The International Cricket Thread

[paul_e]

Stokes came out really keen to attack but it's backfired a bit with him going for 46. I get the idea though, the plan is to get as close to their total as we can but with as much of day 4 left as possible, it's the only way we can win from here so it don't think it was a great shock to see as soon as we avoided the follow-on.

[Steve67]

Shame, would have been nice to watch a hour of Ben Stokes at his attacking best. 

[paul_e]

I think we'll still see them playing positive because I suspect when Stokes went in it was with the intent to get to 500 today. The difference now is that Foakes will work more in 1s and 2s, I think Root will carry on being aggressive.


I'm not sure the commentators have really understood the point though, banging on about Stokes giving NZ the initiative.

[Flamingo Lane]

I think we'll still see them playing positive because I suspect when Stokes went in it was with the intent to get to 500 today. The difference now is that Foakes will work more in 1s and 2s, I think Root will carry on being aggressive.


I'm not sure the commentators have really understood the point though, banging on about Stokes giving NZ the initiative.

In which case I'm not sure I've understood the point either, Stokes having essentially just given away his wicket with a totally reckless shot, in pursuit of what strategic purpose?

[PaulWinch again]

I like Cook and Mo on TMS, both insightful and entertaining.

[Villan For Life]

I’m enjoying this positive approach from England, it really reflects how McCullum played the game and he’s taken that approach into his coaching career.

This morning I expected a typical England collapse but the shift is interesting to see. Hopefully it will continue.

[paul_e]

I think we'll still see them playing positive because I suspect when Stokes went in it was with the intent to get to 500 today. The difference now is that Foakes will work more in 1s and 2s, I think Root will carry on being aggressive.


I'm not sure the commentators have really understood the point though, banging on about Stokes giving NZ the initiative.

In which case I'm not sure I've understood the point either, Stokes having essentially just given away his wicket with a totally reckless shot, in pursuit of what strategic purpose?

If we'd just played safe, sensible cricket and got the end of the day with about 400 runs on the board we pretty much give away any chance of winning the game and it becomes a case of trying to survive. By pushing the run rate and getting near to parity by the end of the day we open up the slim chance of winning the game. It's something we'd never have done before but now we've got a captain who's willing to take risks to opent he game up and a coach that will encourage him to do it.

A bad shot is a bad shot but a quick 46 did more for us at the time than him getting 40-50 runs by the end of play.

[UK Redsox]

Not arguing that Stokes was right to push things along, but he’d already failed with a slog sweep earlier in the over and then shown that he could hit it out the ground straight.

He should have stuck with the latter plan.

That is the expert opinion of UK Redsox……one game for Lydney CC 1st XI

[paul_e]

Not arguing that Stokes was right to push things along, but he’d already failed with a slog sweep earlier in the over and then shown that he could hit it out the ground straight.

He should have stuck with the latter plan.

That is the expert opinion of UK Redsox……one game for Lydney CC 1st XI

It was a poor shot, I just don't like seeing him criticised for trying to engineer a chance for us to win the game, we've spent years moaning about how defensive England are and literally the first time our new captain goes on the offence he's had people moaning about him not playing it safe.

[cdbearsfan]

Yeah. I think England had already got to a position where they could, perhaps should, avoid defeat. The only chance we have of winning is if Stokes does something ridiculous like smashing 150 off 90 balls, which he is quite capable of doing. He was on 46 so not like he had just arrived at the crease. He feels he's got his eye in and you want your most dangerous batters to attack in those circumstances. He just misjudged the shot. It happens.

[KevinGage]

It does, but the warning was there before.

It seemed like brainless cricket in the match situation.

If he feels he has the measure of Bracewell (bearing in mind he already had eight from the over at that stage), toy with him.  He's talented enough to switch it up. Put the bat away for a delivery or two (unless it's a gimme) and make sure Latham keeps him on for the next few overs.

Block a few and make Bracewell feel like he's in the game. Then break his spirit by going down the ground once or twice per over- but be selective. The imperative there wasn't to smash a quick 40 in one day mode, throwing caution to the wind. 

But he's the captain of the Test side and McCullum is the coach, so this is how it's going to be, I guess. For good or for ill.

[paul_e]

The morning has gone exactly as I expected, England trying to score quick and making a few mistakes as a result. The only really poor part was Potts completely selling out Foakes, once he called it he had to keep running, his wicket was worth a lot less than foakes'.

Regardless it means pretty much parity with 5 1/2 sessions to play, NZ will want at least 250 lead before they consider putting us in and they're going to know they need most of day 5 to bowl us so I expect them to look to kick on with the rate pretty quickly. On that basis I'd go all out attack in the first 15-20 overs to try for a few early wickets to really put them on the back foot.

[Meanwood Villa]

Disappointed not to see Root get his double ton and you'd think we'd have got a lead if he had

[UK Redsox]

Oh Jimmy Jimmy

650

[paul_e]

I think we're a bit unlucky to only have taken 1 so far, this has been a superb spell of bowling.