Cricket Thread

[waspish]

Right decision but what happens when you dont have a wicket keeper who keeps all the time!

Lets hope that dont cost us

 

[chris63]

Bairstow. Just not good enough.

 

[Chipmeister]

Another Bairstow error, been so costly this series

 

[i kne albert davy]

That will be a moment people often come back to, but for me it wasn't why we lost the test. Poor fielding cost us.

Yep you’re probably right, but first rule of cricket make sure you can’t lose before winning :-)

 

[ancoats]

Don't try and kid us mate - you'd be slagging England off for this approach if we were in the same position as Australia are at the moment with the Ashes retained and us 2-1 up in the series!

if we were in control and just sitting in and just defending then yes I probably would moan because I think it's the wrong thing to do on the 2nd morning of the tests, The Aussies were going nowhere after bowling England out for a low-ish score and only 1 down with over 60 runs on the board,

 

[jimharri]

Bairstow is a liability as a keeper. Too many errors.

 

[supercity88]

Right decision but what happens when you dont have a wicket keeper who keeps all the time!

Lets hope that dont cost us

Sadly that has already cost us in this series! It was a huge call to play Bairstow as a wicket keeper. His form before the injury was exceptional so I get why he had to come in. But Stokes should have weighed up how well he'd keep wicket considering it was a double leg break. It was between Pope, Bairstow, Brook and Foakes and he decided Foakes was the weakest with the bat so dropped him. That's fine, but because of his injuries Bairstow cost us far too many runs and ignoring his 99 not out, because it was irrelevant in the end, he's averages about 20 which Foakes would have contributed whilst taking those chances.

This Aussie side were there for the taking, especially with that Lyon injury, but sadly that decision cost us.

 

[Jesus H Gabz]

Bit harsh on Bairstow that, watch it in full speed, he has to come around the stumps to take the ball without getting in front of the throw (in case of a direct hit) it was just unfortunate, the throw was quick & very low, I thought it was a good bit of cricket with an element of misfortune….fine margins

 

[chesterbells]

Bairstow. Just not good enough.

Agreed. And how many times does it need saying?

 

[supercity88]

Bit harsh on Bairstow that, watch it in full speed, he has to come around the stumps to take the ball without getting in front of the throw (in case of a direct hit) it was just unfortunate, the throw was quick & very low, I thought it was a good bit of cricket with an element of misfortune….fine margins

Yeah I wouldn't blame him for that, very hard to take the ball in real time without brushing the stumps. It was still out anyway in my opinion.