Cricket World

[yacarob1]

It certainly looks like the defeat will be by a much smaller margin this time around.

Hence , progress.

Sporting Odds currently offering 15/8 for an Aussie win, 4/1 for an English win and 20/21 the draw.

So, a draw is favoured which would be akin to a massive victory for England.

 

[Hook Shot]

It certainly looks like the defeat will be by a much smaller margin this time around.

Hence , progress.

Sporting Odds currently offering 15/8 for an Aussie win, 4/1 for an English win and 20/21 the draw.

So, a draw is favoured which would be akin to a massive victory for England.

Gosh 4/1 England win seems a bit miserly........given recent history etc

 

[yacarob1]

Agreed -I think there is a digit missing before the 4.

 

[yacarob1]

Fantastic knocks from Collingworth and Pietersen.

Although defeat is probably not likely, a draw now seems the most likely outcome due to England's probable inability to bowl Australia out cheaply and twice.

Sporting Odds now go :-

Australia 8/1
England 100/30
Draw 2/5

 

[yacarob1]

Sporting Odds now go :-

Australia 14/1
England 9/2
Draw 2/9

Despite a creditable performance from England and barring some sort of cricketing miracle, it would appear that we are drifting inexorably towards a draw.

Zero points to the groundsman for producing a pitch that is heavily stacked against the bowlers and makes batting very easy indeed.

 

[Hook Shot]

Sporting Odds now go :-

Australia 14/1
England 9/2
Draw 2/9

Despite a creditable performance from England and barring some sort of cricketing miracle, it would appear that we are drifting inexorably towards a draw.

Zero points to the groundsman for producing a pitch that is heavily stacked against the bowlers and makes batting very easy indeed.

A draw probably yes providing we're not skittled for 157 - leaving Aussies a one day smash for victory. Aside from that it was good to see Ponting play so well....... he may be an Aussie but with 10tons in last 13 tests and high in century rankings we are watching one of the very best ... apologies to Yousuf, Lara, Sachin .....and and......

 

[yacarob1]

In fact we were skittled for 129 and lost in a disgraceful and shameful fashion.

English cricket is dead.

R.I.P.

Maybe Flintoff should concentrate more on the job in hand than getting bladdered on every possible occasion.

Would that I had taken that 14/1 on Australia !!!

 

[yacarob1]

What's the feeling on dropping Harmison - our so called main fast bowler ?

In 2 Test matches he has failed to take even 1 wicket.

He hasn't even come close, being more likely to hit the pavilion than the stumps.

 

[Silvertip]

I had a feeling that declaring on 550 after the 1st innings was a mistake. With 4 wickets in hand England should have just slogged on in really quick fashion and tried to obtain 600-650, 620+ in a test is the only total worth declaring on against the Aussies. Harmison must be dropped as his contribution is quite simply zero. Will take a miracle to retain the ashes now.

 

[Hook Shot]

A draw probably yes providing we're not skittled for 157 - leaving Aussies a one day smash for victory. Aside from that it was good to see Ponting play so well....... he may be an Aussie but with 10tons in last 13 tests and high in century rankings we are watching one of the very best ... apologies to Yousuf, Lara, Sachin .....and and......

Oops sorry guys I hold my hand up on this one....... please accept my apologies

 

[yacarob1]

Ashes to Ashes, Dust to dust................................

 

[FetteredChinos]

its like 1988 all over again.. i thought we had got past those dark dark days.

my take on the 2nd test.

1st Major Error:-

Flintoff you utter cretin. It shows his naivety, or perhaps it was Fletchers input that made him declare. It is somewhat traditional that you declare an hour before the close to give the opposition openers an "awkward hour". Granted we did get a wicket in that time, but the pitch was so docile that it was clear that we would struggle to take 20 wickets in the match. Therefore the sensible route would have been to assume that we would only have to bat once. rackup 700+ which we could easily have done with the batsment well set. and then force the aussies to get 500 just to avoid the follow on. I doubt we would have seen the Aussies declaring at that total if we were a better outfit.

Fundamentally naive captaincy from Flintoff, and i would hazzard a guess that he was poked and prodded by Fletcher on this one

2nd Major Error:-

God help us all. We were 1-0 down in the series. need to win matches, and what do we do? we choose the King of Spain for his batting ability. Nevermind his drop of Ponting, his bowling was atrocious as usual. ineffective at best, pie-chucking at worst.
Panesar should have played in the 1st test, should have played in the 2nd test, and yet i will be surprised if he makes the 3rd test.

