yet he did survive 2 overs at it.
all he had to do was keep bat and gloves away from the ball and block the yorkers.
But then he’s not getting 2/3 an over if he’s just surviving.
You can’t say you want broad and stokes to be getting 3/4 single an over and then say I’m sure Broad could survive blocking out an over in which he’ll get no runs. Then stokes gets a single off day 1 and what? He then survives another 5 blocking?
when there's 1 or 2 early then take them and put pressure on.
stokes was limiting himself to 1 and over or a hack for 6.
Whata the alternative though? Take 1 from first ball and hope B-road either survives 5 in a row (lot harder as can actually set up with a plan) or he plays a **** through the infield to get 1/2 or a boundary?
Should always do what your opponent doesn’t want. And australia wanted stokes to take a single from ball 1
Well given they got within 40 nearly they could have taken the singles and had bazzball faith in themselves
better than closing eyes and swinging in the one direction you couldn't afford to.
Or broad could have been bowled next delivery and everyone says why the hell could you take a single off ball 1?!
Hindsight is a wonderful thing
Still rumbling on in certain sections of the media....schoolboy error from Bairstow.....simple as that
That's right,the previous day the decision went against the Aussies. On this occasion it went against England.......tough ****.yeah, I see no mention of the catch that was a catch but rubbed on the ground
That's right,the previous day the decision went against the Aussies. On this occasion it went against England.......tough ****.
Totally different.It's embarrassing. Apart from the fact that we did it to NZ some time ago, had Bairstow done that to the Aussies, especially had it been Smith or Warner, he'd have been cheered to the rafters and carried on the shoulders of his teammates through a rapturous Long Room.![]()