Yes, blame one of two players who made the chase even remotely possible. Makes sense.
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
-
He's probably the least to blame for the defeat.
Disagree completely. If Brook ((no S) hadn’t gone on the charge, we would never have got close to the total. It was a gamble, and it failed, but someone had to go on the slog. If Stokes had been playing, it would have been him.
I thought so at the time, draw the field in running singles then go over the top but taking it to the opposition made the win possible although we did have plenty of time. My old ticker could have done without the drama. Easy to criticise watching, different in the middle.
He was already scoring faster than a run a ball and the Indian fielders all looked done. That last over he decided to go faster for no good reason.
garysfc
Well-Known Member
I think the argument is that having got to his ton, rather sedately through the 90’s & with a win within touching distance with Root, more of the same would have won us the match & series. No real need to go full bore once getting over the 100.
Edit: Especially with knowing who was next in.
Last edited:
At the time I thought he had gone a bit too gung-ho, for the reasons you mention but I think the bowlers letting Washington smash a quick 50+ at the end of the Indian 2nd innings was probably a bigger factor.
Perhaps, but if you want to be the best in the world, decision making is a big part of that. There was no reason to change an approach that was winning us the game.
I thought Harry played brilliantly. Shame how he got out, but it was a top knock.
You must log in or register to see images
Root and Brook are currently no.1 and no.2 in the world. Brook has got to that position by playing exactly in the style he played yesterday. Both got out by making, in the moment, a poor choice of shot. It happens.
This. I notice nobody is criticising Bethell for what can only be described as a horrendous hoick across the line which resulted in his stumps being demolished.
He is inexperienced and has hardly played all summer - can't expect much more in such a high pressure situation.
That is because Bethell was awful. Brook was totally on top and looking very good. It isn’t unfair to expect him to maintain discipline and see out the game.
So he gets a free pass and Brook, who scored over 160 runs in the game, gets lambasted for one bad shot. I'm sorry but that's ridiculous IMO.
garysfc
Well-Known Member
I made no comment whatsoever on Brook
I'm just pointing out that if you choose to play someone like Bethel in a series decider which was always going to be very close, you have to be aware that this was likely to happen.
Brook did brilliantly to get us in a position we could even consider winning.
But having done that, it is reasonable to expect the very best players in the world adapt their approach to a changing match-state situation. Brook isn’t quite there yet (as demonstrated) and so the criticism I think is fair as it is a mentality rather than ability decision that got him out and started a collapse.
It is not the sole contributing factor so I don’t think we can lay blame but it is fair to criticise that specific moment.
Bethall - awful though he was - appeared to be in a position where he knew no other option. His being in that position is more down to the selectors (although we are criticising with the hindsight of what he ended up facing). I do feel he was there solely because he was, in theory, the other option back at the very start of the summer, and not because he was best option for this match.
But there’s plenty of other factors at play here.
Josh Tongue’s erratic bowling ?
Crawley not surviving the end of Day 2?
ALL THE DROPPED CATCHES
To summarise: I don’t think Brook is to blame, I do think his decision making within sight of victory can be criticised .
Very happy to be told I’m ridiculous if needed.
But having done that, it is reasonable to expect the very best players in the world adapt their approach to a changing match-state situation. Brook isn’t quite there yet (as demonstrated) and so the criticism I think is fair as it is a mentality rather than ability decision that got him out and started a collapse.
It is not the sole contributing factor so I don’t think we can lay blame but it is fair to criticise that specific moment.
Bethall - awful though he was - appeared to be in a position where he knew no other option. His being in that position is more down to the selectors (although we are criticising with the hindsight of what he ended up facing). I do feel he was there solely because he was, in theory, the other option back at the very start of the summer, and not because he was best option for this match.
But there’s plenty of other factors at play here.
Josh Tongue’s erratic bowling ?
Crawley not surviving the end of Day 2?
ALL THE DROPPED CATCHES
To summarise: I don’t think Brook is to blame, I do think his decision making within sight of victory can be criticised .
Very happy to be told I’m ridiculous if needed.