3rd Major Error:-

Pie chucker Anderson, step to the fore please. Still a youngster, but without the wiles to weedle batsmen out. His core strength is reverse-swing. We know that conditions in Oz dont suit it, unless there is a minor atmospheric miracle. Without reverse swing, his bowling is pretty straight up and down. He scrambles the seam too often, and so he doesnt get any movement off the pitch with any regularity. He is too slow to do any damage with raw pace. Step forward Sarge. Bring him in for the next game, and at least he offers a bit more with the bat which is what Fletcher so obviously craves

4th Major Error:-

our entire team has managed to be out of form at exactly the same time (KP and the Shermanator excepted) This cannot be down to form alone, and suggests that there is something going wrong with the coaching methods somewhere

5th Major Error:-

our players just arent good enough. overhyped, over sexed (why are the WAGS there) and over there.
within 6 months of the world cup we have made exactly the same errors as the football team in germany this summer. The management really should be shot.

Solutions:-

Flintoff shouldnt be captain. i rate him as a bowler, but not a batman, but either way he has too much on his plate to be expected to carry the entire team. Sadly, strauss is the only viable alternative, as everyone else is too inexperienced.

Play the matchwinners, both proven and potential. and yes, controversially this includes Harmison. if the other 4 bowlers cannot stop the gap if Grievous misfires, then they arent good enough.

Pick some batsman who can bat. Why is Ramprakash waltzing with Brucie when he demolished attacks all summer?

my team for the next test. in order

Strauss
Jones
Bell
Pietersen
Collingwood
Flintoff
Read
Sarge
Harmison
Hoggard
Panesar

better balance all round. Cook has the temperament, but not the technique to play on fast pitches. he doesnt move his feet enough. Would like to see Jones in as something of a pinch hitter up the order. part of the reason we did well in 2005 was that Banger Trescothick was biffing them around early on, forcing the aussies onto the back foot somewhat. Jones could partly fulfil that role.

though, if i was in charge, i would call up Shah, Joyce, Key, or even Twinkletoes Ramprakash and have Bell opening to balance the team even more (then dropping Read)

thoughts anyone? reckon we can tempt Pringle and Fraser out of retirement?

fc

 

[yacarob1]

Never mind Pringle and Fraser... Alec Stewart, Graham Gooch and even Gower and Botham in their advanced years could do better than the current crop of misfits.

our players just arent good enough. overhyped, over sexed (why are the WAGS there) and over there.

This comment is bang on.

All of our sportsmen are totally overhyped. The prime example was the England football team in Germany who themselves told us that they were going to win the World Cup without any problem at all. They themselves told us that they had a team stuffed full of World Class ( overused term ) players and were the best team to play for England since 1966.

In the event they turned out to be probably the worst team to represent England since 1966 with Wayne Rooney being not only hopeless ( and one of the most over-hyped and over-rated players of all time ) but also having to leave the field in disgrace having stamped on some poor fellow's knackers in a tantrum.

Also, whenever I used to go on extended business trips around the world I never took my entire family with me.

It wouldn't have been as much fun if I had, lol.

However the current crop of English sportsmen cannot seem to go anywhere without a wife and a couple of brat wagons ( prams ) in tow, complete with screaming brats.

Yuk !

They also seem to have this penchant for getting totally and utterly legless for months on end if they actually win anything. Having won the Ashes I found it totally tasteless for Flintoff and co to be bragging about how drunk they were at 10 Downing Street and the Palace.

Pathetic kids really.

I also recall Flintoff being interviewed on the pitch in Germany just before kick off at one of England's World Cup matches in the summer. The guy was unashamedly drunk.

Ok, I like drinking too but I do not think it is correct that the captain of our cricket team should be a public p**s-head.

Apart from that , Flintoff does not possess the required level of intelligence to captain an England cricket team.

After being whupped by the Aussies, his first comment this morning was that they had played well in the Test and were only let down by an hour of bad play.

I have a serious problem with a captain who can come out with garbage like that.

But there again, maybe he had 5 pints of Castlemaine XXXX during the tea interval.

End of rant.

 

[FetteredChinos]

good rant squire.. days like this make it necessary to get this sort of thing off your chest!

i agree with the Flintoff comments. would have been excusable to do it on the 1st day or so of celebration, like the victorious Rugby team of 2003 (seems a distant memory now.. think we won something once) but to turn it into a 10 day bender smacks of unprofessionalism.

Central contracts are also partly to blame. these guys should be playing cricket regularly and answerable constantly to their employers. not swanning around turning up to training every so often and then playing a game every couple of weeks. creates a lack of match sharpness which we have exhibited in the first fame of every series for god knows how long.

