***Official***Match #36 - Australia vs England - November 4th - Ahmedabad

[Molehill]

Especially games like this.

Stokes played the right way IMO. Just gave it away.

I don't know how you can say that. There were 50 dot balls in Stokes' innings, 50!! In the middle of it, he padded out a Cummins over which included two bouncers he ducked. First ball next over, Buttler obviously getting concerned about the increasing run rate and the lack of effort at the other end does something stupid. It reminded me of Trott because that happened all the time. He'd get an 80 ball 50 and wickets would tumble all around him......and we were rubbish at ODI Cricket during that time too so it obviously wasn't a winning strategy.

All Stokes had to do was rotate more, keep the scoreboard ticking and take the pressure off the other batter. We were always 20 runs behind where the Aussies were and we never looked like catching up. Yes, the top order was rubbish again and Bairstow can just disappear from International Cricket for me, but Stokes could still have done more once he'd got in.

 

[quincywagstaff]

Is there a worse commentator than Mark 'Howie' Howard - he says absolutely nothing apart from stating the bloody obvious

What I can't stand about him is how much of a sycophant he is towards former pros he's commentating with. Just absolutely shameless.

 

[Burgey]

Bhogle used to be good at not doing this. Think as time has gone on, he's gotten high off his own supply though.

Yeah it happens to a lot of guys in that role tbf to him. When he started out here he was awesome

 

[Burgey]

Yeah it really does remind one of the heroic spells he bowled in the Gabba test of the border gavaskar trophy but was thwarted by Rishabh Pant playing an amazing innings and leading India to their greatest series victory of all time.

Lol this is so ****ing good

 

[DriveClub]

I don't know how you can say that. There were 50 dot balls in Stokes' innings, 50!! In the middle of it, he padded out a Cummins over which included two bouncers he ducked. First ball next over, Buttler obviously getting concerned about the increasing run rate and the lack of effort at the other end does something stupid. It reminded me of Trott because that happened all the time. He'd get an 80 ball 50 and wickets would tumble all around him......and we were rubbish at ODI Cricket during that time too so it obviously wasn't a winning strategy.

All Stokes had to do was rotate more, keep the scoreboard ticking and take the pressure off the other batter. We were always 20 runs behind where the Aussies were and we never looked like catching up. Yes, the top order was rubbish again and Bairstow can just disappear from International Cricket for me, but Stokes could still have done more once he'd got in.

Stokes was saving his knee for surgery, didn't want to run too much. He knew England was already out of the world cup so why risk his knee

 

[GIMH]

I don't know how you can say that. There were 50 dot balls in Stokes' innings, 50!! In the middle of it, he padded out a Cummins over which included two bouncers he ducked. First ball next over, Buttler obviously getting concerned about the increasing run rate and the lack of effort at the other end does something stupid. It reminded me of Trott because that happened all the time. He'd get an 80 ball 50 and wickets would tumble all around him......and we were rubbish at ODI Cricket during that time too so it obviously wasn't a winning strategy.

All Stokes had to do was rotate more, keep the scoreboard ticking and take the pressure off the other batter. We were always 20 runs behind where the Aussies were and we never looked like catching up. Yes, the top order was rubbish again and Bairstow can just disappear from International Cricket for me, but Stokes could still have done more once he'd got in.

What we needed Stokes to do was what Stokes does best. Soak up pressure then accelerate. He gave it away, and that’s what should be criticised. The idea he’s at fault for going too slowly ignores the fact that only Malan from the top seven made a score aside from him which is why he had to play the way he did. And as for ‘lack of effort’ I can’t believe you would write that. Jesus Christ. And Buttler got out because he’s cooked, Zampa set the trap which he fell into. The idea it was because of Stokes is for the fairies.

As for Trott. He wasn’t good at setting a tempo but in a chase between 250-300 he was excellent. It’s also forgotten that in the 11-13 phase, we actually went to #1 in ODIs. It was a bit of a false position, but you don’t get there without winning games. Then the power plays changed and we regressed.

 

[ma1978]

I don't know how you can say that. There were 50 dot balls in Stokes' innings, 50!! In the middle of it, he padded out a Cummins over which included two bouncers he ducked. First ball next over, Buttler obviously getting concerned about the increasing run rate and the lack of effort at the other end does something stupid. It reminded me of Trott because that happened all the time. He'd get an 80 ball 50 and wickets would tumble all around him......and we were rubbish at ODI Cricket during that time too so it obviously wasn't a winning strategy.

All Stokes had to do was rotate more, keep the scoreboard ticking and take the pressure off the other batter. We were always 20 runs behind where the Aussies were and we never looked like catching up. Yes, the top order was rubbish again and Bairstow can just disappear from International Cricket for me, but Stokes could still have done more once he'd got in.

there was definitely something about late stage Dhoni about Stokes’s innings. You were waiting for the magic to start and it never did

 

[Ashes81]

I like Howie as a commentator tbh. I think people miss that there's a lot more to commentary than having Ponting-levels of cricketing insight all the time; especially in his role as being a more ball-by-ball commentator. I'd honestly put him well above average of commentators going around the international circuit these days.

