but not if the bowler oversteps??

Is there some reason for these anomalies any one knows?? Like VAR, why not just check every dismissal?? Cheers

 

Edited by JimmyRiddle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Site Supporter
10 hours ago, JimmyRiddle said:

Can someone explain the logic in the review system.

The lad given out LBW after he nicked it but chose not to review, why does the 3rd umpire not intervene.

How is an LBW when you hit it any less a matter of fact than a no ball; one gets reviewed automatically but the other the team has to take a punt on a review??

It happened last year Stokes given out caught in WC SF when never hit ball, clearly shouldn't have been out but no reviews left, yet had to wait to see if a no ball saved him (it didn't!). So they're reviewing it anyway but won't reverse a clearly incorrect decision? So you can be out if you haven't hit it but not if the bowler oversteps??

Is there some reason for these anomalies any one knows?? Like VAR, why not just check every dismissal?? Cheers

 

I wonder if, sooner or later someone decides each football team gets three VAR appeals to use as and when. That way football would follow cricket rather than the other way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 02/12/2019 at 04:47, JimmyRiddle said:

Can someone explain the logic in the review system.

The lad given out LBW after he nicked it but chose not to review, why does the 3rd umpire not intervene.

How is an LBW when you hit it any less a matter of fact than a no ball; one gets reviewed automatically but the other the team has to take a punt on a review??

It happened last year Stokes given out caught in WC SF when never hit ball, clearly shouldn't have been out but no reviews left, yet had to wait to see if a no ball saved him (it didn't!). So they're reviewing it anyway but won't reverse a clearly incorrect decision? So you can be out if you haven't hit it but not if the bowler oversteps??

Is there some reason for these anomalies any one knows?? Like VAR, why not just check every dismissal?? Cheers

 

Because each team has a number of appeals to use as they see fit. Its part of the game and part of the tactics. And when you get it wrong its part of the whole thing. 

If every ball is reviewed you don't need an umpire - don't need appeals and fundamentally change the game. There are also grey areas - where TV evidence is not conclusive - and times where you need to wait a long time to come to a decision even using TV evidence. If every ball was analysed like that - games would simply never finish. 

Cricket works well - you have the opportunity to overturn mistakes - the whole implementation in cricket was designed to eliminate "clear errors". Teams have used the appeals in different ways though - looking at marginals or exploiting the system to aid certain spinners etc. But everyone knows the score beforehand. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.