• 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* South African tour of England and Ireland 2022

Chrish

Chrish

International Debutant
I like 5 bowler strategy because it’s aggressive cricket; but that also makes the tail bit too long. So, question remains; can they consistently get the opposition out for very low totals? Or would they be better off with having an all rounder like Mudler instead?
 
wpdavid

wpdavid

Hall of Fame Member
BoyBrumby said:
Not sure England have learnt anything new. The bowling is serviceable in home conditions, the batting is more or less completely reliant on Root (and currently Bairstow) so when they score about half a run between them we're buggered, Foakes looks very gun-shy against pace, and the decision to retain Crawley is increasingly quixotic.

Since WW2 the only specialist bats who've played 20 tests and average less are Mike Brearley (who brought something else to the table), Bill Athey and Willie Watson.

The latter duo's services were permanently dispensed with before they played as many tests as Zak has already managed.
Click to expand...

The bowling was less than adequate when it really mattered. We barely threatened with the new ball, and I wasn't surprised to read Philander's observations about Branderson hitting the wrong lengths if they were serious about troubling the SA top order. We've been here before, of course. Stokes' post-tea spell yesterday was the one glorious exception, but that was at best a case of damage limitation, and at worst irrelevant. Given the state of our batting, the latter was always a possibility. Talking of which, I don't think it's disrespectful towards SA's attack, excellent though they were, to suggest that a grand total of 83 overs for our two innings combined is minnow standard. Shades of Zim and Bang in their worst days.

Crawley's the obvious scapegoat, as the whole world apart from the England management seems to know. Personally I'd replace him with Adam Lyth, and not only because I don't want my boys to lose the services of Burns in September. Compton seems to have lost form of late, so maybe this isn't the best time to pick him. As for the bowlers, Broad's previous observation that it's unreasonable to blame them when the batters can barely muster a score is still true, but, given the state of our batting, we can't afford to be giving the other side a free ride at the start of their innings. Robinson must be picked next time. Maybe instead of Potts, as Broad eventually contributed. But I do think that this series may be the end of Stuart's test career at one stage or another.
 
K

kevinw

State Captain
wpdavid said:
He really is. Yet the weirdest comment I read today was one of the online commentaries which described him as 'good against spin' after he'd faced a few balls. Sure enough, Maharaj claimed him about 60 seconds later. But some of these journalists just don't seem to follow the game at all.
Click to expand...
Harmer is the best spin bowler on the county circuit and even then he's not really international class. Most county spinners just make up the numbers, if they're selected at all.
 
K

kevinw

State Captain
Can anyone work out England's test record when Root scores either less than 10 in both innings of a Test, and also less than 20 in both innings of a Test? Basically if he fails twice I can't believe anyone else takes any responsibility.
 
SillyCowCorner1

SillyCowCorner1

Moooo
wpdavid said:
He really is. Yet the weirdest comment I read today was one of the online commentaries which described him as 'good against spin' after he'd faced a few balls. Sure enough, Maharaj claimed him about 60 seconds later. But some of these journalists just don't seem to follow the game at all.
Click to expand...
Journalists, in general these days are in it for “clickbait” titles. No substance
 
DDP

DDP

School Boy/Girl Cricketer
In hindsight it worked fantastically, but can someone explain why Maharaj was used so early into the new ball given that SA have such good quicks?
 
StephenZA

StephenZA

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
DDP said:
In hindsight it worked fantastically, but can someone explain why Maharaj was used so early into the new ball given that SA have such good quicks?
Click to expand...
No obvious cricketing reason. Think it was just a gut decision by Elgar. Possibly just wanting to change it up from first innings and test the eng order against spin. Or maybe just get Maharaj into the game.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top