The Cricket Thread
- Thread starter TheSecondStain
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
Disagree. Smith made by far the bigger error by not enforcing the follow on. I can see the logic of Root choosing to bowl first. However I cannot understand for the life of me why Smith didn't enforce the follow on. It was such an obvious decision.
Have no problem with opposition players being pillocks....it should be a requirement.
The only logic I can think of is that the Aussie bowlers said they wanted a rest, and at that stage it looked basically impossible for England to have any chance of winning so he went along with their wishes.
I thought I read that Smith made the decision on his own , might be wrong though .
Had he not been passing up the chance to bowl in the night session on day three, I think Smith would have entirely correct to not enforce the FO. As we (Hampshire) showed just a few months ago, giving your opponents the opportunity to haul themselves back into the match and set you something tricky, can prove very costly. I'd rather crush the opponents into the ground by setting them something big, and if they chase it down then fair play.
But passing up the chance to bowl in the night session cannot be ignored. That should have been the number one factor (fitness of the bowlers permitting - and Starc said they were ready), and hence the FO should have been enforced.
As it is, I think Simon Mann's call of 70:30 in favour of the Aussies is bang on. I would be surprised if we managed to win, but we have given ourselves a sniff. Either Moeen or Bairstow will surely need to finally come to the Ashes party, mind you.
But passing up the chance to bowl in the night session cannot be ignored. That should have been the number one factor (fitness of the bowlers permitting - and Starc said they were ready), and hence the FO should have been enforced.
As it is, I think Simon Mann's call of 70:30 in favour of the Aussies is bang on. I would be surprised if we managed to win, but we have given ourselves a sniff. Either Moeen or Bairstow will surely need to finally come to the Ashes party, mind you.
Normal service resumed!! What next? Our two best batsmen really need to make big centuries but that is a trifle difficult when, at the other end, there is a rabbiit exposed in the headlights.
I did not really expect us to win , though we may have done , but when the first 2 wickets fell for no runs , it was a real shame .
Smith admitting to taking sleeping pills. Surely this counts as a PED? Wouldn’t perform as well if he was knackered.
I think the whole England team were on sleeping pills.
The difference was that they took them before going out to bat unfortunately.
I can’t see a way to beat this Aussie team at the moment. I would suggest giving Cook a break, but who would replace him? Stoneman, Vince, and Malan are nearly there but all need to step up a lot. As for the bowling, we are badly missing Stokes but for the Perth conditions we need an out and out quickie, 90 mph plus, and there just isn’t one, unless Mark Wood is fit.
The sad thing is that the Aussies although quite handy are not that brilliant. Our batting has been average at best and the bowlers have been inconsistent. This is going to be an uphill struggle for the rest of the series, or at least until the Ashes are lost.
Stokes has got to take his share of the blame for this.
Stokes has got to take his share of the blame for this.
Sorry , don't agree with that at all .
If we , as an international squad facing Australia are so dependant on one person , something is wrong . I know we are not the first , Mcgrath tripping over the ball etc, but to blame Stokes, even in part , is not right IMHO , though I expect I am in a minority .
I agree with you Jasper, a touring party has to stand on its own merits, regardless of who’s not there. We are missing Stokes but that means the others have to do better. The fact is the others just aren’t good enough, and even if Stokes was there we wouldn’t be as good as the Aussies in their home grounds.
Stokes is a vital player in batting, bowling and fielding. Who knows what his presence would have given England but without one of our best players we are failing miserably. You are both right to say that we should be able to compete even without him, but I don't believe we are that strong a side not to notice his absence.
Even before the night club incident Stokes has a record of poor behaviour on and off the pitch http://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/20826403/ben-stokes-line-trouble . It was thought that giving him the England vice captaincy would help him settle down with the added responsibility, instead of that he has just carried on in the same way. This time though it has meant that England have to defend the Ashes without one of it's most crucial players and for that I still think he has to accept some blame.
Let’s face it, they are mens’ men and quite a few of ours don’t like their bully boy behaviour and have been out of their games by the nasty boys.
We need to grow a few pairs.
We need to grow a few pairs.
I accept that Stokes is to blame for not being there, but what’s done is done, and as I said earlier, we simply need to play better to beat the Aussies. Better batting, bowling and fielding is a must if we’re to get anything other than a humiliating whitewash out of this series. I’m not convinced that Stokes would have improved things enough to have got results so far. As Fats implies, the men in the baggy green caps have the upper hand psychologically now, and only Stuart Broad seems to be able to dish out any verbals in return. If he could bowl as well as Jimmy we might have done better.
.