England (and Wales) gloom, doom and recriminations thread

[social]

WE have tried almost everyone else and they are worse, we have hit the lowest bar imaginable with batting. I still don't think this is the worst English outfit I've seen as we have Root, Stokes and some good bowling, but for the top-three it's without doubt the worst situation ever.

I am old enough to remember David Steele

There’s always someone

 

[ImpatientLime]

i don't even rate foakes all that highly with the bat but calls for billings cause he shouts a bit and bairstow who just scored a century WITHOUT THE GLOVES to keep over him at this stage hurt my brain.

give the guy a ****ing clear run and see what he can do.

 

[Chubb]

i don't even rate foakes all that highly with the bat but calls for billings cause he shouts a bit and bairstow who just scored a century WITHOUT THE GLOVES to keep over him at this stage hurt my brain.

give the guy a ****ing clear run and see what he can do.

That’s basically why Matthew Wade played so much for Australia after all.

 

[social]

England have some real thinking to do when it comes to central contracts

Not saying that he’s the guy but Livingstone is a magnificent ball striker

No way that someone like him should knock back an IPL contract without the security of a central contract

 

[grecian]

i don't even rate foakes all that highly with the bat but calls for billings cause he shouts a bit and bairstow who just scored a century WITHOUT THE GLOVES to keep over him at this stage hurt my brain.

give the guy a ****ing clear run and see what he can do.

Yeah I feel the same with Leach in a way, not convinced he's the complete ticket, but he's been around the squad enough that he deserves a decent uninterrupted run, so we can know once and for all.

 

[Pothas]

i don't even rate foakes all that highly with the bat but calls for billings cause he shouts a bit and bairstow who just scored a century WITHOUT THE GLOVES to keep over him at this stage hurt my brain.

give the guy a ****ing clear run and see what he can do.

Bairstow actually has a much better record when playing as a keeper doesn't he? Would be going with him as keeper at 7 for now. Stokes ideally would be 6.

 

[theegyptian]

It remains very unlikely the ECB will select Joe Clarke for obvious and completely understandable reasons. Am not convinced he'd do any better than several players who have not disgraced themselves off the field either - eg Dan Lawrence. Duckett had issues when he was younger but nothing like Clarke's.

Unless I've missed something massively I don't think Clarke (and Kohler Cadmore) should be punished indefinitely for that. The whatsapp group was unedifying, and the unintended consequences were terrible but it wasn't Clarke who raped the women.

I personally don't think Clarke should be getting in the test squad anyway because he has a bit of a wonky technique but he should probably have played t20 by now, and he'd probably have played test crickt now were it not for the whatsapp group and his closeness to the Hepburn case.

Duckett had a load of issues including crashing his car while drunk. As far as I am aware Clarke has this one, obviously not insignificant, blot on his record. But is it worse than the sins of Duckett?

 

[cricketsavant]

I honestly don't get this on Anderson. I feel like it's an age thing - people expect him to be falling off a cliff, but he's still operating in the mid 130s and bowling decently long spells, and taking wickets. 39 at 21 last year, and 23s in the Ashes (1.79 RPO too, if that's relevant).

Then you had Michael Vaughan, who wanted to retire Anderson but in the same breath mentioned that he could be England's best bowler for the next two years...but the side was better off without him. Is he really that big of a C that even if he continues to average low 20s, the side is better off without him? Because there's no one below him who is smashing the door down to get in - there might be some decent options, but remembering Chris Woakes played 3 Ashes Tests and Craig Overton is the other squad member. I wouldn't be so quick if I was England.

I understand the argument "Anderson is doing well, so he should stay and there isn't anyone else good enough" but that is not how team sports work. If you don't retire, you get retired and Anderson has been part of England teams that have failed to grow because they are going with the same old tactics, all the while, young bowlers who could be good, never get to ply their trade for more than a test or two at a time. At some point, the ECB has to make a choice, do they want to build for the future or do they want to be stuck in the same old rut. Plus, Jimmy's numbers are insanely inflated with home tests.

