• 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* Second Test (Lord's, London) 28 June–2 July

Qlder

Qlder

International Regular
FBU said:
Points 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
Click to expand...
Before last test Hazlewood was 697 and now is 694 so not sure where you got -39
 
Qlder

Qlder

International Regular
FBU said:
Last Test SA Jan 733
v England 694
Click to expand...
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 -39
 
Last edited:
T

tony p

State Regular
Just to be clear, under any metrics, if England had have played better than Australia throughout the Test, they would have beaten us. They didn't.
In the end it had nothing to do with Bazzball.
Bowling a NB that got a wicket and a pathetic keeper who couldn't seem to catch a cold was the difference, that's got nothing to do with Bazzball, that's just basic school boy errors.
 
Burgey

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
chunksafc said:
I'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"
Click to expand...
Who said all that? “Helping the brand” struck me as the biggest sign of a feeble mind captured by an Anthony Robbins YouTube video
 
Shady Slim

Shady Slim

International Coach
honestbharani said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Prince EWS

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
Shady Slim said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.

Setting those sort of fields to Brook, Stokes and Bairstow would've made lots of sense, and maybe Duckett at a stretch, but I thought setting them to Crawley - especially the field set to him when Lyon came on early on Day 1 - really played into his hands and was indeed a result of being spooked by the Bazball hype. Crawley is **** when you bowl normally to him with normal plans, so being defensive against him made no real sense.

When your plan to one batsman is basically determined by different batsmen having scored runs I think you've been a bit spooked.
 
honestbharani

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
Shady Slim said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.

And I am not creating any narrative. Its just what happened. Read the first game thread to see what people were saying as it was happening.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top