The International Cricket Thread

[Beard82]

I get we were shit before Baz ball - but I don't understand why it has to be all or nothing. 

we played perfectly for most of yesterday - Oz started bowling short, so we decided we had to go after it.  It failed for us - why keep doing it.

Otherwise, are we just going to say that Bazball works so long as people don't try to combat it?

[paul_e]

I just wish I could understand how Stokes is being praised for his 'sensible' 17 but Brook, Duckett, Crawley and Pope are all brainless and have 'given the test away' despite putting the best part of 250 runs on between them.

Because with a bit more guile, they could've got more?

Or, as Stokes showed, they could've scored far fewer and then been done by a good delivery. My problem with all of the wailing on this thread right now is the absolute certainty you all seem to have that if we'd just not played hook shots we'd have been looking a big first inning lead and have won the game easily.

Yep it’s only Stokes who’s actually been got out.

They really need to reflect. Because this is two games where we’ve just handed the initiative to them.

They could have a blinding bowling innings or the tail could wag, but the percentages are really against it.

How many bonus runs do we get because he was 'got out' instead of giving his wicket away?

[PaulTheVillan]

Ouch

[OzVilla]

Tailender but still another horrible looking slog against a part time bowler.

[PaulWinch again]

I just wish I could understand how Stokes is being praised for his 'sensible' 17 but Brook, Duckett, Crawley and Pope are all brainless and have 'given the test away' despite putting the best part of 250 runs on between them.

Because with a bit more guile, they could've got more?

Or, as Stokes showed, they could've scored far fewer and then been done by a good delivery. My problem with all of the wailing on this thread right now is the absolute certainty you all seem to have that if we'd just not played hook shots we'd have been looking a big first inning lead and have won the game easily.

Yep it’s only Stokes who’s actually been got out.

They really need to reflect. Because this is two games where we’ve just handed the initiative to them.

They could have a blinding bowling innings or the tail could wag, but the percentages are really against it.

How many bonus runs do we get because he was 'got out' instead of giving his wicket away?

Well it’s more could he have got more runs? No, because he was got out. Could all the others have got more? Yes.

[Monty]

If Root isn't getting himself out it takes a hell of a ball to get him. Likewise Brook, likewise Pope. Stoke isn't in the best of nick at the minute so it's not the best comparison I'd venture!

[olaftab]

And Head pops up with two wickets...unbelievable.

[PaulWinch again]

I just wish I could understand how Stokes is being praised for his 'sensible' 17 but Brook, Duckett, Crawley and Pope are all brainless and have 'given the test away' despite putting the best part of 250 runs on between them.

Because with a bit more guile, they could've got more?

Or, as Stokes showed, they could've scored far fewer and then been done by a good delivery. My problem with all of the wailing on this thread right now is the absolute certainty you all seem to have that if we'd just not played hook shots we'd have been looking a big first inning lead and have won the game easily.

Yep it’s only Stokes who’s actually been got out.

They really need to reflect. Because this is two games where we’ve just handed the initiative to them.

They could have a blinding bowling innings or the tail could wag, but the percentages are really against it.

How many bonus runs do we get because he was 'got out' instead of giving his wicket away?

Also it’s not wailing if someone doesn’t agree with your opinion. It’s not binary either - there is a middle ground between digging in and blocking and slogging it to a field that has been set up for that exact purpose. You can still be aggressive and smart.

[German James]

My problem with all of the wailing on this thread right now is the absolute certainty you all seem to have that if we'd just not played hook shots we'd have been looking a big first inning lead and have won the game easily.

I honestly don't think anyone's saying that. It's just that relentlessly going after everything makes the chances of getting out too easily more likely.

[paul_e]

I get we were shit before Baz ball - but I don't understand why it has to be all or nothing. 

we played perfectly for most of yesterday - Oz started bowling short, so we decided we had to go after it.  It failed for us - why keep doing it.

Otherwise, are we just going to say that Bazball works so long as people don't try to combat it?

Who is making it all or nothing though? All of these complaints are basically summed up by "I don't care how many runs a player has scored, if he was out because of his own decisions then he was wrong and has let us down and he should've played more safely."


I do understand the frustration and I get why it's so easy to say things like the bold bit but look at it from the other side, if we show that as soon as we get some short stuff we'll go into our shell and stop playing our own game we just encourage teams to do it to us whenever they want to get a bit of control.

[Risso]

I just wish I could understand how Stokes is being praised for his 'sensible' 17 but Brook, Duckett, Crawley and Pope are all brainless and have 'given the test away' despite putting the best part of 250 runs on between them.

Because with a bit more guile, they could've got more?

Or, as Stokes showed, they could've scored far fewer and then been done by a good delivery. My problem with all of the wailing on this thread right now is the absolute certainty you all seem to have that if we'd just not played hook shots we'd have been looking a big first inning lead and have won the game easily.

Yep it’s only Stokes who’s actually been got out.

They really need to reflect. Because this is two games where we’ve just handed the initiative to them.

They could have a blinding bowling innings or the tail could wag, but the percentages are really against it.

How many bonus runs do we get because he was 'got out' instead of giving his wicket away?

Well, that's a bit of a trite argument to be fair. You can never predict anything with certainty, otherwise we'd all be gambling millionaires, but it's safe to say that once you throw your wicket away, you're definitely not going to score any more. If you don't, then you might.

[OzVilla]

This was always my worry with Bazball. A disciplined, quality attack would be too good for it unless you can adapt a bit. We simply haven’t.

[Risso]

All done, last five wickets for 47. Dire.

[simon ward 50]

Shockingly naïve cricket from England for the second Test match running. 

[PaulWinch again]

Again you don’t have to go into your shell - you can play it down, score, and make them bring the field in. Teams can’t just bowl relentlessly short, it knackers you. It’s a short-term thing.

In any case need to bowl them out for less than 250 now.