cricket world cup 2015

I saw on Sky that since Trott left, our number 3's have averaged something like 22 runs, with only Taylor batting above 25 (with a pretty impressive 45 from his 8 games). So why the fuck is he not batting at 3? Not that it matters with our bowling attack, who would struggle to get 10 wickets if the other team didn't turn up. Tredwell is our only bowler capable of at least making it tough for the opposition to score, so why doesn't he play? He's like Vettori, though obviously not as good, but he so rarely goes for more than 5 an over. Broad should never play again, he's utter shite and has been for years
 
BigOscar said:
I saw on Sky that since Trott left, our number 3's have averaged something like 22 runs, with only Taylor batting above 25 (with a pretty impressive 45 from his 8 games). So why the fuck is he not batting at 3? Not that it matters with our bowling attack, who would struggle to get 10 wickets if the other team didn't turn up. Tredwell is our only bowler capable of at least making it tough for the opposition to score, so why doesn't he play? He's like Vettori, though obviously not as good, but he so rarely goes for more than 5 an over. Broad should never play again, he's utter shite and has been for years
Agreed, Plunkett shouldve gone to the wc
 
Has there ever been a period in English sport where we have had such a poor choice as coach for all 3 main jobs. Football - Hodgson, Rugby - Lancaster and Moores in Cricket. Sure we have had bad in all 3 jobs but not at the same time.
 
JoeMercer'sWay said:
now that's an ass kicking, that's how far England are behind, when a pitch is worth 350/400 England score 300, when it's worth 300 they score 200/250.

Miles behind.
England stuck in the old ways, as always, in my opinion we have the players on the county circuit who could easily fire England near 300/350 every time. But that's not the England way. How many other teams have nearly the same test and ODI side? Stokes, Roy, Vince, Dunn, Billings, Rashid, Lees, Kieswetter etc. should all come in as soon as possible when available and no test players like Balance or players out of form like Morgan.
 
Was chatting with a pal of mine - from Bangalore, Karnataka...gorgeous state - last night and I said as dead-pan as I could "You do know we are going to end beneath... Afghanistan at this rate? Afghani-bloody-stan!" He just bit his lip and looked away: then we both laughed, and sighed; laughed, and sighed. Perhaps it was the ale rather than the flow of soul?
 
Ell-ano said:
JoeMercer'sWay said:
now that's an ass kicking, that's how far England are behind, when a pitch is worth 350/400 England score 300, when it's worth 300 they score 200/250.

Miles behind.
England stuck in the old ways, as always, in my opinion we have the players on the county circuit who could easily fire England near 300/350 every time. But that's not the England way. How many other teams have nearly the same test and ODI side? Stokes, Roy, Vince, Dunn, Billings, Rashid, Lees, Kieswetter etc. should all come in as soon as possible when available and no test players like Balance or players out of form like Morgan.

Ballance is a very good one day player, at 5 or 6. He's never played 3 for Yorkshire, he was given no prep and has been asked to do that for England. I'd happily keep him in the side but not at 3.
 
without a dream said:
Ell-ano said:
JoeMercer'sWay said:
now that's an ass kicking, that's how far England are behind, when a pitch is worth 350/400 England score 300, when it's worth 300 they score 200/250.

Miles behind.
England stuck in the old ways, as always, in my opinion we have the players on the county circuit who could easily fire England near 300/350 every time. But that's not the England way. How many other teams have nearly the same test and ODI side? Stokes, Roy, Vince, Dunn, Billings, Rashid, Lees, Kieswetter etc. should all come in as soon as possible when available and no test players like Balance or players out of form like Morgan.

Ballance is a very good one day player, at 5 or 6. He's never played 3 for Yorkshire, he was given no prep and has been asked to do that for England. I'd happily keep him in the side but not at 3.
Making it all the more baffling that we forced our only succesful number 3 in years down to number 6 to accomodate him in a position he can't play. You do wonder about what on earth the ECB are thinking when they make decisions like that.
 
I'm just wondering how much of the mantra "It's the taking part that counts and there are no losers" has had on the way our sportsmen and women approach professional sport,has the happy clapping ideology made them content losers?
 