He gets to pick and choose when and where and how often he plays. In the last 2 years, England have played 12 home tests, Jimmy has been in 11 of those. It's not as if he's actually blasted through at an average of 21 or something, he has taken wickets averaging almost 30...coinciding with a humiliating series loss against India. His away number are 8 out of 14 tests and the average is actually spectacular, but again, the context, he only played 2 of the 4 tests and got to play when he felt most ready.

I am of the school that successful teams are built on successful sacrifice, Imran khan built a great side by putting some older players out to pasture, including his own cousin, when their were younger alternatives available. Maybe they don't come in and set the world on fire straight away, but they get the time and experience to grow. I'd rather younger players coming through and being given the chance to fail and learn then trying the same old tricks and continuously losing.

 

[theegyptian]

I think Sam Cook could do a job for England if he was given a chance. There's an obsession that the seamers have to be bowling over 140km/h. It isn't necessary - this is another one of those "we need to plan for the next Ashes" pieces of bull****. Cook has incredible bowling stats and he can swing the ball and he can put it where he wants to put it. Get him in early and give him a run and he can pick up more skills along the way - much like Anderson did. He's only 24 - plenty to build on there in my opinion.

It would be interesting to see how he did in England. You might need Foakes as keeper to standup to the stumps because I reckon international teams would just bat a long way down the wicket to him otherwise and try and discount the lbw.

 

[Chubb]

Unless I've missed something massively I don't think Clarke (and Kohler Cadmore) should be punished indefinitely for that. The whatsapp group was unedifying, and the unintended consequences were terrible but it wasn't Clarke who raped the women.

I personally don't think Clarke should be getting in the test squad anyway because he has a bit of a wonky technique but he should probably have played t20 by now.

I guess my view is skewed by seeing how a lot of NZers have reacted to Kuggeleijn playing for NZ and given the Rafiq scandal the ECB won’t want a repeat of that. Ive noticed that Australian media has not mentioned Clarkes role in Hepburns crime during his time in the BBL.

if he ever plays for England he better have a damn good answer ready. Better than saying Hepburn is still his best friend anyway.

 

[GIMH]

In the last 2 years, England have played 12 home tests, Jimmy has been in 11 of those. It's not as if he's actually blasted through at an average of 21 or something, he has taken wickets averaging almost 30...coinciding with a humiliating series loss against India.

He averaged 24 in that series, you're all over the place

 

[cricketsavant]

He averaged 24 in that series, you're all over the place

I said he averaged almost 30 in that time period, not a series. Can you try and read next time?

 

[GIMH]

I said he averaged almost 30 in that time period, not a series. Can you try and read next time?

I read it, hence my all over the place comment.

 

[grecian]

I understand the argument "Anderson is doing well, so he should stay and there isn't anyone else good enough" but that is not how team sports work. If you don't retire, you get retired and Anderson has been part of England teams that have failed to grow because they are going with the same old tactics, all the while, young bowlers who could be good, never get to ply their trade for more than a test or two at a time. At some point, the ECB has to make a choice, do they want to build for the future or do they want to be stuck in the same old rut. Plus, Jimmy's numbers are insanely inflated with home tests.

He gets to pick and choose when and where and how often he plays. In the last 2 years, England have played 12 home tests, Jimmy has been in 11 of those. It's not as if he's actually blasted through at an average of 21 or something, he has taken wickets averaging almost 30...coinciding with a humiliating series loss against India. His away number are 8 out of 14 tests and the average is actually spectacular, but again, the context, he only played 2 of the 4 tests and got to play when he felt most ready.

I am of the school that successful teams are built on successful sacrifice, Imran khan built a great side by putting some older players out to pasture, including his own cousin, when their were younger alternatives available. Maybe they don't come in and set the world on fire straight away, but they get the time and experience to grow. I'd rather younger players coming through and being given the chance to fail and learn then trying the same old tricks and continuously losing.

