******Cricket Thread******

[Neville Kneville]

I suggested similar in the first test and got ridiculed. They seem to get out by trying to not get out.

Play a more natural free scoring game and maybe the pressure would swing back on the bowlers.

It's reaching the stage where there is nothing to lose, because most of them are not making any runs attempting different. Roy & Buttler are genius level players at attacking the ball, but don't appear to have any great ability defending it. I don't understand the theory behind picking them otherwise.

Be interesting to see if Archer can get into their one decent batsman. It would also have been interesting to see Smith, facing Lillie & Thompson or the West Indies, without a helmet, with his style & see how good he really is.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

Roy employed that strategy and lasted three balls....

Sneaky Aussies nailed his feet to the floor though.

Almost no-one can succeed as an opener if they don't move their feet.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

I suggested similar in the first test and got ridiculed. They seem to get out by trying to not get out.

Play a more natural free scoring game and maybe the pressure would swing back on the bowlers.

Burns has a hundred and a fifty. Someone must be able to work out what he's doing.

 

[Neville Kneville]

Tavare and Gooch. They'd probably still be better, although there may not be much running.

Never really liked Pietersen myself. Maybe Allan Lamb.

Pieterson was the leading figure behind sticking it up the Aussies though, whether folks like him or not.

We also had some great openers with Vaughan, Strauss, Cook, even Trescothick when he had his shit together. Nice mix of solid players & attacking mentalists. And we had fast bowlers, rather than medium pacers.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

Pieterson was the leading figure behind sticking it up the Aussies though, whether folks like him or not.

We also had some great openers with Vaughan, Strauss, Cook, even Trescothick when he had his shit together. Nice mix of solid players & attacking mentalists. And we had fast bowlers, rather than medium pacers.

The openers bit, we really did. They'd often be out for a while, and discourage the bowlers. The current XI doesn't have enough limpets.

I don't much care for Stokes either, he appears to be an arse a lot of the time, but occasionally gets a big score.

 

[Neville Kneville]

Roy employed that strategy and lasted three balls....

He is constantly trying to play an unnatural game though, to try & be a 'solid' opener & ends up neither attacking nor defending properly, just shitting himself.

 

[Gareth Barry Conlon]

Pieterson was the leading figure behind sticking it up the Aussies though, whether folks like him or not.

We also had some great openers with Vaughan, Strauss, Cook, even Trescothick when he had his shit together. Nice mix of solid players & attacking mentalists. And we had fast bowlers, rather than medium pacers.

Yes but he would stick it to his team mates as well. Much stronger characters in that generation.

 

[mccity]

What are the odds on the Aussies getting a new ball early?

 

[Neville Kneville]

The openers bit, we really did. They'd often be out for a while, and discourage the bowlers. The current XI doesn't have enough limpets.

I don't much care for Stokes either, he appears to be an arse a lot of the time, but occasionally gets a big score.

He would probably be brilliant in a team with a solid batting base though, as would Bairstow.

 

[M18CTID]

Yes but he would stick it to his team mates as well. Much stronger characters in that generation.

I watched that Pietersen documentary on Sky and to be honest it came across as six of one, half a dozen of the other. Sure, he can be a bellend, but it seemed there were plenty of other bellends in that dressing room too.