-
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* England in Bangladesh Thread
- Thread starter gibbsnsmith
- Start date
Oh yeah it was what was needed, all iam saying is the bowling wasn't as good as the figures showed, there were quite alot of bad balls that could have been put away that were just left... just saying after being in for like 2 hours your going to be as set as your going to be... just think they could have attacked slighty more than what they did without being to risky.marc71178 said:
Between Tea and Close - I watched about 15 overs of cricket and the pair added like 20-30 runs.
Last edited:
luckyeddie
Cricket Web Staff Member
Drop HussainRich2001 said:
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Clarke made his Surrey First XI debut in 2002 (and he scored a century - though it was against Cambridge UCCE).Rich2001 said:
IMO he shouldn't have been selected until now - two consecutive good county seasons are an adaquete reflection that someone is a good prospect for international cricket. If you ask me, anyway - and that's only generally, not invariably.
Just a shame he was selected for the ODIs as his one-day record domestically is very poor indeed.
But he's done well (with the bat) in his first two seasons, there were places available and his selection was one of the easiest for a while. I'm just rather worried that so many people considered him an all-rounder until now - not a look, seemingly, at his county records with the ball. It's amazed me how accurate he was in The First Test, as he clearly hasn't been for Surrey most of the time.
Good luck to him tomorrow. Hope he makes a century.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Well, the Bangladeshis certainly did! Rafique on 36, then Rehman didn't even go for it on 40.luckyeddie said:
Seriously, though, Hussain has again looked very unconvincing this series, and though the conditions, in my view, can't be described as easy for batting, he's generally got himself into trouble (the abysmal lbw excepted).
He was in great form last summer and still wasted the chance of easy runs against Zimbabwe. His average in The Ashes was OK but it was about the luckiest single series I've ever seen for any batsman.
I still think Nass is a fantastic batsman, and I love watching him play like no-one in the side (yes, even Vaughan), but his form recently has been very worrying.
Richard said:
LOL!!!!
TBH Iam more concerened about Mark Butcher's sudden lose of form, his had a abysmal tour thus far and even in the tour matches he has failed badly, his gone from clearly our best bat to worst bat overnight... iam sure he will be back to his best soon enough.Richard said:
As for Nasser, he was probley the best man for the job today... experianced, bloody minded and there was no way in the world he would throw his wicket away cheaply. We needed to form a p/ship and he is probley the most defensive batsman in the squad. Just needed someone to play off him and score at the other end while he kept the bolwers at bay and frustated them into bowling a bad line and lenght.
But like someone said at the end of the day it was better to be slighty behind the target than be all out. It's a solid foundation for play tommorow, and with Saggers still to come with the bat England getting 750 isn't off the cards just yet! (opps did I say that out loud
)
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
I'm looking forwards to seeing him with the cherry in his hand more than the willow.
It's a terrific opportunity for him - nice lush outfield, the ball should keep it's shine for longer than normal in the subcontinent. Even under clear skies, there's unquestionably been some swing if you get the ball right. Khaled found a bit of seam, too.
Assuming Saggers bowls as he has been for the last 4 seasons, there's a nice debut awaiting him. None of these batsmen seem all that accomplished with the ball moving around late (mind you, who is?) so he's got every right to be sizing-up a bag of 6 or 7.
Regarding Butchie, meanwhile, his loss of form really has been quite startling, given how he was playing last summer. I'll be pretty surprised if he doesn't sort it out sooner rather than later, but he's wasted a great chance to get his average up by 4 or 5. So has Nass.
Indeed, only Trescothick's really taken full toll.
It's a terrific opportunity for him - nice lush outfield, the ball should keep it's shine for longer than normal in the subcontinent. Even under clear skies, there's unquestionably been some swing if you get the ball right. Khaled found a bit of seam, too.
Assuming Saggers bowls as he has been for the last 4 seasons, there's a nice debut awaiting him. None of these batsmen seem all that accomplished with the ball moving around late (mind you, who is?) so he's got every right to be sizing-up a bag of 6 or 7.
Regarding Butchie, meanwhile, his loss of form really has been quite startling, given how he was playing last summer. I'll be pretty surprised if he doesn't sort it out sooner rather than later, but he's wasted a great chance to get his average up by 4 or 5. So has Nass.
Indeed, only Trescothick's really taken full toll.
Talking of nice lush out fields, what are peoples views on this current field?
For those that haven't seen it, as on most fields there are strips up and down, but the darker colour sections are atleast a inch longer and when the camera was facing alone the ground you could see clear ridges right across the field... with the bit of rain the night before, it must be a nightmear fielding, not knowing if the ball might hold up or take a bad bounce.
