The Cricket Thread
- Thread starter SteveH
- Start date
SargeantMeatCurtains
Your least favourite poster
- Jan 5, 2013
- 11,765
- 61,763
We didn’t deserve to win and, just like the last game, anything but a loss would’ve papered over the cracks.
OK look admittedly I don't know much about cricket but I have been reading a fair bit about root being shit. As far as I'm concerned paine has been fucking awful. So I don't think it is to od with root at all...
Only one man really and that was Smith.
Only one man really and that was Smith.
dondo
Well-Known Member
- Jan 4, 2006
- 8,603
- 14,091
Root is a better player than Paine but Paine is a much better captain than root.
3 things define a captain, tactics, player management and how it effects your performance. Root fails in all 3, Paine fails in 1
That may be true, I don't know and won't pretend it is true but I think if we had a Smith then things would have been much much closer. I know that's like saying oh if spurs had Messi but I guess I just haven't been that impressed with the Aussies.
They definitely deserved to win though
Yid-ol
Just-outside Edinburgh
- Jan 16, 2006
- 31,164
- 19,412
Smith was the main difference between the sides. If they didn't have him then they would have struggled to get many on the board.
Would have been interesting to have seen if Anderson would have made much of a difference, but something has to change, just didn't perform well at all this ashes, bat one or two innings
SargeantMeatCurtains
Your least favourite poster
- Jan 5, 2013
- 11,765
- 61,763
Not sure I agree on that. I don’t think Paine is a good captain at all. Admittedly he made a good call bringing on Labuschagne, however he has been abused from both sides over his poor captaincy. Particularly when it comes to reviews. He lost Australia the game at Headingley with his wasted reviews.
SargeantMeatCurtains
Your least favourite poster
- Jan 5, 2013
- 11,765
- 61,763
Root just spewing hyperboles and cliches. It is honestly scary how quickly I’ve gone from respecting him to loathing him entirely. He’s not the man to lead England forward and his limitations as a cricketer has been completely found out during his stint as “captain”.
Spurs_Bear
Well-Known Member
- Jan 7, 2009
- 17,094
- 22,286
Yeah Paine is a dogshit captain, Smith has been running the side on the pitch and Paine’s use of reviews have been laughable.
midoshairband
Well-Known Member
- Apr 25, 2006
- 7,082
- 13,909
also, it is possible to change the order - nothing wrong with having a dasher at 6 and moving him up the order if you need to. but like you say, having 4/5/6/7/8 all as dashers is asking for trouble.
SargeantMeatCurtains
Your least favourite poster
- Jan 5, 2013
- 11,765
- 61,763
In terms of the next game, I personally can’t see much point in heavily rotating with the Ashes gone.
I’d rather players like Sibley, Pope, Foakes. Northeast, Ballance (he deserves a recall, stop looking at me like that) and Curran have a fresh start in the winter tour.
I’d rather players like Sibley, Pope, Foakes. Northeast, Ballance (he deserves a recall, stop looking at me like that) and Curran have a fresh start in the winter tour.
Arnoldtoo
The thinking ape's ape
- May 18, 2006
- 35,402
- 55,161
Players not currently in the team are clearly looking better and better, but I don't think the result would have been a whole lot different with mass changes.
Root is still our best batsman, but he's not as good as Smith, who has been ridiculous and has an average second only to Bradman.
The likes of Pope & Ballance (mk IV) are not head and shoulders above the incumbents. Curran is not yet the batting all-rounder he's been built up to be in this thread. Foakes is a brilliant keeper, but he isn't anywhere near as good a batter as an in-form Bairstow. We still haven't found an opening pair, though Burns may grow into the role. Denly? Hmm.
Fact is that with Smith in their team and their bowling attack, Australia are better than the best team we can put out. And we have to be thankful that Warner has had a shit series so far!
Root is still our best batsman, but he's not as good as Smith, who has been ridiculous and has an average second only to Bradman.
The likes of Pope & Ballance (mk IV) are not head and shoulders above the incumbents. Curran is not yet the batting all-rounder he's been built up to be in this thread. Foakes is a brilliant keeper, but he isn't anywhere near as good a batter as an in-form Bairstow. We still haven't found an opening pair, though Burns may grow into the role. Denly? Hmm.
Fact is that with Smith in their team and their bowling attack, Australia are better than the best team we can put out. And we have to be thankful that Warner has had a shit series so far!
midoshairband
Well-Known Member
- Apr 25, 2006
- 7,082
- 13,909
agree with most of that. aussies would probably win the series against whatever we put out. however, Smiths 600 odd runs has been the real difference between the sides.
but....an ‘in-form’ Bairstow hasn’t been seen in test cricket for at least a year. Foakes averages over 40, having toured a notoriously tough place in Sri Lanka. and is a far better keeper.
as for Curran - he doesn’t need to be a batting all rounder, Stokes does that for us. and Curran was definitely good enough v the No1 test side last summer.
LeSoupeKitchen
Well-Known Member
- Aug 18, 2011
- 3,107
- 7,642
Never thought I'd be so gutted to see it pissing it down outside on a Monday and not a Sunday.
