Timeless Test Continued

135678

Comments

  • Well, England were pathetic.

    Played Windies, but Hedgehog's post says a great deal.
  • Yay! A Test match win for England, with some good performances with bat and ball (but not necessarily catching ...). The West Indies really missed their captain, who wouldn't have let them lose heart and the loss of a bowler just when England were looking vulnerable in their second innings was very unfair. It got me thinking about substitutes for injured players.
  • And now a brilliant innings by Perera to take Sri Lanka over the line against South Africa with one wicket to spare. Test cricket has had some exciting matches recently!
  • JonahMan wrote: »
    And now a brilliant innings by Perera to take Sri Lanka over the line against South Africa with one wicket to spare. Test cricket has had some exciting matches recently!
    Yes, that was pretty impressive. 153 is awesome in itself, but when your closest teammate "only" manage 48, that is the definition of carrying a team on your back.

  • A pretty good win by England over the West Indies in the first ODI, but fancy a major factor being Chris Gayle scoring too slowly! He did look ring rusty and he didn't score off 61 balls on his way to the hundred. It was a decent century but even players as gifted as Chris Gayle have to get their eye in before a serious match.

    England had better watch out in the next match. The Coolest Man in Cricket could come out to bat bearing a grudge. If he makes a century batting poorly what will he make in form? 250?
  • Chris Gayle definitely got his eye in and in the most recent match looked like winning the match with a huge chase, albeit on a small ground. Had he not got out I'm sure the West Indies would have made the 419 needed, and the margin of 29 runs flattered England thanks to Adil Rashid taking four in five balls to end the game. Morgan really took a punt there: had Rashid gone for 15 or so, then the remainder off the last two overs would have been a piece of cake. As it was, the leggie got the wickets and the coolest man in cricket is left with his own thoughts.

    Meanwhile in New Zealand, Bangladesh seem to have set a "runs conceded as a result of a dropped chance" record. Latham was dropped second ball, the partnership made 254 and he went on to make 161.
  • I was going to comment on the Afghanistan v Ireland match, then I saw the news from Christchurch about the shootings at two mosques and 49 dead 🕯
  • sionisais wrote: »
    I was going to comment on the Afghanistan v Ireland match, then I saw the news from Christchurch about the shootings at two mosques and 49 dead 🕯
    You can see the match on Youtube. But yes, there are bigger things than sport.
  • JonahManJonahMan Shipmate
    Meanwhile England flatten Pakistan 4-0 in the ODI series and look utterly assured and dominant. Which I can only assume means they will limp out of the World Cup at the earliest opportunity.
  • sionisaissionisais Shipmate
    JonahMan wrote: »
    Meanwhile England flatten Pakistan 4-0 in the ODI series and look utterly assured and dominant. Which I can only assume means they will limp out of the World Cup at the earliest opportunity.

    At the moment 7 per over looks a par score for a 50 over match on the flat, slow pitches we get most of the time, albeit coupled to boundaries that would be about right for under-16 school cricket. More on a quicker pitch with a fast outfield. If I were playing England then I might would go hell-for-leather for wickets, for the first ten overs at least. That's right, off-stump line, two slips and gully, short leg, cover point, mid-off, third man, deep mid wicket, one between fine leg and square. I'd ease off later but keep a brave short leg to cut down on hooks and sweeps.

    Sioni, who hasn't played in thirty years!
  • PigletPiglet All Saints Host, Circus Host
    :confused: :confused: :confused:

    Piglet, who doesn't understand* cricket ... :mrgreen:

    * I'm (a) female; and (b) Scottish: I'm not supposed to.
  • SandemaniacSandemaniac Shipmate
    edited May 2019
    Well, I've run into a series of mildly bizarre happenings whilst playing recently. First Jeremy Irons turned out to watch - presumably as he was local to the ground he knew someone - then the weekend after we played at Thame where Robin Gibb is buried (celebrity theme). That's relevant as the ground is literally next to the churchyard - one of players bounced a big one off the wall.

    This weekend we played at Bledlow Village where I discovered that their president for many years had been Peter Carrington. Next weekend we will be based in Nijmegen where Carrington led the tanks that stormed the southern end of the bridge in 1944.

    I await with interest to see what happens next!

    AG
  • sionisaissionisais Shipmate
    Piglet wrote: »
    :confused: :confused: :confused:

    Piglet, who doesn't understand* cricket ... :mrgreen:

    * I'm (a) female; and (b) Scottish: I'm not supposed to.

