Before last test Hazlewood was 697 and now is 694 so not sure where you got -39Points the bowlers went up in the rankings since their last Test
Lyon +22
Stokes +22
Broad +21
Robinson +17
Cummins -5
Green -6
Anderson -30
Hazelwood -39
Boland -57
Before last test Hazlewood was 697 and now is 694 so not sure where you got -39Points the bowlers went up in the rankings since their last Test
Lyon +22
Stokes +22
Broad +21
Robinson +17
Cummins -5
Green -6
Anderson -30
Hazelwood -39
Boland -57
he's not even a lawyer he's a studentI understand you wanna lawyer someone hard, but no matter how good a lawyer you are, you are not gonna prove a lie to be a fact.
@Shady Slim to comment...he's not even a lawyer he's a student
Last Test SA Jan 733Before last test Hazlewood was 697 and now is 694 so not sure where you got -39
OK, but before 1st test he was 697 so his change was -3 for that test which seems more relevant otherwise you make it look like bowled really badly to go -39Last Test SA Jan 733
v England 694
I’d give him -100, worst bowler I’ve ever seen franklyOK, but before 1st test he was 697 so his change was -3 for that test which seems more relevant otherwise you make it look like bowled really badly to go -39
Very very good hereI don't think you've seen any articles like that, you're just making it up.
Who said all that? “Helping the brand” struck me as the biggest sign of a feeble mind captured by an Anthony Robbins YouTube videoI've cut and paste this bit from the ESPN article as I can't quite believe what I'm reading...
That's why we took [this loss] better than other losses perhaps, because it was great for the game. I think Sky had record viewing figures, Test Match Special had record listening figures, so this week was a great week for cricket and that's what we're all about.
"We're not about results. We always talk about that. We're not about winning or losing: we're about entertainment. Of course, we're there to win and it helps our brand and what we're trying to do. If we win, we get more traction.
"But I don't think we've lost anything this week other than a game of cricket, which is [the first in] a five-match series. But other than that, we've gained a lot of respect. We gained lots of support and I think it's great for the game.
I've put the bits in bold that really stand out for me, yes I get the argument that the ECB need test cricket to be entertaining, that people playing the game are slightly down, but ffs come on. Top level sport is about winning, always has been and always will be.
Entertaining losers will get you so far, but it won't take hold like a series win will.
If we lose the next 2 tests and the ashes are gone, then any momentum bazball gives is gone imo, fans won't accept "but we played exciting cricket, aren't we different"
friend i'm not trying to "lawyer" you nor am i accusing you of something you did not do. the bold is demonstrably false by the fact that they had the field spread from ball one. that was the game plan. they did not go away from it. they executed it to a fault. you may not think it was a good plan. you may not think it was a "positive" game plan or good cricket. the gameplan for this test was never to bowl attacking line and length and have fielders catching in tight close. you're creating this "spooked" narrative because you think the game plan was negative cricket which is your real underlying concern at play here.I understand you wanna lawyer someone hard, but no matter how good a lawyer you are, you are not gonna prove a lie to be a fact.
I think Aussies went away from their game plan which is to bowl attacking line and length and have fielders catching because of being spooked by Bazball. Its really that simple. You can type another 1000 words but you are still accusing me of something I did not do.
I think you can make an argument to suggest they were a bit spooked before the game had even started. The plan itself was I think partly a result of being spooked.friend i'm not trying to "lawyer" you nor am i accusing you of something you did not do. the bold is demonstrably false by the fact that they had the field spread from ball one. that was the game plan. they did not go away from it. they executed it to a fault. you may not think it was a good plan. you may not think it was a "positive" game plan or good cricket. the gameplan for this test was never to bowl attacking line and length and have fielders catching in tight close. you're creating this "spooked" narrative because you think the game plan was negative cricket which is your real underlying concern at play here.
So all this is because I left out the word "usual" there? And dude, they were spooked. They won at the end but that doesn't take away how they bowled and had their fields before.friend i'm not trying to "lawyer" you nor am i accusing you of something you did not do. the bold is demonstrably false by the fact that they had the field spread from ball one. that was the game plan. they did not go away from it. they executed it to a fault. you may not think it was a good plan. you may not think it was a "positive" game plan or good cricket. the gameplan for this test was never to bowl attacking line and length and have fielders catching in tight close. you're creating this "spooked" narrative because you think the game plan was negative cricket which is your real underlying concern at play here.
Yeah spooky field changes are going to become a great recurring meme. I can't wait to overdo it on the first day and kill the joke.I can't wait for every time a field is changed to talk about how the fielding is spooked