***Official*** Pakistan and England in UAE

[Pothas]

Genuine question. Can anyone remember a consistently worse batting performance from England than what we've seen on this tour? I can't. India 1992/93 was dire, but we made 200 a few times. I honestly think that we've plumbed depths previously uncharted by England's test batsmen over the last 3 weeks.

The scores were probably not as low but that home series against New Zealand always sticks in my mind as utterly terrible.

 

[smash84]

lol Bell. lol Akmal.

Don't know how you can say Bell was unlucky. Akmal lucky perhaps, but Bell played a poor shot, should've been stumped by a good keeper.

This

bloody khatmals

 

[Pothas]

Morvan looking ridiculously clueless.

 

[Shri]

Saeed Ajmal to Morgan, no run, he goes back into the crease and tries to read him from the crease. No clue. The ball spun away, beating the outside edge by half a foot.

Good player of spin?

 

[wpdavid]

The scores were probably not as low but that home series against New Zealand always sticks in my mind as utterly terrible.

1999? Yes, good call. iirc NZ had just played a series against SA when they took a ludicrously small number of wickets in the 3 match series. Didn't turn out that way against our boys though.

At home to India in 1986 also came to mind.

 

[benchmark00]

Don't really get why Morgan's forward press is so pronounced, gives himself too much to do after the ball is released, will often find himself with a moving head.

 

[Stapel]

That someone being KP. Proper ****.

As for Bell, I hope that new guy who was trolling him hasn't been banned? Called it early and well.

How Strauss is still here heaven wonders. Credit to the captain.

There is something about not performing too well consistently, but outperforming when others don't. I like Strauss!

 

[Xuhaib]

tbf England's best batsman bat 7,8 & 9.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Andrew Strauss - not a collar up man.

Discuss.

 

[sledger]

Must be gutting for England's bowlers. Morgan clearly not going to last long unless he bucks his ideas up.

 

[Pothas]

Wish he would just hit the bloody ball, hell I wouldn't even get angry if he got out doing one of those reverse reverse sweeps of his,

 

[flibbertyjibber]

So how long will Morgan last?

less than 20 balls is my shout.

 

[LegionOfBrad]

Give it a smack. Inviting pressure once again. FFS

 

[sledger]

So how long will Morgan last?

less than 20 balls is my shout.

Might fluke his way past that, doubt he'll get 20 runs though.

 

[smash84]

I won't stoop to your level by calling you names: your post speaks for itself. Since you've just demonstrated that you don't understand the use of the conditional in what I sincerely hope is not your mother tongue, let me break down what I wrote for you, highlighting (and explaining the significance of) key words:

I wrote:

I've asked this question before: if, as I've predicted, Bell averages less than 20 in this series, what would be the attitude of his many defenders on this forum? That that level of performance is an aberration? That would be a very unintelligent, nay, delusional way of interpreting the data, given what has gone before.

In the above extract I reiterate my prediction that Bell will average less than 20. Everything that follows is CONDITIONAL upon that. I have acknowledged that it hasn't happened yet by using "if" after the colon, and then made use of the conditional in asking "what would be the attitude" of Bell's many defenders should my prediction come to pass. Then finally there is an implied "if" (if his defenders were to respond that averaging less than 20 in this series was just a blip) before I allow myself another conditional "that would be very unintelligent, nay delusional".

I can't believe you're sincerely raging along the lines of "how about we wait to see whether it happens, Nostradamus", when I couldn't have made it clearer that I was dealing in hypotheticals by my use of "if", "would" and other conditional constructions. Perhaps you're not just thick, and would react just as furiously upon receiving the following advice from your wife or mother, "you ought to take your umbrella darling; if you were to get caught in the rain, you would get very wet and might catch pneumonia":

"Well Nostradamus, how about we wait to see IF it rains, BEFORE accusing me of being the sort of person who could EVER catch pneumonia."

As for your other question, if Bell does average 40+, or even 30+, I will come here and humbly admit to having been wrong about him. I have no problems whatsoever admitting when I'm wrong. What I will not do is react with "a massive shrug of the shoulders". And go on to claim that "people read far too much into individual series averages; a series average of 20 would prove nothing other than Bell wasn't in prime form for the duration of the series."

Given Bell's history of embarrassingly inept performances whenever he has been confronted with a balanced attack, that would be almost as stupid as your last post.

This guy sounds prophetic in retrospect

 

[BoyBrumby]

Andrew Strauss - not a collar up man.

Discuss.

Should bat in a harlequin cap with a cravat, tbh. Officer class, isn't it?

 

[wpdavid]

That's better. Perhaps Strauss has told him that this is a onedayer and we need 100 from the last 12 overs.

 

[Pothas]

1999? Yes, good call. iirc NZ had just played a series against SA when they took a ludicrously small number of wickets in the 3 match series. Didn't turn out that way against our boys though.

At home to India in 1986 also came to mind.

Yeah 1999 all time low point, seem to remember we had some outrageously long tails in that series.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Dorothy. If he's not picking the Spaniard, just be positive. Get to the pitch. Bare moves the fecker off the straight anyway.

 

[Howe_zat]

Pitch is clearly a road, everyone get on the draw now.