    Simples. In limited overs cricket, such as we have in the World Cup, England go very hard for runs. I believe they go too hard. Your best chance is to take advantage of that and to do that you must take wickets. England may get a colossal score if you don't take wickets playing as I suggest (450 runs?), but if you don't play in this way, they will still manage to get 350 runs, which is usually enough. If you take wickets regularly they might not make 300, which gives you a chance.

    In short, your bowlers and fielders must play out of their skins. Batting is almost secondary.
  • PigletPiglet All Saints Host, Circus Host
    Maybe you should be running the English cricket team ... :smiley:
  • sionisaissionisais Shipmate
    Piglet wrote: »
    Maybe you should be running the English cricket team ... :smiley:

    They are doing pretty well thanks. I just have this feeling about the likeliest way they will be beaten.
  • SipechSipech Shipmate
    In all likelihood, we will be targeted by the other teams, who'll have observed how we play and will have come up with a counter-strategy. Then, once we're done with the pyjama cricket and return to the real game, it'll take until the 3rd test before we learn how to play in the longer format.
  • PigletPiglet All Saints Host, Circus Host
    Sipech wrote: »
    ... once we're done with the pyjama cricket ...
    I'm glad my Better Half isn't the only one who thinks playing cricket in pyjamas looks silly.

  • So England cope with a pitch that only enabled the scoring of 311 or so.

    Archer fires.

    Stokes back on form (hopefully not a flash in da pan).
  • So England cope with a pitch that only enabled the scoring of 311 or so.

    Archer fires.

    Stokes back on form (hopefully not a flash in da pan).

    This.

    I am enjoying how good England look right now.

    But, if I'm honest, I'm much more interested in regaining the Ashes...

    It's it wrong to want both though?

    AFZ
  • sionisaissionisais Shipmate
    So England cope with a pitch that only enabled the scoring of 311 or so.

    Archer fires.

    Stokes back on form (hopefully not a flash in da pan).

    South Africa gave themselves a chance, but they are a batsman short at the moment, and if Archer stays fit, England could intimidate people for the first time since Devon Malcolm in the Nineties (it was South Africans then too).

    If you drew a chart showing cricketers' ability, Stokes would be off the chart. He might not always deliver, but he is a very special performer. This World Cup has more of these than usual. Watch Afghanistan - someone will come unstuck against them!
  • Pakistan. Oh, the humanity! Those of a nervous disposition...
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    Once again the only thing I care about is the Ashes. All the rest is stretching and stuff. However, sports commentators must talk about the other stuff, and so here is Roy Slaven and HG Nelson's take on the Cricket World Cup. Now you should be aware that these chaps are from up north, and so they have a few strange ideas about the world of sport. You might also be unable to view the video, and so I will put the statement I want you to hear below:
    Roy and HG are convinced that Warner only asked Bancroft to put sandpaper down his pants as a hazing ritual. It was just a cruel jape gone wrong.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
    The Stokes catch was very special. And I understand his self criticism. Fact remains that given where he was and the trajectory of the ball that was just a stunning piece of cricket
  • HedgehogHedgehog Shipmate
    Pakistan. Oh, the humanity! Those of a nervous disposition...
    Hmmmmm. Pakistan seems to have bounced back from a bad first game...

  • They certainly have - closest game so far, that makes it all much more interesting!
  • Hedgehog wrote: »
    Pakistan. Oh, the humanity! Those of a nervous disposition...
    Hmmmmm. Pakistan seems to have bounced back from a bad first game...

    It's the mercurials! In their magificent flying machine. Down, up...
  • sionisaissionisais Shipmate
    Hedgehog wrote: »
    Pakistan. Oh, the humanity! Those of a nervous disposition...
    Hmmmmm. Pakistan seems to have bounced back from a bad first game...

    It's the mercurials! In their magificent flying machine. Down, up...

    England weren't at their best in the field, although 350 isn't a huge score at Trent Bridge. Root then let the state of the ball get inside his head and despite him and Buttler making hundreds, Pakistan got wickets often enough to keep the game tight.
  • sionisaissionisais Shipmate
    Everything has gone pretty well for England, and four from five looks good but they hve to play Sri Lanka, Australia, India and New Zealand. To be sure of making the semi-finals I reckon they must win three of those, and while Sri Lanka aren't what they were, the last three are all dangerous sides.

    That loss to Pakistan could haunt England for another four years.
  • HedgehogHedgehog Shipmate
    sionisais wrote: »
    To be sure of making the semi-finals I reckon they [England] must win three of those, and while Sri Lanka aren't what they were, the last three are all dangerous sides.
    Oh my.

