Piece
Tour Winner
Controversy aside, England were brainless in this test, wasted the toss and opportunities they had.
The Cricket Thread
- Thread starter fundy
- Start date
AmandaJR
Money List Winner
Indeed. Easy to forget in the emotion of today. When I got home from tennis and saw "st" next to Bairstow's name I almost laughed at the irony. Stupid idiot crossed my mind and then I read the details of it and kind of temporarily forget all the poor decision-making that had gone before.
Stokes talking about players having the "utmost clarity" and, therefore it seems, little or no input from the other end just baffles me a bit. If the utmost clairity is to flap about until your luck runs out then I think some clear advice to find some different clarity is required!!
D
Deleted member 15344
Guest
D
Deleted member 15344
Guest
Yep - it’s the second test now that it’s been pretty much gifted to them
Need some big changes for the next test
Out must go Robinson , Anderson and Bairstow
In must come
Wood ,Ahmed and Foakes
Pretty much agree, Phil. Should have won the 1st Test. Shouldn’t have lost this one from 188-1 in the first innings.
I agree Robinson should be left out, and probably Anderson. The only suggestion I still have a bit of an issue with is Rehan Ahmed. He’s not taken wickets in red ball cricket this season and is still, at 18, very raw for a leg spinner. A battering at the hands of Australia, if that was to happen, could do him a lot of harm.
D
Deleted member 15344
Guest
It’s only because I don’t think there is many other options
Not sure how much red ball Bess had played since going on loan
Can’t think of too many other spinners
Brad Hoggs view on Bairstow wicket
AmandaJR
Money List Winner
I think Stokes has been very honest in interviews without calling Cummins out. He says he'd have handled it differently and I think that's true.
It will divide opinion but for sure I'd rather share a drink with those firmly on the "it stinks" side of the fence...
Probably explains why I've never won as much as I should have sports-wise
It will divide opinion but for sure I'd rather share a drink with those firmly on the "it stinks" side of the fence...
Probably explains why I've never won as much as I should have sports-wise
ColchesterFC
Journeyman Pro
During the Australia first innings I was going to ask the question whether Stokes should be in the team if he's not fully fit to play the role of fourth seamer. I guess the England second innings answered that question and I get to save face because I didn't ask and no one knows I was thinking it.
AmandaJR
Money List Winner
He's like Koepka if you ask me. Shows his best when the stakes are at their highest. Maybe loses focus unless his back's to the wall.
Reemul
Head Pro
I thought Barstow dabbed his back foot to show he was in his ground then set off for a chat. He was never going for a run, knowing the wicketkeeper had the ball. Within the rules, yes. But very unsavoury.
England have got close in two tests, but against a misfiring Aussie team. Or are the Aussies not too good in English conditions? England don’t have strength in depth. Lose a couple of the top players and they’re very fragile.
I fancy, weather permitting, a 5-0 whitewash.
England have got close in two tests, but against a misfiring Aussie team. Or are the Aussies not too good in English conditions? England don’t have strength in depth. Lose a couple of the top players and they’re very fragile.
I fancy, weather permitting, a 5-0 whitewash.
That is my take on it Brian.
Ultimately, I liken what Carey did to a bowler running out a batter who is a couple of feet out of his ground backing up. Within the rules, yes. But totally against the spirit of all that sport is about for me. If a batter keeps leaving his ground backing up a bowler may well stop at the end of his run up as a warning, but running the batter out? No.
I agree Bairstow was in no way seeking to take an advantage. He wasn’t pinching a single. And he clearly put his foot behind the crease to demonstrate he had regained his ground. At that point, for me, the ball is dead.
I will say again that Bairstow was naive in his actions, although perhaps that nativity was confined to the fact that he thought the Australians were sportsmen. He was wrong, and has learned the hard way.
Within the rules, certainly. But if something feels wrong it probably is.
AmandaJR
Money List Winner
Perfectly put. Hoping the extra incentive (if it's needed!) will drive us on to a 3-2 win...
Always the optimist!
D
Deleted member 18121
Guest
Think I heard them say the last time a team came back from 2-0 was in the 40s...... I admire your optimism however
D
Deleted member 15344
Guest
Three MCC members suspended for having a pop at Aussies in the Long Room
They were out of order and deserve that. The best thing the members could have done was total silence.
Mudball
Assistant Pro
When i first saw the headlines, i thought it was somthing to do with the current lot in the Parliament... but then..
I can understand if you are joe public in the stand giving them a hard time after a few tins .. but not in the long room..
D
Deleted member 15344
Guest
I don’t think the two decisions are comparable
The Starc catch was very down to interpretation by the umpire if Starc had completed the catch and was in control of his body - using the ball to control himself on the floor would suggest not
When it’s comes to Bairstow - he believed the over was done and his actions suggested that as Brad Hogg said , wasn’t attempting a run , scratched behind the line and then went for a chat.
Two different scenarios for me
The Starc catch was just like the Smith catch that was given.
2blue
Journeyman Pro
No Kaz... its not a clear comparison realy
2blue
Journeyman Pro
Aye it's where our Nation is now..... not happy to tell twonks that they are twonks....... 'ol boy!!!!
Last edited by a moderator:
