This is probably my favourite thread on this forum. It now seems to have gone the same way as all the others on this forum, with pointless bickering & point scoring.
Sad to see
Agreed. This little feud is getting boring. Can those involved try to agree to disagree and drop it now?
Topley and Bumrah both have batting averages in ODIs under 9. (Topley's is slightly higher). But I bet neither of them get dropped.
Who said they should be dropped? Well done I winning that bet against yourself. I bet you and your alter ego have won loads between you. And congratulations on not mentioning that Topley has 17 (yes seventeen) lifetime ODI runs and that he scored 3 runs off 7 balls faced before getting out with a whole over of the innings remaining thus preventing Overton from scoring some meaningful runs too.
#chizzmusttryharder
No-one said they should be dropped. Bumrah's one of the greatest bowlers in the ODI game, so he's failures with the bat mean almost nothing. Topley's was dismissed for the first time in an ODI since his debut in 2015, which further proves his selection is appropriate: he's picked for his bowling, not his batting. In fact, since his debut in 2015, he's never been out for nought. Unlike every one of England's top eight from yesterday.
Well done to Bumrah and Topley in the series so far. Both should improve their batting; both should continue to play important roles even if they don't.
I missed the end of the game last night, so I was pleased to the result, later in the day. It would have been really good if most of the comments on here were for a great performance. That's why I was so pleased to see Johnnysummers5's comments. I don't know why this thread attracts a small coterie of individuals who seem fixated on being over-critical. It's absolutely fair enough to articulate misgivings about players. But sometimes the criticism goes too far in one direction. That of Bairstow, for example, in the last few seasons. Having said that, some of the best posters on here have been ones critical of a player like Bairstow but then been among the first to praise them when they've exceeded their expectations.
For me, the most memorable aspect of Topley's performance yesterday was his bowling figures. But I understand why others might be more excited by his terrible batting.
Oh Chizz please. "Bet neither of them get dropped". Your cricketing analysis has no limits to the extent that you even have winning bets with yourself (by virtue of the fact that you've now admitted "No-one said they should be dropped"). It's a wind up. You know it. I know it and most posters on here know it.
The good news is that you will be able to dip into your favourite thread soon. The Hundred and continue to wax lyrically about how it's improving our game.
You just seem reluctant to offer unqualified praise when some players put in a good performance. Yesterday's return from Topley was the best bowling figures by an England player, ever. Most people acknowledge that and welcome a great performance. But it seems some are more fixated on his batting technique. The analogy would be watching Jason Roy make 180 against Australia at Melbourne and commenting exclusively on why he never seems to take many wickets.
Whether or not you - or anyone else - agree, I think it was a great performance from Reece Topley. I hope he can put in another good showing on Sunday to help England win the series. Let's leave it at that.
Mate come on. AA made a point about Livingstone batting with the tail while England were still batting using Topley as an example of bowlers not batting and as a reason why we might not want to shift Livingstone down the order. I then picked up on the point about Toppers and we had a chat about bowlers not batting including Virdi and Monty. AA commented that it was odd that Toppers of all people fell into that group given his background/family/coaching.
All of this had happened before topley took his 2nd wicket. Also no one said it was a criticism nor a reason to drop him but just some thoughts about bowlers that don't bat at all.
Topley and Bumrah both have batting averages in ODIs under 9. (Topley's is slightly higher). But I bet neither of them get dropped.
Who said they should be dropped? Well done I winning that bet against yourself. I bet you and your alter ego have won loads between you. And congratulations on not mentioning that Topley has 17 (yes seventeen) lifetime ODI runs and that he scored 3 runs off 7 balls faced before getting out with a whole over of the innings remaining thus preventing Overton from scoring some meaningful runs too.
#chizzmusttryharder
No-one said they should be dropped. Bumrah's one of the greatest bowlers in the ODI game, so he's failures with the bat mean almost nothing. Topley's was dismissed for the first time in an ODI since his debut in 2015, which further proves his selection is appropriate: he's picked for his bowling, not his batting. In fact, since his debut in 2015, he's never been out for nought. Unlike every one of England's top eight from yesterday.
Well done to Bumrah and Topley in the series so far. Both should improve their batting; both should continue to play important roles even if they don't.
I missed the end of the game last night, so I was pleased to the result, later in the day. It would have been really good if most of the comments on here were for a great performance. That's why I was so pleased to see Johnnysummers5's comments. I don't know why this thread attracts a small coterie of individuals who seem fixated on being over-critical. It's absolutely fair enough to articulate misgivings about players. But sometimes the criticism goes too far in one direction. That of Bairstow, for example, in the last few seasons. Having said that, some of the best posters on here have been ones critical of a player like Bairstow but then been among the first to praise them when they've exceeded their expectations.
For me, the most memorable aspect of Topley's performance yesterday was his bowling figures. But I understand why others might be more excited by his terrible batting.
Oh Chizz please. "Bet neither of them get dropped". Your cricketing analysis has no limits to the extent that you even have winning bets with yourself (by virtue of the fact that you've now admitted "No-one said they should be dropped"). It's a wind up. You know it. I know it and most posters on here know it.
The good news is that you will be able to dip into your favourite thread soon. The Hundred and continue to wax lyrically about how it's improving our game.
You just seem reluctant to offer unqualified praise when some players put in a good performance. Yesterday's return from Topley was the best bowling figures by an England player, ever. Most people acknowledge that and welcome a great performance. But it seems some are more fixated on his batting technique. The analogy would be watching Jason Roy make 180 against Australia at Melbourne and commenting exclusively on why he never seems to take many wickets.