I brought up his commentary yesterday and how it was annoying me but on reflection it was largely due to our ineptitude in this WC. However, him calling Labuschagne, Marnus all the time, like he was his mate, did piss me off.

I have never heard him do ball by ball comms on the radio but I could see him being good at that but that style doesn't really fit well on the TV.

Some of my favourite radio comms were journalists rather than ex players - John Arlott, CMJ, Brian Johnson - all of whom were much better suited to radio than TV.

 

[Burgey]

Henry Blofeld used to describe the colour of a dappled pigeon as it nestled on the balcony but forget to let you know the score for 15 minutes at a time

 

[Aidan11]

Arlott was the best of them all. Johnners and Trueman were a great double act too.

Stopped listening to TMS when Agnew took over as the main commentator . The banter just wasn't the same.

 

[loterry1994]

I like Howie as a commentator tbh. I think people miss that there's a lot more to commentary than having Ponting-levels of cricketing insight all the time; especially in his role as being a more ball-by-ball commentator. I'd honestly put him well above average of commentators going around the international circuit these days.

his absolutely great his come along way since doing commentary in the big bash the earlier days. His got a lot of excitement about him when he commentates seems to be really enjoying the game

 

[Ashes81]

Arlott was the best of them all. Johnners and Trueman were a great double act too.

Stopped listening to TMS when Agnew took over as the main commentator . The banter just wasn't the same.

Arlott was the master, as good a commentator as I've heard in any sport.

He had the good fortune to be born with a brilliant voice, but as a pretty gifted poet, he had a wonderful turn of phrase.

Johnners was completely different but brilliant to listen to, with his nicknames, listeners cakes, his neighbours obsession and a playful sense of humour. His partnership with Fred Trueman was truly brilliant.

I still listen to TMS a fair bit and still enjoy it but it's not the same as it was.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I don't know how you can say that. There were 50 dot balls in Stokes' innings, 50!! In the middle of it, he padded out a Cummins over which included two bouncers he ducked. First ball next over, Buttler obviously getting concerned about the increasing run rate and the lack of effort at the other end does something stupid. It reminded me of Trott because that happened all the time. He'd get an 80 ball 50 and wickets would tumble all around him......and we were rubbish at ODI Cricket during that time too so it obviously wasn't a winning strategy.

All Stokes had to do was rotate more, keep the scoreboard ticking and take the pressure off the other batter. We were always 20 runs behind where the Aussies were and we never looked like catching up. Yes, the top order was rubbish again and Bairstow can just disappear from International Cricket for me, but Stokes could still have done more once he'd got in.

This has annoyed me since I was a kid. Player X batting in a limited-overs innings, barely scoring, puts all the pressure on the other players who all get out trying to push the score along because they have to. Then at the end of the day "At least player X batted well too bad no one else could support him"

**** off

 

[Ashes81]

Stokes came in during the 5th at 19-2. Chasing 280 odd, another quick wicket or so and the game is over.

He played exactly the right innings, build a partnership with Malan, to give us some sort of platform for the last 20 overs or so.

He got out to a poor shot but the pressure on the lower middle order was not down to Stokes, it was loss of 2 early wickets.

 

[TheJediBrah]

2 early wickets doesn't mean you can't rotate the strike. 50 dot balls is ridiculous. Bowlers would have thought they were on holidays

 

[Molehill]

This has annoyed me since I was a kid. Player X batting in a limited-overs innings, barely scoring, puts all the pressure on the other players who all get out trying to push the score along because they have to. Then at the end of the day "At least player X batted well too bad no one else could support him"

**** off

Finally found something we agree on!! Labuschagne came in at 38-2 and scored 71 from 83, compared to Stokes 64 off 90. Labuschagne was slow to get going but then rotated really well. It's worth noting that in the last 12 balls of Stokes innings he scored just 3 runs, at this point he's the set batsman with the field well spread, there's lots of gaps.....it shoudn't be difficult. Zampa bowled well, but not 3-19 well.

What's interesting looking back at Trott is that his average is barely any different whether England were winning games or losing. Turns out his 77 ball 50's really weren't having any real impact on deciding matches.....but deep down we all knew that.

 

[ashley bach]

Henry Blofeld used to describe the colour of a dappled pigeon as it nestled on the balcony but forget to let you know the score for 15 minutes at a time

Thank goodness Henry wasn't commentating this game.

 

[Ashes81]

2 early wickets doesn't mean you can't rotate the strike. 50 dot balls is ridiculous. Bowlers would have thought they were on holidays

I'm sure Stokes would have liked to have picked up more singles but for me his priority had to be to build a partnership with Malan, and he did that.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I'm sure Stokes would have liked to have picked up more singles but for me his priority had to be to build a partnership with Malan, and he did that.

Important part of building a partnership in ODI cricket is rotating the strike. No just for the scoreboard but to disrupt bowling plans, fielding placings etc.

 

[Gob]

Sometimes, rotating the strike can be hard all the time

Ask Cameron Green