"Root is tactically unable to do the thing he's just done".
Bloody hell, thought it'd be bigger news that someone had surpassed Jim Laker's record of 19 wickets in a Test match!
-------------------
Just to clarify, I'm twisting your words particularly egregiously here, just like you do with so, SO many other posters. The way people like yourself and Pres act on the cricket threads has put me off contributing to any of them except the club one.
Like, it's obvious the point Canters is trying to make. Tactically one has to bowl to a plan for each batsman and ensure wickets are acquired through careful bowling rather than, say, Archer somehow getting a Michelle going at a run a ball (how is that tactically astute in the long term?).
But you insist on twisting people's words for pretty much no reason. Like when Canters mentioned Foakes and Pope, he clearly wasn't referring to the specific Test where both were unavailable, yet you consciously chose to act like a dick about it. It's not constructive and it is immediately polarising.
It is exactly what you do when it comes to politics, as well. And I actually agree with you politically quite a lot, as I'm sure you are aware, but your style of discourse is properly annoying. When you do choose to engage appropriately, though, you make good points consistently that are well worth addressing. It's a shame you don't see fit to act as little more than a WUM most of the time, though.
"Root is tactically unable to do the thing he's just done".
Bloody hell, thought it'd be bigger news that someone had surpassed Jim Laker's record of 19 wickets in a Test match!
-------------------
Just to clarify, I'm twisting your words particularly egregiously here, just like you do with so, SO many other posters. The way people like yourself and Pres act on the cricket threads has put me off contributing to any of them except the club one.
Like, it's obvious the point Canters is trying to make. Tactically one has to bowl to a plan for each batsman and ensure wickets are acquired through careful bowling rather than, say, Archer somehow getting a Michelle going at a run a ball (how is that tactically astute in the long term?).
But you insist on twisting people's words for pretty much no reason. Like when Canters mentioned Foakes and Pope, he clearly wasn't referring to the specific Test where both were unavailable, yet you consciously chose to act like a dick about it. It's not constructive and it is immediately polarising.
It is exactly what you do when it comes to politics, as well. And I actually agree with you politically quite a lot, as I'm sure you are aware, but your style of discourse is properly annoying. When you do choose to engage appropriately, though, you make good points consistently that are well worth addressing. It's a shame you don't see fit to act as little more than a WUM most of the time, though.
I thought it was nothing more than a fairly funny joke, to be honest.
Captain Cretin phones in a performance with the bat, has a toddler tantrum blaming anything other than himself when he is dismissed yet again with a flaccid shot; flogs his quickest bowlers on brainless "plans" for hours beyond it's obvious to all they're not working and keeps fielders way out in the deep to Elgar in areas to which nobody ever sees him hit the ball, persists with the halfling Curran as he serves up buffet after buffet, throwing away the very decent position achieved in the first hour of the day. Jesus H Christ on a bike Joe Root is a total shit4brains! Sure as eggs is eggs he'll mutter some craven bullshit about his: plans, mumble mumble, ball goes soft, mumble mumble, flat pitch, grumble, Kookaburra ball, sniff. And another test series goes begging against moderate opposition.
Captain Cretin phones in a performance with the bat, has a toddler tantrum blaming anything other than himself when he is dismissed yet again with a flaccid shot; flogs his quickest bowlers on brainless "plans" for hours beyond it's obvious to all they're not working and keeps fielders way out in the deep to Elgar in areas to which nobody ever sees him hit the ball, persists with the halfling Curran as he serves up buffet after buffet, throwing away the very decent position achieved in the first hour of the day. Jesus H Christ on a bike Joe Root is a total shit4brains! Sure as eggs is eggs he'll mutter some craven bullshit about his: plans, mumble mumble, ball goes soft, mumble mumble, flat pitch, grumble, Kookaburra ball, sniff. And another test series goes begging against moderate opposition.
Be honest: how pleased were you to see Root catch Elgar in the deep and Curran dismiss de Kock?
Captain Cretin phones in a performance with the bat, has a toddler tantrum blaming anything other than himself when he is dismissed yet again with a flaccid shot; flogs his quickest bowlers on brainless "plans" for hours beyond it's obvious to all they're not working and keeps fielders way out in the deep to Elgar in areas to which nobody ever sees him hit the ball, persists with the halfling Curran as he serves up buffet after buffet, throwing away the very decent position achieved in the first hour of the day. Jesus H Christ on a bike Joe Root is a total shit4brains! Sure as eggs is eggs he'll mutter some craven bullshit about his: plans, mumble mumble, ball goes soft, mumble mumble, flat pitch, grumble, Kookaburra ball, sniff. And another test series goes begging against moderate opposition.
Be honest: how pleased were you to see Root catch Elgar in the deep and Curran dismiss de Kock?
Today putting those 'dismal performance' comments into context tbh. Neither team has a firing batting line-up. Batting first makes winning likely no matter how sketchy the first effort is (short of total disaster). Which is why Root's decision to bowl first in the previous game was the most terrible and obvious of his mistakes.
good fight back from the bowlers, the pitch looks very treacherous in patches .. how does Anderson keep going ? .. England are probably favourites now as SA bat last
Still dont understand why they packed up with 2 balls left in the over. Still had 10 mins of "extra time" left so no problem there. 2 wickets left to get & 2 balls to go. Yes, very rare Anderson would have got them both out, but it just means tomorrow morning he has to bowl 2 balls to finish the over off as well as not being in "rhythm". More likely to have got them out today when he was in the zone.
Just another one of those annoying quirks of the game & I'm sure it didnt happen 20 or 30 years ago.
Still dont understand why they packed up with 2 balls left in the over. Still had 10 mins of "extra time" left so no problem there. 2 wickets left to get & 2 balls to go. Yes, very rare Anderson would have got them both out, but it just means tomorrow morning he has to bowl 2 balls to finish the over off as well as not being in "rhythm". More likely to have got them out today when he was in the zone.
Just another one of those annoying quirks of the game & I'm sure it didnt happen 20 or 30 years ago.
Totally agree with this - although I think it has been the case for a long time. What is the advantage to the bowling side of walking off two balls early? And, as the bowling side have "earned" the opportunity, they should be given that advantage. Why does the next-in batsman get a free pass to take his pads off? He's done nothing to earn that.
Comments
-------------------
Just to clarify, I'm twisting your words particularly egregiously here, just like you do with so, SO many other posters. The way people like yourself and Pres act on the cricket threads has put me off contributing to any of them except the club one.
Like, it's obvious the point Canters is trying to make. Tactically one has to bowl to a plan for each batsman and ensure wickets are acquired through careful bowling rather than, say, Archer somehow getting a Michelle going at a run a ball (how is that tactically astute in the long term?).
But you insist on twisting people's words for pretty much no reason. Like when Canters mentioned Foakes and Pope, he clearly wasn't referring to the specific Test where both were unavailable, yet you consciously chose to act like a dick about it. It's not constructive and it is immediately polarising.
It is exactly what you do when it comes to politics, as well. And I actually agree with you politically quite a lot, as I'm sure you are aware, but your style of discourse is properly annoying. When you do choose to engage appropriately, though, you make good points consistently that are well worth addressing. It's a shame you don't see fit to act as little more than a WUM most of the time, though.
157-4
He has the ability to take wickets at crucial times.
His two wickets today opened up both ends for Anderson to bowl at
Just another one of those annoying quirks of the game & I'm sure it didnt happen 20 or 30 years ago.
Let's hope they bowl them out cheaply and quickly tomorrow and then Crawley and Denly both get tons.
I can dream.