But we're clearly not losing because of our bowling, the rest is sophistry. There are Chances for other bowlers, and they keep on getting injured, and under-performing. His average is inflated by Home Tests but he actually averages more in Home than away, it's spectacular reasoning.

This reminds me of the argument put forward that though Cook was clearly our best opener, we needed to get rid and let fresh blood come in to make their mark. That's worked well.

Let those bowlers take Broad and Andersons place when they're given chances, and hey even if they do, we'll still lose, because our batting is pony.

 

[Cubiscus]

For once lets just play the best keeper. Foakes couldn't do any worse than Buttler or Bairstow runs wise.

Bairstow I'd try at 5 with Stokes back down to 6.

 

[Spark]

I'm genuinely amazed that you could claim that Anderson's away record of late is buttressed by picking and choosing where to play when the Test match that finished literally yesterday was (1) a massive raging greentop that looked lab made for Jimmy Anderson in which (2) Jimmy Anderson did not play.

Other bowlers have gotten plenty of games in the last few years. If they can't push out the blokes who have 1150 Test wickets between them, it's because those blokes are... actually pretty good at bowling, and winning Test matches for their country. If English cricket really is going to return to prioritising winning the next game, that means wringing every last game out of those two for as long as humanly possible.

 

[cricketsavant]

But we're clearly not losing because of our bowling, the rest is sophistry. There are Chances for other bowlers, and they keep on getting injured, and under-performing. His average is inflated by Home Tests but he actually averages more in Home than away, it's spectacular reasoning.

This reminds me of the argument put forward that though Cook was clearly our best opener, we needed to get rid and let fresh blood come in to make their mark. That's worked well.

Let those bowlers take Broad and Andersons place when they're given chances, and hey even if they do, we'll still lose, because our batting is pony.

I made a better and more nuanced argument than that, if you both reading it (Seems to be a trend on this forum of not reading posts but replying to them ). I said he gets to pick and choose, largely playing at home in helpful conditions and playing away when he deems it so.

The fact is, the team has to move away from Jimmy and Broad, it either happens now and players get a chance to develop or it happens later where the younger guys by that stage being in their late 20s and early 30s themselves.

If one wants England to succeed in the future, the better option is obvious.

 

[cricketsavant]

I'm genuinely amazed that you could claim that Anderson's away record of late is buttressed by picking and choosing where to play when the Test match that finished literally yesterday was (1) a massive raging greentop that looked lab made for Jimmy Anderson in which (2) Jimmy Anderson did not play.

He did not play because he was injured

 

[grecian]

I made a better and more nuanced argument than that, if you both reading it (Seems to be a trend on this forum of not reading posts but replying to them ). I said he gets to pick and choose, largely playing at home in helpful conditions and playing away when he deems it so.

The fact is, the team has to move away from Jimmy and Broad, it either happens now and players get a chance to develop or it happens later where the younger guys by that stage being in their late 20s and early 30s themselves.

If one wants England to succeed in the future, the better option is obvious.

If a lot of people reading your posts can't see a semblance of sense in them, then maybe it's not the people reading it where the problem lies.

Oh and as Spark said this pitch would have been Jimmy catnip, maybe Robinson would have enjoyed it more if he wasn't clearly unfit.

 

[Spark]

He did not play because he was injured

Yeah, it's almost as if he doesn't "pick and choose" which games to play based on whether he can be bothered or not and other bowlers are getting plenty of opportunities to put their cases forward of late because they aren't playing every game anyway, including on pitches where Anderson would usually be first choice if fit.

Imagine looking at Anderson and Broad's treatment the general selection policy (towards Broad in particular) in the last three years and thinking "yes, they are the ones who are getting to pick when they play, which is why they keep missing Tests where everyone goes 'why the **** aren't Anderson and Broad playing'".