Originally Posted by dave_j (Post 12727420)

Ok... So let's be a little controversial.
England deserved to have lost and should have. Why?
Because, in rugby,and any number of other 'team' games, there are 'specialists' whose job it is to perform specialised tasks.
We don't expect goalkeepers in soccer to bound up the field to score the winning goal. They could but that isn't what they're there for.
So when Stokes, rated as an all rounder, has to do the business because those whose job it was to secure victory failed so emphatically demonstrates what a shambles of a batting lineup the england squad has.
It's long past time that england selectors sacked themselves en masse and made way for others who might, just might, be able to do a better job in picking the very best because it's about time that doing their job was put before choosing what wine to drink with lunch.
But they'll get in yet another case of bubbly, lauding Stokes, and his equally laudable tail end partners, as part of their plan all along and give themselves a collective pat on the back saying 'Didn't we do a good job picking Stokes' instead of 'Who picked these wastes of space we put into bat first?'.

Originally Posted by JamesM (Post 12727372)

Wow! Did you see that this morning Oink? Not the shite Spurs performance but Stokesy before it?

I wasn't a fan of DAZN but now I have test cricket again I'm warming up to it.

That Ben Stokes performance was the finest by an England player in my 31 years of watching Cricket. England's best win since 2005.

I couldn't believe how quickly Stokesy rattled off the last 70 odd runs either. What a player and what a performance!

Check out Stokes' reverse sweep 6 at 3mins17secs!

​​​​​​https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrIe...0RmUD8KPVPGyXk

Originally Posted by JamesM (Post 12727426)

Are there better batsman out there than what is picked? If so then who are they?

Originally Posted by Cheltonian (Post 12727645)

Jack leach, 1 run in 60 mins is the new Geoff Boycott, put him up the order to opener, cant be any worse than the opening pair they are picking at the moment.

Originally Posted by dave_j (Post 12727434)

I haven't a clue who's out there... but there's that niggle that pokes me in the ribs at night when for the umpteenth time I've told myself not to have drunk that last glass of wine.
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results, and it applies to selectors as much as to wine drinkers.
How do you know whether there are better players on the test match stage if you don't give them a go.
All out for 67 speaks for itself.

Originally Posted by dave_j (Post 12727420)

England deserved to have lost and should have. Why?

Originally Posted by Cheltonian (Post 12727645)

Jack leach, 1 run in 60 mins is the new Geoff Boycott, put him up the order to opener, cant be any worse than the opening pair they are picking at the moment.

Originally Posted by Oakvillian (Post 12727671)

...attritional, almost chess-like, defensive battles between batsman and bowler...

Originally Posted by BristolUK (Post 12727706)

The informed narrative part way through this match was that there were no better batsmen to choose from because, and not for the first time, focus has been on the limited overs game for which a different style is necessitated.

Originally Posted by dave_j (Post 12727716)

I make no pretense to knowing much about cricket but, like the local GP who can't quite pick a good diagnosis, I can recognise symptoms of a problem and it's plain in this case that a score of 67 betrays a lack of appreciation and technique. You might have thought that having lost the first 2 wickets for 10, and a 3rd for 20 then subsequent batsmen would have sought to halt the slide. Either this wasn't appreciated or the skill level's too low. .

Originally Posted by BristolUK (Post 12727751)

Or the opposition bowling was actually rather good. You know, it's what they're for.
But having lost the first 2 wickets for 10, then 20, then 34, 45 etc those same players in the second innings, having lost 2 wickets cheaply again - 15 runs - then added 126 runs, 18 and 86. They did exactly what you said they failed to do.
And in the first test, having lost the fifrst wicket cheaply, they then added 132
It's not like what your describing is unique to one team either. Apparently there have been over 50 test innings scoring fewer than England.
You can't just dismiss everything on one performance. Yes, 67 is poor. But the same 11 then got 362 and they did that when the pressure was really on. In the shambolic innings of 67 there were 10 players who failed to get to double figures. 8 Australians also failed to do that.
Sometimes things just go wrong.

Originally Posted by BristolUK (Post 12727713)

Deadly Derek!!

Note the number of players crowding the batsman


https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/british...761c14c397.jpg
Derek Underwood traps John Inverarity lbw to secure a dramatic win

Originally Posted by Cheltonian (Post 12727800)

And not a helmet in sight

Originally Posted by Oakvillian (Post 12727671)

Reminded me more of Chris Tavaré, who played the stubborn, plodding foil to Botham's exuberance through the 1981 series. A properly old-school No 3 bat, there to build an innings and hold and end with dogged reliability rather than all the flash-bang antics of the middle order. One of the most underrated players to have had a place in the Test side, IMO.

Of course, Tavaré wouldn't get in to the side today. The growth of the limited overs game and the slogfest of T20 mean that his style of quietly determined blocking has fallen completely out of favour. Few Test matches now last to stumps on day 4 unless the weather intervenes. Call me old-fashoined, but I can't help feeling the loss of the attritional, almost chess-like, defensive battles between batsman and bowler have diminished the 5-day game.

Originally Posted by Hawkmoon77 (Post 12727675)

Whilst I sympathise with your feelings, simply put, barring perhaps Sibley of Warks (who is only 23), there simply isn't any county cricketers demanding to be picked.
We should sort out the batting order for a start, and play Roy down the order, move Denly to open & let Root bat at 4.
Stokes scoring a ton is not a surprise, his technique is up there with Root & far superior to a lot of the specialist bats. The fact he is asked to bowl forces him down the order to have a rest

Originally Posted by Cheltonian (Post 12727800)

And not a helmet in sight

Originally Posted by Hawkmoon77 (Post 12878748)

Well after all the fanfare, that was an inevitable damp squib.

:confused_smile:

Originally Posted by Oink (Post 12880352)

I thought the Windies played rather well. England have been poor but it's fun to watch though. It's on DAZN so no need for dodgy streams.

Originally Posted by Oink (Post 12971361)

England India in the 2nd test in Chennai. I think we’re going to get slaughtered. :(

Originally Posted by Bob (Post 12971516)

I was thinking the same, then went to the bathroom and two wickets were taken on the way up the stairs...It might be a little closer than I thought. We'll see.

Originally Posted by Oink (Post 12971694)

134 all out is shameful. I’m slightly done with cricket.

Originally Posted by Oink (Post 12971361)

England India in the 2nd test in Chennai. I think we’re going to get slaughtered. :(

Originally Posted by Flogger (Post 12973467)

this one is done but next up is the day/ nighter . Still a chance we could be 2-1 up with 1 to play

Originally Posted by Oink (Post 12973543)

A very good point, especially if Anderson comes back. Foakes has been a revelation. How we missed a specialist keeper. I’ve also been impressed with Leach.

Originally Posted by Flogger (Post 12973467)

this one is done but next up is the day/ nighter . Still a chance we could be 2-1 up with 1 to play

Originally Posted by Hawkmoon77 (Post 12977178)

Are we all just keeping quiet about the cricket now? :sneaky:
Well played India.
Not so well played England

Originally Posted by Hawkmoon77 (Post 12977375)

I mentioned it once, but I think I got away with it....

Originally Posted by Oink (Post 13203383)

I subscribe to Willow Cricket it's only $8.00 a month and you can watch live or highlights later. I'm not to keen on Sky Sports commentary, far too many Australians, I miss Bumble and Gower. Lets hope England tie the series in the next match.

Originally Posted by Oink (Post 13203383)

I subscribe to Willow Cricket it's only $8.00 a month and you can watch live or highlights later. I'm not to keen on Sky Sports commentary, far too many Australians, I miss Bumble and Gower. Lets hope England tie the series in the next match.