-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
***Official*** Australia in England 2018
- Thread starter Mr Miyagi
- Start date
Mr Miyagi
Banned
Yeah, and he arguably strengthens the batting seeing he does his damage at 5 instead of opening or at 3.
But it is difficult to criticise Hales in the wake of last night.
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
It's not absurd at all especially after what Hales' did last night. Stop being needlessly antagonistic.
Mr Miyagi
Banned
Hales is competing with Roy when England is at full strength is Borges' point. And I agree with it. In fact it is my point too. Stokes is a certainty when fit and cleared to bat and bowl.
Since Bairstow has been given the opportunity, and seized upon it, the Hales and Roy former opening combo has been squeezed.
Last edited:
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
That's exactly right, I'm not convinced Stokes playing ahead of any of Roy, Hales or Bairstow would significantly strengthen the team. Maybe a little. But not by as much as you'd think having someone like Stokes back should.
Mr Miyagi
Banned
Well for one, he enables Root to bat 3 where he is more successful in pacing the innings from than at 4, sure last night they slipped him down the order, but they don't want him to hold up traffic when the going is good, which may seem ridiculous because he has been striking at over 90 at 3, but Stokes and Buttler have more gears. But Root is very good in seeing off the new ball at 3 if an early wicket falls because the memo for both openers is to go for it.
Hales is just as likely to get out quickly at 3 as he does when he opens. This happened in Australia iirc.
But it is the 6th bowling option that makes the biggest difference. Stokes eliminates the need for Willey altogether in the back end. He eliminates the need to bowl Root somewhere earlyish to provide for this. And he ceases the reliance on Rashid at the death with Plunkett. He just gives them so many more possible bowling commutations than Hales ever could.
Plus, as most captains freely admit, it just makes their task in the field so much easier and simpler with 6 bowlers. Someone has an off day; don't bowl him out, someone gets injured; you have reserves, get the maths wrong or a hunch doesn't pay off; easier to readjust the allotted overs on the fly with less repercussion. Plus far more freedom to change to the game situation if something is happening for swing, seam or spin. And for the batting side, it is one more bowler that they want to get a sighter of first before getting stuck into.
Last edited:
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Credit needs to be given to whoever planned out the English ODI tactics over the past couple of years. They realised (belatedly perhaps) that ODI cricket has changed and that with the vast majority of ODIs being played on roads these days, picking "proper" batsmen like Cook and Balance was useless, and that picking specialist swing and seam bowlers that don't bat didn't help on these wickets either. Their blueprint is exceptional and well thought out.
Of course it helps that they've got the players to pull it off. I bet Australia could decide on the same blueprint and pack their side with "sloggers" and they'd get bowled out for 180 on roads every second game.
Of course it helps that they've got the players to pull it off. I bet Australia could decide on the same blueprint and pack their side with "sloggers" and they'd get bowled out for 180 on roads every second game.
Mr Miyagi
Banned
Oh they freely admit they stole the blueprint from NZ World Cup success under Hesson and BMac. After 2015 England made the wholesale changes to the game plan mimicing NZ. But whereas NZ's lost Grant Elliott 2.0 to retirement, lost Corey Anderson's form altogether, and Munro is not quite BMac yet with consistency, they've further pulled ahead of NZ with Buttler being a total and utter success. There was a time where KW would cancel out Root, Taylor Morgan, Guppie and BMac probably better than Roy and Hales, and Anderson and Stokes just as they were as schoolkids together were similar. Stokes is way in the lead here now too with Corey's abysmal form post injuries.
But England is in the lead now. Even if their bowling unit lacks a Trent Boult caliber bowler. Good artists borrow, great artists steal, well England is doing this better than NZ now. All Australians seem to remember about NZ in that WC is McCullum charging Starc and getting out in the first over. Few remember that is the approach that got NZ into the final undefeated. He was due to fail eventually.
Elements of bat deep were visible in Australia and SA in that 2015 tournament too. And NZ and Aus both had 6 bowling options if you include Maxwell.
When a country like NZ goes through to the final undefeated, knowing we lack huge pools of talent that Aus or SA do, people look at how we're playing our cricket when its successful. Sri Lanka liked out first 15 over strategy that got us into the semi's #1 ranked in 1992 as well.
Last edited:
jimmy101
Cricketer Of The Year
Hadn't really been giving all that much of a crap about this series, but when something like this happens it's pretty hard to ignore.
Apart from the win & the world record, another massive positive from an English perspective is that all the kids in the crowd would have gotten some invaluable catching practise yesterday.
Apart from the win & the world record, another massive positive from an English perspective is that all the kids in the crowd would have gotten some invaluable catching practise yesterday.
Borges
International Regular
Ah! The Kiwis are the brains behind removing all elements of cricket from an ODI and reducing it to an utterly meaningless farce.
Postage stamp grounds first, a plethora of dibbly dobblers next, and and now this.
Please don't reverse the decision not to play test cricket. Ideally also don't play T20Is. Just stick to ODIs; that form of cricket has already been destroyed.
Mr Miyagi
Banned
Hey - the road pitches was all them. NZ groundsmen often produce a shoddy batting track in ODI in NZ when they want a full day's pay for half a day's work.
But we also share the Kookaburra white ball.
Don't worry about NZ in tests, we drew in UAE and England last and never have lost a test in Bangladesh, a fair result many would like to emulate.
Last I heard England want to turn Mark Wood into a copy of New Zealand's Neil Wagner in tests. As a colonial with an English father, it is all very flattering.
Last edited:
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Nothing wrong with a few roads here and there as long as it's tempered by some bowling conditions once in a while too. Otherwise ODIs just become extended T20s which really serves no purpose but to waste time.
Daemon
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Just like your posts
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Isn't that everyone's reason for posting?
Last edited:
cnerd123
likes this
my reason for posting is to pomote HK, BD and associate cricket, spin bowling, turning pitches and to defend umpires everywhere (apart from when they're being lazy about calling no-balls)
jimmy101
Cricketer Of The Year
And trolling Burgey.