Great Series which over 5, 5 day games the Aussies won beause overall and all round
they are the better team.
Two 'do or die' efforts nerarly levelled it up.
Root is our only top-class batsman and needs the burden of captaincy taking off him.
Best in the World, just, at bash crash white ball
but it's the red ball game that really counts.
The difference between Fizzy drinks and Real Ale.
Loved it anyway and some stand out performances on both sides.
My joke about another boring tedious day of Test cricket seemed to have passed one or two by.
Couldn't watch it but followed it all day on the 'steam radio' to the detriment of
one or two essential tasks and commitments. History cannot be ignored.
they are the better team.
Two 'do or die' efforts nerarly levelled it up.
Root is our only top-class batsman and needs the burden of captaincy taking off him.
Best in the World, just, at bash crash white ball
but it's the red ball game that really counts.
The difference between Fizzy drinks and Real Ale.
Loved it anyway and some stand out performances on both sides.
My joke about another boring tedious day of Test cricket seemed to have passed one or two by.
Couldn't watch it but followed it all day on the 'steam radio' to the detriment of
one or two essential tasks and commitments. History cannot be ignored.
LeSoupeKitchen
Well-Known Member
- Aug 18, 2011
- 3,107
- 7,642
Root should continue as captain - Farbrace
Joe Root should continue to lead England and the coaching set-up should not be split, says former assistant coach Paul Farbrace.
www.bbc.co.uk
"Joe Root should continue to captain England and the coaching set-up should not be split between the Test side and teams in shorter formats, says former assistant coach Paul Farbrace"
I could not disagree more with that statement.
dimiSpur
There's always next year...
- Aug 9, 2008
- 5,844
- 6,751
Long term, not winning the Ashes will be beneficial to this England team. There are a few reasons we lost this series (techincally we may not lose it of course). Overall, this England team is obviously a far cry from the Test teams of the last decade. Therefore, the only way the powers that be will be "moved" into action and rectifying the situation, is with a series defeat.
Root as a captain is a big problem. He's been terrible. He failed to attack in situations where he could/ought to had. Zero tactics. Is this an attacking side? A defensive side? Neither I'd say. The absolute definition of winging it. And his batting performances have dropped dramatically too. He's looked average, whereas we all know he's a fantastic batsman.
Our batting lineup was a joke. Moving players around, persisting with excellent white ball players who plainly cannot cut it at Test level. It requires a completely different mindset and technique. I'm all for attacking intent and exciting players, but one of Roy/Buttler/Bairstow should be enough for one middle order. Not all three as the middle order. And with Australia's excellent bowling attack, having those 3 in your top/middle order, with a swinging/seaming red ball, is akin to building a house of cards in a tornado. Several times!
We were unlucky with Anderson being out. Our best bowler missing the series hampered our chances. As did Wood being out. He may be wayward at times, but a second bowler bowling 92mph rockets would have been a lot better than a tired looking Woakes or a pointless Overton. Stone also was a better option perhaps, so unlucky that he was out too.
Our bowling attack has looked poor at times. We brought in Archer who's gone from being a debutant to all our hopes being on his shoulders. That's a huge amount of pressure. "He took pressure well, look at the Super Over". I disagree. There's a difference in the pressure it takes to bowl a super over, and the pressure of bowling spell after spell at over 90mph and being the only bowler likely to get a wicket in the "middle overs" of 40-80.
Broad looked at his best, but ineffective once the ball got 15 overs old. Leach, despite his history making glasses cleaning, is in the side for his bowling, which is average. So we lacked an answer to Lyon's threat.
Their bowling attack was awesome. Hazlewood is phenomenal. Cummins is relentless. Backing them up with Siddle (who I don't rate but is annoyingly accurate), Pattinson and Starc, all of whom were able to be rotated and kept fresh, was the difference between the sides. The change bowlers are hugely important. When you are getting 93mph rockets from Archer and you're thinking "hold out, Stokes is coming on next who bowls the odd bad ball", it makes hanging on easy. When you're facing Hazlewood and you know Starc, Lyon or Pattinson are up next, there is no opportunity to "relax" and get into your innings.
The main difference in the sides of course, was Steve Smith. They had the odd good batting performance, as we did, but Smith was incredible. I've never seen anything like him. Take the 4th Test. He scored almost 300 runs, and we lost by 180 odd. Even if he scored half the runs, which would have been impressive, we probably would have won. He's been the massive difference. What I would say is that Root was terrible against him though, as were the bowlers. Bowl 7th stump. Starve him of scoring runs or get him doing something silly. We tried anything but that. I was massively disappointed in our tactics to him. We played straight into his hands, time after time. But you do have to give credit to him, obviously.
There have been some positives from this series of course. Archer looks to be a real star, however he can't do it alone. He's inexperienced and young and needs to be nurtured into the team. We were overly reliant on him and I don't think he was quite ready for the grueling 5 dayers against the likes of Smith.
Rory Burns is another massive positive also. Didn't expect much from him, but he's looked really impressive. Had his problems with the short ball, but he worked on that well and scored an impressive 81 in the 4th Test.
