In 2005 we played Australia in one T20. A number of remarkable aspects from that game:
We won by 100 runs KP got man of the match for scoring 34 off 18 and taking three catches when Collingwood scored 46 off 26 and had bowling figures of 2-0-8-2 The farcical line up and batting order - that sums up how far we've come in terms of attitude to the shorter form of the game:
In 2005 we played Australia in one T20. A number of remarkable aspects from that game:
We won by 100 runs KP got man of the match for scoring 34 off 18 and taking three catches when Collingwood scored 46 off 26 and had bowling figures of 2-0-8-2 The farcical line up and batting order - that sums up how far we've come in terms of attitude to the shorter form of the game:
Vaughan, Strauss and Solanki must have been picked for their specialist fielding!
To be fair that was a lot better than the more recent times when we had Cook, Trott and Bell (and Balance often) clogging up the top order and seeing us to barely 100 after 35 overs so we woukd have to spend the whole time catching up.
But this was T20 Canters - doubt Cook, Froth and Bell (and Balance often) have ever played a T20 for England.
It was one of the first International T20's and the game hadn't really taken off, it was the first in England. I don't think anything can really be concluded from this except that we thrashed them. This format of "cricket" has totally changed.
But this was T20 Canters - doubt Cook, Froth and Bell (and Balance often) have ever played a T20 for England.
It was one of the first International T20's and the game hadn't really taken off, it was the first in England. I don't think anything can really be concluded from this except that we thrashed them. This format of "cricket" has totally changed.
We really don't have an obvious captain apart from Root - Cook doesn't want it, typically front line quickies don't do it these days and how long has Jimmy got left anyway, Stokes is a mile away from being handed the job and too much of a hot head, it would be too much for Bairstow as keeper and batsman and no one else is certain of their place.
We really don't have an obvious captain apart from Root - Cook doesn't want it, typically front line quickies don't do it these days and how long has Jimmy got left anyway, Stokes is a mile away from being handed the job and too much of a hot head, it would be too much for Bairstow as keeper and batsman and no one else is certain of their place.
I don't understand why bowlers aren't seen as captains these days
Batting is the feat which requires great concentration, where the mental energy required from captaincy may take its toll. Bowlers have to think about field placings and the weaknesses of batsmen anyway, so it should come as second nature.
Jimmy wouldn't be the long term choice, but could have done it for a couple of years.
We really don't have an obvious captain apart from Root - Cook doesn't want it, typically front line quickies don't do it these days and how long has Jimmy got left anyway, Stokes is a mile away from being handed the job and too much of a hot head, it would be too much for Bairstow as keeper and batsman and no one else is certain of their place.
I don't understand why bowlers aren't seen as captains these days
Batting is the feat which requires great concentration, where the mental energy required from captaincy may take its toll. Bowlers have to think about field placings and the weaknesses of batsmen anyway, so it should come as second nature.
Jimmy wouldn't be the long term choice, but could have done it for a couple of years.
I think part of it is that it's usual for a quickie to be fielding at fine leg or third man - obviously not in Jimmy's case. The batting captain also has no element of bias, either way, when it comes to bringing a bowler on and/or to go for a review. You can imagine what would happen if Broad was captain - he'd be bowling from both ends and be the only one allowed to review.
The final thing about Jimmy is that whilst he does get in the face of the opposition he is very much an introvert. And introverts tend to lead by example as opposed to leading the team.
We really don't have an obvious captain apart from Root - Cook doesn't want it, typically front line quickies don't do it these days and how long has Jimmy got left anyway, Stokes is a mile away from being handed the job and too much of a hot head, it would be too much for Bairstow as keeper and batsman and no one else is certain of their place.
I don't understand why bowlers aren't seen as captains these days
Batting is the feat which requires great concentration, where the mental energy required from captaincy may take its toll. Bowlers have to think about field placings and the weaknesses of batsmen anyway, so it should come as second nature.
Jimmy wouldn't be the long term choice, but could have done it for a couple of years.
I think part of it is that it's usual for a quickie to be fielding at fine leg or third man - obviously not in Jimmy's case. The batting captain also has no element of bias, either way, when it comes to bringing a bowler on and/or to go for a review. You can imagine what would happen if Broad was captain - he'd be bowling from both ends and be the only one allowed to review.
The final thing about Jimmy is that whilst he does get in the face of the opposition he is very much an introvert. And introverts tend to lead by example as opposed to leading the team.
Jimmy has done plenty of radio work over the last few years, so can't that shy, and has been "the leader of the bowler" for many years now. Unlike Broad, I think he can be trusted to think about the team's interests!
Comments
Great little knock from Woakes here though
We won by 100 runs
KP got man of the match for scoring 34 off 18 and taking three catches when Collingwood scored 46 off 26 and had bowling figures of 2-0-8-2
The farcical line up and batting order - that sums up how far we've come in terms of attitude to the shorter form of the game:
1Trecsothick
2.Jones
3.Flintoff
4.KP
5.Vaughan (C)
6.Collingwood
7.Strauss
8.Solanki
9.Lewis
10.Gough
11.Harmison
Vaughan, Strauss and Solanki must have been picked for their specialist fielding!
I still wonder if giving the captaincy to Jimmy might have been a better move at this stage of Root's career. Let him concentrate on his batting
Batting is the feat which requires great concentration, where the mental energy required from captaincy may take its toll. Bowlers have to think about field placings and the weaknesses of batsmen anyway, so it should come as second nature.
Jimmy wouldn't be the long term choice, but could have done it for a couple of years.
The final thing about Jimmy is that whilst he does get in the face of the opposition he is very much an introvert. And introverts tend to lead by example as opposed to leading the team.