    Note to self: Never Bet On Cricket.

  • sionisaissionisais Shipmate
    We haven’t had many really close games, but England have lost two against sides they should have beaten, according to form.

    Thinks: horse racing form is gospel truth compared to team sport form!
  • PigletPiglet All Saints Host, Circus Host
    More variables? After all, you've got 11 people in a cricket team who all need to be on form (and presumably getting on with one another). In racing, it's just one bloke and a horse, with a few environmental variables - hard or soft grass, or whatever.
  • sionisaissionisais Shipmate
    Piglet wrote: »
    More variables? After all, you've got 11 people in a cricket team who all need to be on form (and presumably getting on with one another). In racing, it's just one bloke and a horse, with a few environmental variables - hard or soft grass, or whatever.

    Very likely, especially the morale and teamwork factors. Even 20-over games take 3 hours while few horse races take more than ten minutes. Thoroughbred racehorses are temperamental but basically stupid and I'd say that your average cricketer is more intelligent than your typical jockey.
  • England 39-3 chasing 286... feck, maybe I'll worry about whether our T20 will go ahead tonight given that it's wetter than an otter's pocket at the mo.

    AG
  • sionisaissionisais Shipmate
    Wicket taking does appear to be the key. England's chance of winning this is close to that of winning at Headingley in 1981.
  • England seem to have forgotten how to play...

    I blame myself, of course. I never should have allowed myself to become optimistic. I know better.

    They've just not been good enough in the last two games.
  • sionisaissionisais Shipmate
    England have won four, including three easy matches. They have lost two matches any side with ambitions to being champions would have won (Sri Lanka by 20 runs, Pakistan by 14 runs) and only against Australia have they been outclassed.

    That's not to say they have been any use.
  • sionisais wrote: »
    England have won four, including three easy matches. They have lost two matches any side with ambitions to being champions would have won (Sri Lanka by 20 runs, Pakistan by 14 runs) and only against Australia have they been outclassed.

    That's not to say they have been any use.

    Indeed. As I think I've written on this thread before, I am in the camp that thinks the one-day game isn't really cricket but I dabble from time to time.

    Over the last 4 years, England's one-day side has beaten everyone, playing extremely well and consistently. As you say, the losses they have had are not in keeping with a team seriously challenging for the title. The problem is that prior to the tournament starting, their form completely justified the 'favourites' label - it's the huge drop in performance level that's bothering me.

    AFZ
  • Here's an article on English Cricket with a few extrapolations to English sport in general from an Englishman who works for the ABC. It's a classic case of the English tearing each other down, which I have always found hugely entertaining. Sack the Captain I say!
  • sionisaissionisais Shipmate
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    Here's an article on English Cricket with a few extrapolations to English sport in general from an Englishman who works for the ABC. It's a classic case of the English tearing each other down, which I have always found hugely entertaining. Sack the Captain I say!

    The skipper would be the perfect sacrifice as Eoin Morgan is Irish by birth!
  • I'm not surprised. This is English cricket after all.
  • I thought the bees were gone in Europe. Beemageddon?
  • Not just England that face their day of reckoning tomorrow. I've been muttering lately that I'm getting close to 1000 runs for my club (over a mere 16 seasons...) but, as I usually bowl a full spell, and bat 9-10-jack I rarely get a chance to bat and get a bit closer.

    Me and my big mouth! I'm opening tomorrow!

    The bees reminded me of this: https://www.cricketcountry.com/articles/when-lords-was-almost-bombed-during-a-cricket-match-402798

    AG
  • So much for opening. Listening to TMS in bed whilst waiting for the next eruption to send me frantically bathroom-wards. Dunno what I've eaten, especially as SWMBO is absolutely fine, but this wasn't the sort of runs I was hoping for!

    AG
  • Oh. I was trying to think of some pun, but, you poor thing.

    Currently, we've recovered to 260/3. What can we get? What's a good score?!
  • Five overs to go, Stokes and Buttler in, 289-4... Could be 340, could be 305-8.
  • 337-7 in the end... I reckon India should open with Bumrah as he seemed to be the only man on the pitch not rattled by it all. Actually, that's a bit harsh - they bowled very well for ten overs to keep the score down. Had Roy and YJB kept going, could have been a lot more.

    AG
  • Nails meet teeth, teeth meet nails.
  • Sharma goes... is it enough? It's going to be tight, but India have managed a big chase beautifully up until now, and they have wickets in hand...

    Still don't dare to think about squeaky bum time.

    AG
  • Getting close... 71 off 5 overs with 5 wickets...
Sign In or Register to comment.