Stokes' innings at Headingley was the greatest cricketing moment(s) I've ever witnessed. I got into cricket in the 2005 series and that's by far the most exciting thing I've ever seen, which is saying something given the WC Final only a month earlier! When he scored those winning runs I was up on my feet.
Broad has looked good too, which is good to see. Especially to that **** Warner.
Well deserved win for Australia though. They were the better side, even if the main difference was effectively one bloke with a bat.
Root as a captain is a big problem. He's been terrible. He failed to attack in situations where he could/ought to had. Zero tactics. Is this an attacking side? A defensive side? Neither I'd say. The absolute definition of winging it. And his batting performances have dropped dramatically too. He's looked average, whereas we all know he's a fantastic batsman.
Our batting lineup was a joke. Moving players around, persisting with excellent white ball players who plainly cannot cut it at Test level. It requires a completely different mindset and technique. I'm all for attacking intent and exciting players, but one of Roy/Buttler/Bairstow should be enough for one middle order. Not all three as the middle order. And with Australia's excellent bowling attack, having those 3 in your top/middle order, with a swinging/seaming red ball, is akin to building a house of cards in a tornado. Several times!
We were unlucky with Anderson being out. Our best bowler missing the series hampered our chances. As did Wood being out. He may be wayward at times, but a second bowler bowling 92mph rockets would have been a lot better than a tired looking Woakes or a pointless Overton. Stone also was a better option perhaps, so unlucky that he was out too.
Our bowling attack has looked poor at times. We brought in Archer who's gone from being a debutant to all our hopes being on his shoulders. That's a huge amount of pressure. "He took pressure well, look at the Super Over". I disagree. There's a difference in the pressure it takes to bowl a super over, and the pressure of bowling spell after spell at over 90mph and being the only bowler likely to get a wicket in the "middle overs" of 40-80.
Broad looked at his best, but ineffective once the ball got 15 overs old. Leach, despite his history making glasses cleaning, is in the side for his bowling, which is average. So we lacked an answer to Lyon's threat.
Their bowling attack was awesome. Hazlewood is phenomenal. Cummins is relentless. Backing them up with Siddle (who I don't rate but is annoyingly accurate), Pattinson and Starc, all of whom were able to be rotated and kept fresh, was the difference between the sides. The change bowlers are hugely important. When you are getting 93mph rockets from Archer and you're thinking "hold out, Stokes is coming on next who bowls the odd bad ball", it makes hanging on easy. When you're facing Hazlewood and you know Starc, Lyon or Pattinson are up next, there is no opportunity to "relax" and get into your innings.
The main difference in the sides of course, was Steve Smith. They had the odd good batting performance, as we did, but Smith was incredible. I've never seen anything like him. Take the 4th Test. He scored almost 300 runs, and we lost by 180 odd. Even if he scored half the runs, which would have been impressive, we probably would have won. He's been the massive difference. What I would say is that Root was terrible against him though, as were the bowlers. Bowl 7th stump. Starve him of scoring runs or get him doing something silly. We tried anything but that. I was massively disappointed in our tactics to him. We played straight into his hands, time after time. But you do have to give credit to him, obviously.
There have been some positives from this series of course. Archer looks to be a real star, however he can't do it alone. He's inexperienced and young and needs to be nurtured into the team. We were overly reliant on him and I don't think he was quite ready for the grueling 5 dayers against the likes of Smith.
Rory Burns is another massive positive also. Didn't expect much from him, but he's looked really impressive. Had his problems with the short ball, but he worked on that well and scored an impressive 81 in the 4th Test.
Stokes' innings at Headingley was the greatest cricketing moment(s) I've ever witnessed. I got into cricket in the 2005 series and that's by far the most exciting thing I've ever seen, which is saying something given the WC Final only a month earlier! When he scored those winning runs I was up on my feet.
Broad has looked good too, which is good to see. Especially to that **** Warner.
Well deserved win for Australia though. They were the better side, even if the main difference was effectively one bloke with a bat.
Buggsy61
Washed Up Member
- Aug 31, 2012
- 5,648
- 9,068
4 out of 5 played remember, so still one to go, so we can still draw the series, although the Aussies will retain the ashes.
No grumbles over the results to date. They are marginally the better team, and in their own back yard, on hard bouncy pitches would be even further ahead I feel.
Ooops, thanks.
I might be right yet though.
Do you think England will drop anyone
and try a couple ahead of the winter tour?
I suppose not with as you say a possible draw.
LSUY
Well-Known Member
- Jul 12, 2005
- 24,027
- 66,879
Root stepping down as captain isn't going to make much difference in the long term. We're still going to have Ed Smith as selector, still have an ECB that favours the money making shorter formats over test cricket and still have a county system that's dying on its arse. England needs to start from scratch and build a system that can support all three England teams.
As for naming the same squad, would have preferred if they called up the likes of Sibley, Higgins and Northeast who have been good in the county championship this season.
As for naming the same squad, would have preferred if they called up the likes of Sibley, Higgins and Northeast who have been good in the county championship this season.