BigOscar said:
without a dream said:
Ell-ano said:
England stuck in the old ways, as always, in my opinion we have the players on the county circuit who could easily fire England near 300/350 every time. But that's not the England way. How many other teams have nearly the same test and ODI side? Stokes, Roy, Vince, Dunn, Billings, Rashid, Lees, Kieswetter etc. should all come in as soon as possible when available and no test players like Balance or players out of form like Morgan.

Ballance is a very good one day player, at 5 or 6. He's never played 3 for Yorkshire, he was given no prep and has been asked to do that for England. I'd happily keep him in the side but not at 3.
Making it all the more baffling that we forced our only succesful number 3 in years down to number 6 to accomodate him in a position he can't play. You do wonder about what on earth the ECB are thinking when they make decisions like that.

It's not baffling it's what the ECB and the management have done for years! They think playing Ballance at 3 he would hold down the end stay in to the innings ends and the likes Morgan Buttler smash it later in the innings! That for me is cricket from 20 years ago...
 
waspish said:
BigOscar said:
without a dream said:
Ballance is a very good one day player, at 5 or 6. He's never played 3 for Yorkshire, he was given no prep and has been asked to do that for England. I'd happily keep him in the side but not at 3.
Making it all the more baffling that we forced our only succesful number 3 in years down to number 6 to accomodate him in a position he can't play. You do wonder about what on earth the ECB are thinking when they make decisions like that.

It's not baffling it's what the ECB and the management have done for years! They think playing Ballance at 3 he would hold down the end stay in to the innings ends and the likes Morgan Buttler smash it later in the innings! That for me is cricket from 20 years ago...

You are spot on there and it is so frustrating. You look at the Aussies and they've got a mix of big hitters and stroke players through their side. Looking at the top talent across all teams and it's the players who can play test cricket punishing the loose ball. They run well between the wickets and any poor ball is despatched for a boundary. Sangakarra being the prime example. The Aussies open with Finch who can smack it miles but isn't really the best cricketer technically. It's a risk but it works. Someone like Roy would do similarly. They play the game perfectly as seen today - Smith just rotating the strike, not playing loose shots and Warner hitting the quick runs. England have players like Bell who can just keep rotating the strike and then despatch the odd 4 here and there and then we need more explosive players to come in and score quickly. Instead, once Moeen or Bell are out we send in Ballance who is most definitely not a 3 - he plays his best cricket down the order.

Taylor should be in a 3 as he can build an innings and either keep momentum or dig in as required. Root is generally quite good at accumulating runs but what England fail to do is capitalise when players are set. We don't get to 50 then accelerate we get out. All the best teams have at least one player up the order who can score quick runs and they also accelerate when they are set. England remain one of the rare sides where strike rates for the batsman are largely below 1 run a ball.
 
waspish said:
BigOscar said:
without a dream said:
Ballance is a very good one day player, at 5 or 6. He's never played 3 for Yorkshire, he was given no prep and has been asked to do that for England. I'd happily keep him in the side but not at 3.
Making it all the more baffling that we forced our only succesful number 3 in years down to number 6 to accomodate him in a position he can't play. You do wonder about what on earth the ECB are thinking when they make decisions like that.

It's not baffling it's what the ECB and the management have done for years! They think playing Ballance at 3 he would hold down the end stay in to the innings ends and the likes Morgan Buttler smash it later in the innings! That for me is cricket from 20 years ago...
I reckon the idea was that Ballance would play the same role Trott did, get a run a ball 100/50 or whatever and everyone else goes nuts around him. Doesn't work though when your middle order collapses at every in-convenient moment possible.
 
JoeMercer'sWay said:
guarantee we won't score 400+ and beat Afghanistan by 275 runs.

Well that is a World Cup record and we're an average team so what would you expect?
 
crooky said:
JoeMercer'sWay said:
guarantee we won't score 400+ and beat Afghanistan by 275 runs.

Well that is a World Cup record and we're an average team so what would you expect?

I dunno, probably just the fuddy-duddies at the ECB shitting themselves if they see one of the Afghan players carrying a backpack.
 
foetus said:
Warner and Smith taking the absolute piss atm

edit. warner just out for 178.

Warner looked so bloody good! Was going at a rapid rate even without hitting any sixes for the first 80ish runs then after he went into overdrive. Great ODI innings.

Also Maxwell what a scary prospect for any bowler when he can seemingly hit sixes anywhere in the ground with some amazing shots.

Some huge sixes from Afghanistan as well lol!
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top