The argument for central contracts is that the players are playing too much, and suffering from burnout and excessive injuries. Utter twaddle. these guys are meant to be professional athletes, and yet cannot bowl/bat for 2 days out of 7 or so per test (im including breaks here). The same goes for our footballers. Gerrard for example has publicly stated that he struggles to play for more than 90 minutes per week. Im sorry, i just dont buy that at all. Look at marathon runners for example. in the build up to competitions, they run 15+ miles a day. Now that is being in prime athletic shape. The only footballers in the last few years who have acted like athletes are Beckham and Hargreaves. Im sure that it is no coincidence that both of them are based outside of the UK.

there are too many ODI's, but that is something for the ICC to be held responsible for.. The FA look competent in comparison to those goons, buckling to the lure of the asian buck.

all in all, as a sporting country, we are shafted and have delusions of grandeur. Whilst i too revelled in the 2005 ashes win, i also at the time drew attention to the fact that we had the majority of the luck on our side. both the weather, and some atrocious decisions against the aussies helped our cause. yet everyone was convinced that we were the better side.

arrrggghh, im having flashbacks to Neil Mallendar and Mark Lathwell playing for england..

 

[yacarob1]

Whilst i too revelled in the 2005 ashes win, i also at the time drew attention to the fact that we had the majority of the luck on our side. both the weather, and some atrocious decisions against the aussies helped our cause

And Glen McGrath was injured for most of that Test Series.

 

[Silvertip]

Very well said FC, I agree with your sentiment entirely. Every time we select a new captain, it is the player who is performing the best with the bat that gets the job, and this time Flintoff was chosen because he is a master with the ball and can knock off exciting centuries on occasions. The problem is, and I cannot understand why this pattern has not been identified and dealt with, every time a player who is performing exceptionally, indeed the player who makes the difference between winning and losing is handed the captaincy they suddenly lose their form.... It is too much responsibility... batting, bowling and captaining. Look at Vaughan... best batsmen in the world and after handed the captaincy experienced the usual decline in form. Hussain suffered the same decline in form but went out with a bang and deservedly so IMO. Select a captain who is not the best player in the team.. and let the best players do what they do best, scores runs and bowl.

Declaring on 550 was pathetic, roll on the next series minus Warne and McGrath!

 

[yacarob1]

Select a captain who is not the best player in the team..

Mike Brearley slotted into that role admirably and indeed, won the Ashes.

As for Vaughan, I don't think that he was ever the best batsman in the world - another case of over-rating our players.

 

[yacarob1]

Profile

Mike Brearley was an outstanding captain - intuitive, resourceful, sympathetic and clear-thinking - but at Test level his tremendous record owed much to a superb and versatile attack. Its spearheads, Bob Willis and Ian Botham, took respectively 112 wickets (at 24) and 150 wickets (at 19) under Brearley's leadership, and missed only five Tests between them. Brearley unusually combined a scholarly mind (a first in Classics and a 2:1 in Moral Sciences at Cambridge) and a total lack of intellectual snobbery, enabling him to make easy friendships at every social level. He first took charge in 1977, when Tony Greig's undercover work for World Series Cricket came to light. But it was his final series, in 1981, that made certain of his lasting fame. Taking over from Botham, who lost his own confidence and the selectors' after an Australian win at Trent Bridge and a pair at Lord's, Brearley so completely and rapidly restored it that Botham, with bat then ball then bat, propelled England to three successive victories, the first from a seemingly impossible position at Headingley. Brearley pulled the strings, however. He never appeared ruffled either on or off the field: a favourite answer when a bowling change or team selection was criticised would be a smiling "You never know, the alternative might have been still worse." His batting record for England was inadequate. But he was well worth his place without a stack of runs. As Rodney Hogg, the Australian fast bowler, put it: "He has a degree in people."
John Thicknesse


And he knew how to drink
yacarob1

 

[yacarob1]

Check out this excellent link :-

http://www.lgiccrankings.com/odi/player-comparison.php

 

[Silvertip]

I thought Vaughan at his peak had an exceptional technique, and for a brief period of time was the best imo, unfortunately we will never know just how good he could of been as he has not been allowed to focus on his own game.

Ideally, I believe the selectors should find a batsman at number 3 or 4 who is also allocated the captaincy. Bell is to inexperienced to perform this duty yet, but I somehow get the feeling he is being groomed and will receive the task in a few years time, I just hope for his sake he is not the main run scorer at the time (if) it happens. Selectors should always consider dynamic player performances when selecting the captain, they could even consider a rotation policy and declare this publically, this would also mix up the tactics by the opposition as they would have to face dynamic tactics by different captains. We could even consider dual captaincy and if any conflicts in opinion occurred they could rotate decisions.