(I'll try and find a piccy)
For those that haven't seen it, as on most fields there are strips up and down, but the darker colour sections are atleast a inch longer and when the camera was facing alone the ground you could see clear ridges right across the field... with the bit of rain the night before, it must be a nightmear fielding, not knowing if the ball might hold up or take a bad bounce.
(I'll try and find a piccy)
I hate to say this, but I think the potentially a reason for some of the English batsman struggling is the oppossition. Let me explain. Frankly if over the last few years you've been taking on challenges you regard as the toughest in the world, series v Aus, SA and India and the World cup thrown into all this, an away series against Bangladesh isn't going to matter at all. How many people believe after even this winter is out, this series will be remembered(against series results against Sri Lanka and the West Indies). In fact you may go further and say the only truly important series this winter in terms of the general English sporting public is the one in the Caribean. That may annoy genuine world cricket fans but its something which would be hard to argue against i believe.
When that happens motivation becomes a factor.In fact despite being professional sportsman a test series against the worst team in the world must be hard to get pumped up for. Its almost like a footballing qualifying tie against an Eastern European side, where the motto amongst fans,players and the media is get a result then get the hell out of there.
When that happens motivation becomes a factor.In fact despite being professional sportsman a test series against the worst team in the world must be hard to get pumped up for. Its almost like a footballing qualifying tie against an Eastern European side, where the motto amongst fans,players and the media is get a result then get the hell out of there.
You make a valid point, but I guess the series is also very important for a few of the members of the squad to make a immpresion to the selectors.Swanny said:
G.Batty, R.Clarke, R.Johnson, M.Saggers etc etc all starting out and want to be involded in the English squad again so all want to perform well.
A.Giles, M.Vaughan etc - Have been struggling for form prior to the series so who better to regain form agaist than the wipping boys of Tests cricket.
G.Thrope - Got back into the sqaud late in the summer, needs to show that the 100 wasn't a one off and he actually wants to be there this time.
So overall it might not be the most remembered of series but for alot of people it's a very important one in regards to their furtures.
Again you've made a very vaild point however i'd argue in only one respect.The new boys certainly have a lot of riding on there performances in this series.Batty was i feel harshly dropped in the first game. If you have two like for like players(spinners) and one is dropped it is either the one who played worse(Giles) or on occasion when the other is a previous world class performer they keep there place.Go back here to WC2002 when Owen kept his place for Argentina when Vassell was better v Sweden because well Owen is an awesome player, Vassell isn't. However this argument doesn't hold for Giles.Whilst I admit hes looks our best slow bowler, he hasnt done it at highest level enough to convince me bad performances can go almost unnoticed. So Batty harshly treated.
As for Clarke and Johnson its an awkward one. Do well and its only against Bangladesh. Do poorly and they are rubbish, they can't win, although i'm have to say i'm not sure about Clarke, i do like a the look of Johnson(v WI, hits the deck hard??).
As for Vaughan and Thorpe they may as well have a net for the use this series is for there careers.Vaughan is still quality, alright the being captain may have affected him but it was coming anyway. If he'd have carried on like he did against SL,Ind and Aus he'd have been immortal and the greatest batsman of all time, a slump had to happen. As for Thorpe he could score 0 in all 4 innings and still play all tests this winter,people still see him as our best/most dangerous batsman.
As for Clarke and Johnson its an awkward one. Do well and its only against Bangladesh. Do poorly and they are rubbish, they can't win, although i'm have to say i'm not sure about Clarke, i do like a the look of Johnson(v WI, hits the deck hard??).
As for Vaughan and Thorpe they may as well have a net for the use this series is for there careers.Vaughan is still quality, alright the being captain may have affected him but it was coming anyway. If he'd have carried on like he did against SL,Ind and Aus he'd have been immortal and the greatest batsman of all time, a slump had to happen. As for Thorpe he could score 0 in all 4 innings and still play all tests this winter,people still see him as our best/most dangerous batsman.
Oh I totally agree here, Giles was more than lucky to keep his place over Batty for this Test... Just read the last page or top of this one, and I made a long post just after close about it.Swanny said:
Yep I've said that a few times myself, Trescothick scores hatful of runs and it's his in blinding form... get R.Key in for example and it's only old granny could score runs agaist this lot.
Point again, all I was saying for Vaughan was of course a down turn had to happen, but all I was saying was out of all the attacks around the world.. you would pick Bangladesh on paper to regain form, agree on Thorpe too.
