Been saying it all summer, but smith is the difference between the 2 sides. Take him out of the Aussie team & there's not much between them
I would say Cummings/ Hazzlewood, Their bowlers are far more consistent (bar Broad), we have bowled ok but they are a level ahead there. Agree Smith is the standout difference though
Steve Smith is 3/1 to score 100 or more with Skybet in the 1st innings of this Test. Seeing as he's done so in 8 of his last 17 Tests against us and his opening scores at The Oval have been 138* and 143 respectively that probably isn't the worst value bet in the world - albeit it might be relatively poor compensation given the implications of him doing so on the match result.
My god that is bad odds. I thought he would be odds on Fav.
Bad odds? I don't really understand. If you mean 5/2 (was 3/1) to get a ton, its only down to his performance so far why its so low. I don't get what you mean by odds on fave Paul? unless I have misunderstood.
Don't particularly understand why we don't open with Woakes. He is a swing bowler and most likely to get something out of the new ball. Archer is the player most likely to make something happen when the ball isn't doing anything.
But Archer is more likely to get wickets than Woakes. Personally, I wouldn’t play the latter and I don’t think he would be playing, were Anderson or Wood fit.
Bowling attack of Anderson, archer, broad and wood would be up their with our 05 attack in terms of quality and pace imo
The way Anderson was talking the other day I think his days are numbered. Looks very sad and when he was talking about playing he couldn't give a date and couldn't even guarantee a series, talking about how it goes with one game etc... he has to see game by game
Been saying it all summer, but smith is the difference between the 2 sides. Take him out of the Aussie team & there's not much between them
I would say Cummings/ Hazzlewood, Their bowlers are far more consistent (bar Broad), we have bowled ok but they are a level ahead there. Agree Smith is the standout difference though
Agreed but we are missing Anderson, Wood, Stone. Add those back in and I think we would have an equal pack of quicks. Equally take 2 of their starters out and they wouldn't look better than us.
Pay rises for centrally contracted England heroes .. ((:>) .. quote .. 'stars such as Root, Stokes, Broad and Anderson will see their £450,000 yearly basic rise to £675,000 … the players are very happy with the new salary structure' … unquote .. HAPPY, I bet they are. (Taken from the Sun Friday 13th)
I've thought for a long time that the best way to deal with over rates is to make the breaks flexible in time. Penalising with runs would be likely to result in less scrupulous players gaming the system. If you reach the point at which you are far enough ahead in a match you're aiming to draw, you could just stop bowling and take a (say) five-run per over penalty, instead of risking conceding the (say) six runs an over the batting teams needs to win.
Instead of issuing penalties, the umpires could move the start time for each of the breaks, until the overs are bowled. Example: currently a day's play starts at 11:00am and, no matter how many overs have been bowled, the fielding team gets a rest for forty minutes at 1:00pm.
Shifting the intervals (up to a point) is a sound idea, added to run penalties, captains would certainly ensure their team kept right up to speed. It wouldn't be fair to restrict batters' rest breaks because of fielding sides' malfeasance. There is one critical barrier to changing the match timings: TV coverage - specifically the funds so cravenly ingested by the ICC, ECB et al. The NFFP governing bodies in cricket are so devoutly plugged in to the cash cows of pay TV broadcasters, those broadcasters get exactly what they want, when they want it, because they want it, irrespective of the impact on the game and its integrity. The whores at the ICC and ECB have been felating the TV companies so vigorously for so long they can't remember what the game used to even look like. With test matches so rarely lasting far, if at all, into their 5th days, can anyone remember when the outcome of a match has been compromised by a failure to complete 440 or more overs, when the weather hasn't intervened? Most matches rush towards their completion in little more than 3 days worth of overs. This very late ashes series highlighted one crass stupidity around making up overs lost to weather interruptions - time was added on at the end of the day to recoup lost overs, but inevitably ran into failing light as the final session approached 7pm. The simple matter of adding 15 minutes at the start of the day and having a slightly longer morning session, could have provided an extra hour's play and the members wouldn't even have their sacred effing lunch interval disrupted. Common sense, pragmatism, integrity all ignored in the desperate pursuit of the almighty dollar, rupee, etc...
This is the frustrating thing about this series, Smith aside this Australian batting line up is bobbins, bar a little bit of resistance from Labuschagne who has only played half the series. Smith can average 150 but if you bowl the rest out for 100 between them it doesn't matter much.
Comments
I would say Cummings/ Hazzlewood, Their bowlers are far more consistent (bar Broad), we have bowled ok but they are a level ahead there. Agree Smith is the standout difference though
11/4
Good lad , can you get him to get a 50 too, whilst you are at it Labuschgne too please
Out for 99.
Bad odds? I don't really understand. If you mean 5/2 (was 3/1) to get a ton, its only down to his performance so far why its so low. I don't get what you mean by odds on fave Paul? unless I have misunderstood.
There is one critical barrier to changing the match timings: TV coverage - specifically the funds so cravenly ingested by the ICC, ECB et al. The NFFP governing bodies in cricket are so devoutly plugged in to the cash cows of pay TV broadcasters, those broadcasters get exactly what they want, when they want it, because they want it, irrespective of the impact on the game and its integrity. The whores at the ICC and ECB have been felating the TV companies so vigorously for so long they can't remember what the game used to even look like.
With test matches so rarely lasting far, if at all, into their 5th days, can anyone remember when the outcome of a match has been compromised by a failure to complete 440 or more overs, when the weather hasn't intervened? Most matches rush towards their completion in little more than 3 days worth of overs.
This very late ashes series highlighted one crass stupidity around making up overs lost to weather interruptions - time was added on at the end of the day to recoup lost overs, but inevitably ran into failing light as the final session approached 7pm. The simple matter of adding 15 minutes at the start of the day and having a slightly longer morning session, could have provided an extra hour's play and the members wouldn't even have their sacred effing lunch interval disrupted. Common sense, pragmatism, integrity all ignored in the desperate pursuit of the almighty dollar, rupee, etc...
Its so boring - every time you put Test on he is fecking doing his stupid tourettes.
Smith at times is the luckiest player in the world as well as the best.
But if Root had held the catch from Smith we would probably have a 1st innings lead of over 100