Spark
Global Moderator
Oh god this is going to be a painful media cycle isn't it
Oh god this is going to be a painful media cycle isn't it
Bunch of terrible blokes in a madcap contest of who could play the shitter cricket, no-one won and then they wouldn't talk to each other afterwards. Series for the ages.
Even England complaining about the ball constantly is against the spirit of cricket, surely?Get your facts right. England didn't swap the ball. It was the umpires and they selected from balls with a similar number of overs used.
Add to that claiming dropped catches, bowlers contantly going off for shower breaks in the middle of play and being possibly the sorest losers in the history of cricket . . .Even England complaining about the ball constantly is against the spirit of cricket, surely?
You would also have thought a team that calls a correct umpiring decision in the Bairstow case against the spirit of the game would also forfeit the benefit of a shiny new ball too? I mean if they were consistent ...
And openly asking for certain types of wickets to be prepared.Add to that claiming dropped catches, bowlers contantly going off for shower breaks in the middle of play and being possibly the sorest losers in the history of cricket . . .
England can claim some things but the moral high ground is definitely not one of them
This is correct.I had thought the box of balls were done in 10 over groupings. Box of 1 to 10 overs, box of 11 to 20 over, box of 21 to 30 overs, etc, so the entire box should be in the right age bracket for equal wear. Does English grounds not do that?? Whose job is it to ensure the box of balls offered to the umps is the correct wearing?
*StumpingThe constant whining and moaning from a certain quarter is spoiling a great series even more than the Lords Members and the Bairstow run out saga.
This is what the Australians were doing with sandpaper, they were trying to help the umpires out and it's all just a big misunderstandingumpire should compare balls and rough the replacement up a bit to ensure that they look somewhat alike
I stand corrected.*Stumping
I maintain that Neser would probably have cleaned up this winter if given the chanceAus bowlers were cooked think it cost them a bit also. Half of them played that wtc final as well plus they bowled longer spells after Lyon got injured that 2nd test. Cummins played like 6 tests in a row, Starc played like 5 including the wtc final. Guys like Green, Marsh, Murphy didn’t bowl as much
England had good replacement bowlers as well in Tongue, Wood and Woakes while our replacements weren’t as good in josh, Boland and Murphy
Would have been far more useful than Green, Hazlewood and Boland.I maintain that Neser would probably have cleaned up this winter if given the chance
Neser definitely should have got a chance around test 3-5. Think loyalty did cost both teams somewhat. The Aussies with Boland, Hazlewood and Warner and same with England with Anderson. Also if Robinson didn’t go down they probably would of stayed loyal to him as well after the first two tests and we might not have seen Woakes at allI maintain that Neser would probably have cleaned up this winter if given the chance
I don’t know if our rotations would have been better anyway this series but still bowling Cummins and Starc for 5-6 tests is never going to go well. Also the tactics didn’t help them bowling t20 tactics and short stuff for half your innings. That’s why I thought they bowled well enough tests 1-3 with the field spread a lot of the time but fell off the cliff afterI really dislike the whole pecking order system. I understand selection stability, but that's far more a concern for batsmen than it is for bowlers. Bowlers can and should be rotated on form and freshness, not doing was a large part of the loss to India at home and not doing so here might have cost us again. Meanwhile we have talents like Neser who never got a real chance at a career, and Morris who isn't getting the exposure he needs, because they think only four blokes have the right to bowl fast for Australia.