When they’ve gone, will there be anybody with decent technique to replace them, or will they all try to hit the ball as far as they can as often as they can?They're kind of stuck with it now though aren't they? Too committed to change path. Not good enough to make the current path work and they burned their bridges by coming out and saying how much they hated playing for England before Bazball.
I fear we're in for a real period of stagnation until Stokes & friends are all retired, which could be 4/5 years.
This. 100%.T20 is destroying actual cricket.
England being England. We invented the phenomenon of the collapse. Nothing new.175 for 3, 218 all out. Thats pathetic
This chancer should not be playing for England.That Pope one - play straight and he'd probably have been fine, but playing at mid-on/midwicket charging... just seems like bad practice.
Is it as simple as that though AHT?When they’ve gone, will there be anybody with decent technique to replace them, or will they all try to hit the ball as far as they can as often as they can?
Young cricketers will follow the coin. T20 is destroying actual cricket.
Probably not, but both of those countries have far more participation in cricket than we do here, so weight of numbers helps them.Is it as simple as that though AHT?
I don't follow the cricket closely so please excuse my ignorance, but India has a strong T20 league, Australia the same, yet they both seem to be able to produce strong test match teams.
They're kind of stuck with it now though aren't they? Too committed to change path. Not good enough to make the current path work and they burned their bridges by coming out and saying how much they hated playing for England before Bazball.
I fear we're in for a real period of stagnation until Stokes & friends are all retired, which could be 4/5 years.
Shouldn’t be controversial at all. Even bairstow has scored more runs in this series and he is under huge pressure to keep his place.I don’t know whether this is a controversial take but I think Stokes is overrated as a batsman. As an all-round cricketer, I rated Flintoff more highly.
A 4-1 defeat would be a harsh scoreline but it should really be seen as an opportunity missed, especially given some notable absentees for India.
I don’t know whether this is a controversial take but I think Stokes is overrated as a batsman. As an all-round cricketer, I rated Flintoff more highly.
A 4-1 defeat would be a harsh scoreline but it should really be seen as an opportunity missed, especially given some notable absentees for India.
Don’t take this the wrong way, but do you use drugs?Knock em over (!!!) with them leading by no more than 120.
Post 550 and leave em chasing over 400 to win.
Simples; win by 270!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The three English all rounders are much of a muchness.
Botham at his peak was a better bowler than the other two. Early in his career absolutely world class..
Flintoff was capable of extraordinary spells as is Stokes.
I think Stokes is a better batsman than Botham as he can tough it out. Although Botham batted a lot against some of the finest bowlers of all time.
Having said all that Imran Khan had truly world class bowling stats and a higher batting average than these 3.
Whilst Kallis averaged 55 with the bat and took nearly 300 wickets
Imran and Hadlee are all time great fast bowlers. Their batting was secondary.Kallis always seemed to just pass under the radar.
When I first watched cricket, there were excellent all-rounders in many countries - Kapil Dev, Richard Hadlee, Imran.
Strange that I don't recall an Aussie allrounder at the time.
I agree that Botham was above Flintoff and Stokes. The point about the opposition is a good one - there isn't much like the West Indian attack of the time, and the Aussies had Lillee.