The only one part I would disagree is that regardless who the opposition is, time in the middle is always alot lot better than a day in the nets.
We seem to agree on alot of stuff so far, wouldn't happen to top it off and be a Kent fan too would you
Last edited:
Haha no im afraid not.I guess i'm not a huge follower of a county cricket side, i like to watch cricket whoever is on, although i have seen Lancashire more than anyone purely down to me being 3rd year student at the University of Manchester so i guess you can call them my team. I used to follow Lincolnshire until i played against them all and well you can't follow a team when you've played against all the players can you.(When i say play i dont mean compete you understand, hate to go above my station).
But yeah i suppose i agree bout Vaughan and Thorpe that time in the middle is more useful but i was being silly on that one, just trying to show that whatever happens, they will both start all games all winter(fitness permitting).
As for England it has to be said isn't the general lack of interest frustrating. Even the broadsheets have paid little attention and I can say my sports loving flatmates wouldn't know what was going on in this test if i werent practising my chipping at 7am against there doors.Low key test series help dont help cricket whether home or away.
But yeah i suppose i agree bout Vaughan and Thorpe that time in the middle is more useful but i was being silly on that one, just trying to show that whatever happens, they will both start all games all winter(fitness permitting).
As for England it has to be said isn't the general lack of interest frustrating. Even the broadsheets have paid little attention and I can say my sports loving flatmates wouldn't know what was going on in this test if i werent practising my chipping at 7am against there doors.Low key test series help dont help cricket whether home or away.
Oh well can't have everything can weSwanny said:
Iam tempted to disagree for the sake of it :rolleyes: (to much agreeing for these forums to take
)I agree totally the EBC and people in general keep saying we want the younger kids to get more involded in cricket and go watch matches etc, but how will they ever get a intreste in the game if they don't get to see it? - Obviously C4 get a few Tests games but to be fair the younger group want to see the ball hit out the ground and as you say in the papers your lucky if you get half a page at the moment.
It's only really the Internet that gives a huge amount of coverage to the game, with sites like this and Cricinfo etc.. but if your not intrested in the game to start with or don't know the games are happening why and how would you come across the sites.
Going a little of topic here, but iam sure we can turn it around quickly
Last edited:
Ok well if you know me(ask PY for certain), it kills me to agree with you but am tempted to say i think i do.I would love to see people interested in this series but i just dont't think they are.I know this much agreement can't be healthy but i know this series is as low key as they come.Either another superstar comes along asap(unlikely) or we accept that cricket is a minoirty sport and the job is going to be a long term one.I hate saying this, personally i don't agree, but cricket as a long wat to go to becoming a major sport.
luckyeddie
Cricket Web Staff Member
I totally and utterly disagree.Swanny said:
I don't really - it's just that too many sensible posts are being made at the moment.
Cricket in England is the 'invisible' sport - relegated to inside pages, hidden away on Channel 4 in the summer (a channel which no-one ever watches until they show rude films) because by and large we do not have a successful side.
Saying that, the fifth test victory over South Africa got huge exposure and people were talking about it for days. It's really been the same ever since Botham retired. We need a 'larger-than-life' character, a hero if you like, to generate interest.
Dazzler fitted the bill to a certain extent, but if Flintoff actually progresses into a player of class (we're still waiting, Freddie) that could go some way regarding exposure - he's got a little 'box office' potential about him.
LOL Eddie joins the agreeing threadluckyeddie said:
I think Jimmy Anderson was doing a good job until his sudden lost of form... but I expect after this much needed break.. Him, Harmy and Jones will be a fearson attack in the WI later in the year when all are fit *Fingers Crossed*
PY
International Coach
I'm afraid I'm going to concede to the agreers' side as wellluckyeddie said:
We do need a player who gets on the back page a lot (for good and possibly bad (debatable) reasons) just for exposure.
I agree that Freddie is the man to do it IMO. He's a working-class bloke who's a big lad, puts a shed-load of effort in to everything he does and he most importantly ENTERTAINS.
At Lords and The Oval he had people dancing around when he was mashing SA to all parts. I was positively glued to the TV, couldn't move. And it was OD mode but it was relevant to the Test match situation (The Oval).
One thing I will say is, cricket doesn't attract 'new' fans much. Unless you're into it early you don't start to watch it unless its on TV and it isn't very much anymore. On my corridor, there isn't a single person who is remotely interested in cricket and you even mention it and their eyes begin to shut because of the way cricket is perceived. Needs to be changed but I'm not sure if a superstar can do that by himself.
Longest post I've ever wrote I think (1053 characters) :P
Last edited: