Broad seems to have ingested some sort of 'don't bowl too short again and waste our new ball again' lesson
It's only taken 10 years. Fair play to him.
The commentators have looked at the stats and it's the fullest he's ever bowled at the start of a Test innings. I've been screaming at the TV since forever for him not to bowl so short.
Broad seems to have ingested some sort of 'don't bowl too short again and waste our new ball again' lesson
It's only taken 10 years. Fair play to him.
The commentators have looked at the stats and it's the fullest he's ever bowled at the start of a Test innings. I've been screaming at the TV since forever for him not to bowl so short.
I feel exactly the same, his best spells have always been when he pitches it up
Great toss to lose that, get smith and we are into the longest tail in test history. Head, Wade, Paine has to be the weakest Australian 5.6.7 of all time
Great toss to lose that, get smith and we are into the longest tail in test history. Head, Wade, Paine has to be the weakest Australian 5.6.7 of all time
That's torn it. Record 5th, 6th and 7th wicket partnerships coming up.
Wishing it was Archer coming on now instead of Stokes. They'd have had to have dropped Denly or Bairstow (or Buttler!) but I reckon it'd have been the better selection. Woakes or Ali will be batting at 9. 9!
Great toss to lose that, get smith and we are into the longest tail in test history. Head, Wade, Paine has to be the weakest Australian 5.6.7 of all time
That's torn it. Record 5th, 6th and 7th wicket partnerships coming up.
The current interpretation of "wides" never ceases to amaze me.
In one day games a ball could miss leg stump by a matter of inches but it will be called as a wide yet the two balls just delivered by Stokes that the batsman has no hope of realistically reaching down the leg side would have been byes had Bairstow not managed to stop the ball.
The same is true with regards to the change of Law regarding no balls and byes - I recently witnessed two balls from a bowler with the yips that were so high that they didn't pitch 'til the ball was about 20-30 yards from the boundary. In both cases, as per the Law, they were correctly called as one no ball and four byes. So the keeper in question racked up eight byes for balls that were impossible for him to stop and the bowler got away with just two runs on his analysis.
I even contacted the ECB about this and their rationale was that they felt the former Law (where it would have been 5 no balls) was too harsh on the bowler!
Anderson 4 overs .. not fit, too old, or both .. Stokes not Woakes, why ?
Short bursts for Anderson given his current fitness issues. Will start with him after lunch when the hope is that the break will have affected the two established batsmen concentration.
Comments
I've been screaming at the TV since forever for him not to bowl so short.
Khawaja gone.
Only my 3rd.
Got grandkids to look after so pacing myself.
In one day games a ball could miss leg stump by a matter of inches but it will be called as a wide yet the two balls just delivered by Stokes that the batsman has no hope of realistically reaching down the leg side would have been byes had Bairstow not managed to stop the ball.
The same is true with regards to the change of Law regarding no balls and byes - I recently witnessed two balls from a bowler with the yips that were so high that they didn't pitch 'til the ball was about 20-30 yards from the boundary. In both cases, as per the Law, they were correctly called as one no ball and four byes. So the keeper in question racked up eight byes for balls that were impossible for him to stop and the bowler got away with just two runs on his analysis.
I even contacted the ECB about this and their rationale was that they felt the former Law (where it would have been 5 no balls) was too harsh on the bowler!