Cricket: General Chat

[veloman]

12 hours ago, bickster said:

I think it was said by someone far more knowledgeable than I (on TMS) that they sacrificed spin because the batting lineup was very weak

Ah ! Thanks - I didn't hear that. However .................doesn't seem to have worked does it 

[tom_avfc]

2 hours ago, veloman said:

Ah ! Thanks - I didn't hear that. However .................doesn't seem to have worked does it 

I’m not sure it’s made a great deal of difference to be honest. If we didn’t have the extra seamer I’d imagine it would have been Ollie Robinson who missed out. Given that he made 42 making him joint second top scorer in the innings I guess the argument that we’ve extended the batting could probably be made.

In reality playing a test match without 3 or 4 of your guaranteed starters is never going to be an easy thing to do.

[PaulC]

16 hours ago, bannedfromHandV said:

We also don’t have a good front line spin bowler for test cricket. Ali has his moments but they’re few and far between, then you’re looking at Leach, Bess, Rashid but none have really shown enough when given the chance, it’s a real problem.

Better to have an average spinner than no spinner at all. 

[bannedfromHandV]

Just now, PaulC said:

Better to have an average spinner than no spinner at all. 

Maybe but Root is a more than adequate part time option and in the right conditions can take a few handy wickets.

I don’t watch any county cricket, does anyone know if we have any good prospects in the spin dept? 

[PaulC]

Just now, bannedfromHandV said:

Maybe but Root is a more than adequate part time option and in the right conditions can take a few handy wickets.

I don’t watch any county cricket, does anyone know if we have any good prospects in the spin dept? 

Hes done ok occasionally but Leach has done pretty well for England. An average of under 30 for a spinner is very healthy 

[bickster]

13 minutes ago, PaulC said:

Hes done ok occasionally but Leach has done pretty well for England. An average of under 30 for a spinner is very healthy 

as if to prove your point

Quote

NZ 162-6

Lead by 265

Root follows the wicket with a horror full toss and a miserable half-tracker. Possibly one of the worst overs to take a wicket I've seen.

BBC Cricket

[bickster]

Surely they'll declare now it's lunch. 271 in 2 sessions is next to impossible but just enough to entice ENgland to attempt it. If they don't declare, they have no desire to win the match. If I was NZ I'd have decalred half an hour ago

[PaulC]

13 minutes ago, bickster said:

Surely they'll declare now it's lunch. 271 in 2 sessions is next to impossible but just enough to entice ENgland to attempt it. If they don't declare, they have no desire to win the match. If I was NZ I'd have decalred half an hour ago

Probably not. If Santner bowls England out in the final 2 sessions it will look very bad for the selectors as hes no better than we have. 

[bannedfromHandV]

England collapse inbound? I have a bad feeling we’re going to be all out for under 100 runs here

[bickster]

40 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said:

England collapse inbound? I have a bad feeling we’re going to be all out for under 100 runs here

We  already have 14% of that for 0 but you're still safe until the score reaches 80

[bannedfromHandV]

1 minute ago, bickster said:

We  already have 14% of that for 0 but you're still safe until the score reaches 80

Yep, much more solid start than I obviously anticipated, Sibley still looks like he could fall over himself at any time but Burns is really starting to cement one of the opener slots for sure.

[OutByEaster?]

England have steadfastly refused to attempt to make a game of this - disappointing.

 

[bannedfromHandV]

It’s tough though because if they had, I think Root would likely be having to justify a defeat in the post match interviews. Inexperienced batting line up on a 4th/5th day wicket against a bowling attack who are bowling well and with their tails up.

If England had come out and tried to chase it down I think we’d have seen both openers out in the first 10 overs and then we’d have been under real pressure for the remainder of the day.

Its a test match and should be played as such, not in an exhibition style, in my unqualified opinion.

[tom_avfc]

3 hours ago, bannedfromHandV said:

It’s tough though because if they had, I think Root would likely be having to justify a defeat in the post match interviews. Inexperienced batting line up on a 4th/5th day wicket against a bowling attack who are bowling well and with their tails up.

If England had come out and tried to chase it down I think we’d have seen both openers out in the first 10 overs and then we’d have been under real pressure for the remainder of the day.

Its a test match and should be played as such, not in an exhibition style, in my unqualified opinion.

You can add in the fact that someone like Sibley is potentially at risk of being dropped off the back of a run of poor form. The 60 not out is important for him and throwing his wicket away trying to play a game that is alien to him wouldn’t enhance his prospects. 

[theboyangel]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/57379184
 

Ollie Robinson suspended by England over tweets back in 2012/2013.

it’s a sorry lesson to learn that nothing is in the past now, especially with social media. 

 

 

[PaulC]

14 hours ago, theboyangel said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/57379184
 

Ollie Robinson suspended by England over tweets back in 2012/2013.

it’s a sorry lesson to learn that nothing is in the past now, especially with social media. 

 

 

It  a bit harsh on the player. How far do you go back? It seems very Orwellian. 

Edited June 7, 2021 by PaulC

[theboyangel]

26 minutes ago, PaulC said:

It  a bit harsh on the player. How far do you go back? It seems very Orwellian. 

What was posted was awful but totally understand he may be a completely different person to what he was at 18/19yrs old.

I doubt the law/governing bodies would introduce a statute of limitations on the time between the offending message and review for disciplinary reasons. 

[WhatAboutTheFinish]

26 minutes ago, PaulC said:

It  a bit harsh on the player. How far do you go back? It seems very Orwellian. 

Well rumour has it that Jimmy Anderson is facing a 3 game ban after it has emerged that he wilfully squashed several money spiders AND incinerated a fly with his magnifying glass back in 1986. Statement with full apology due shortly! 

[bobzy]

8 minutes ago, theboyangel said:

What was posted was awful but totally understand he may be a completely different person to what he was at 18/19yrs old.

I doubt the law/governing bodies would introduce a statute of limitations on the time between the offending message and review for disciplinary reasons. 

He may be a completely different person... which makes you wonder why those tweets weren't deleted or some sort of apology tweeted some years later.

Aside from "being caught" now, has he done anything to rectify/apologies for his racist tweets?  Genuine question, I have no idea.

7 minutes ago, WhatAboutTheFinish said:

Well rumour has it that Jimmy Anderson is facing a 3 game ban after it has emerged that he wilfully squashed several money spiders AND incinerated a fly with his magnifying glass back in 1986. Statement with full apology due shortly! 

Yes - racism is pretty much the same level as squashing money spiders.

[Davkaus]

I'm not sure how much sympathy I have. He was an adult, and a professional cricketer at the time of the tweets, and representing your country is a privilige, not a right. I expect there'll be a public apology and he'll make his way back into the team fairly quickly, but when the news breaks taking that kind of action to remove the person from representing the nation while there's a lot of attention is the best move.

If I were a public figure breaking ontothe scene, I'd delete my social media and have a public one used only for PR. This is a fairly straightforward example, but having your words out there in public for decades if you used it for cheaps laughs and "bants" before you were famous is a liability, really.