Whether or not you - or anyone else - agree, I think it was a great performance from Reece Topley. I hope he can put in another good showing on Sunday to help England win the series. Let's leave it at that.
Mate come on. AA made a point about Livingstone batting with the tail while England were still batting using Topley as an example of bowlers not batting and as a reason why we might not want to shift Livingstone down the order. I then picked up on the point about Toppers and we had a chat about bowlers not batting including Virdi and Monty. AA commented that it was odd that Toppers of all people fell into that group given his background/family/coaching.
All of this had happened before topley took his 2nd wicket. Also no one said it was a criticism nor a reason to drop him but just some thoughts about bowlers that don't bat at all.
Fair enough. I thought Topley's bowling figures were worth more than the mealy-mouthed, reluctant praise that some offered.
Anyway, let's hope for another win this weekend and that no-one needs to be singled out for criticism.
I originally posted this on the "Club Cricket Thread" but appreciate that some people aren't interested in that thread. However, some of the footage is as funny as I've seen in club cricket and the subject does relate to an England bowler. This game is from the North East Premier League and one familiar name to Kent and Durham supporters anyway, Ben Harmison, is playing.
There is, however, another player that you might sort of recognise in the opposition when you turn up to play. He comes on as 6th bowler. As one bloke is heard saying (I assume one of the scorers) "me, I'd take guard, turn around and walk off!!!" Some of the footage has to be seen -
First ball the keeper can't sop and it goes for 4 byes Second delivery, the batsman (who is on 42 off 24) jumps in the air so the ball misses him! Third ball - another 4 byes Fourth - the batsman jumps back but manages to get bat on ball and sprints to the other end to get off strike The number 9 comes in and hits the bowler for two 4s and two 6s at the same time as shaking hands with the square leg Umpire! The bowler finishes with 5-1-24-5 with 20 of those runs coming from those four hits from the number 9
My Durham spy (actually it's via a mate of Seb's who was at the DLCA in the winter) says that the opposition had no idea that this bowler was going to be playing and were absolutely fuming when they saw him! Don't know about "fuming" - their batsmen looked petrified!
Can someone explain to Roy and stoakes that this is a 50 over game.
England lost two early wickets but the above steadied the ship and were looking good, the score board was ticking over nicely but there were over 40 and 35 overs remaining when they both got out.
I get that big scores win matches but so does batting out the 50 overs! Ali is now in with 35 overs to go. We need him coming in with 10, 15, 20 overs left, to go big
im all for englands see ball smack ball approach but if you are a couple of wickets down then surely you go to plan b, look for gaps, takes singles, re access every 5 overs then go big when the time is right.
Funny how "keep swinging" stops when you lose 4 quick wickets.
I thought the whole point of "going hard" and "keep swinging" is that you keep going no matter what. If you dont then there's no point saying it and it just becomes reckless batting.
Funny how "keep swinging" stops when you lose 4 quick wickets.
I thought the whole point of "going hard" and "keep swinging" is that you keep going no matter what. If you dont then there's no point saying it and it just becomes reckless batting.
Funny how "keep swinging" stops when you lose 4 quick wickets.
I thought the whole point of "going hard" and "keep swinging" is that you keep going no matter what. If you dont then there's no point saying it and it just becomes reckless batting.
For someone that has a whinge whenever 2 overs in a session are lost in a test, I would have thought you of all people would want to see England bat out 50 overs.
I originally posted this on the "Club Cricket Thread" but appreciate that some people aren't interested in that thread. However, some of the footage is as funny as I've seen in club cricket and the subject does relate to an England bowler. This game is from the North East Premier League and one familiar name to Kent and Durham supporters anyway, Ben Harmison, is playing.
There is, however, another player that you might sort of recognise in the opposition when you turn up to play. He comes on as 6th bowler. As one bloke is heard saying (I assume one of the scorers) "me, I'd take guard, turn around and walk off!!!" Some of the footage has to be seen -
First ball the keeper can't sop and it goes for 4 byes Second delivery, the batsman (who is on 42 off 24) jumps in the air so the ball misses him! Third ball - another 4 byes Fourth - the batsman jumps back but manages to get bat on ball and sprints to the other end to get off strike The number 9 comes in and hits the bowler for two 4s and two 6s at the same time as shaking hands with the square leg Umpire! The bowler finishes with 5-1-24-5 with 20 of those runs coming from those four hits from the number 9
My Durham spy (actually it's via a mate of Seb's who was at the DLCA in the winter) says that the opposition had no idea that this bowler was going to be playing and were absolutely fuming when they saw him! Don't know about "fuming" - their batsmen looked petrified!
Funny how "keep swinging" stops when you lose 4 quick wickets.
I thought the whole point of "going hard" and "keep swinging" is that you keep going no matter what. If you dont then there's no point saying it and it just becomes reckless batting.
For someone that has a whinge whenever 2 overs in a session are lost in a test, I would have thought you of all people would want to see England bat out 50 overs.
But that's the point. Why say "that's the way we bat" if you arent going to do it for the whole game as you know you need to bat out 50 overs.
Buttler is hit twice on the helmet in the space of four balls. Both times he stopped watching the ball way before he tried to connect with the ball. Then Livingstone is hit on the head. Pre helmets batsmen had to watch it all the way on to the bat or else they would get hit on the head. And a lot less of them did get hit than nowadays as a result. A helmet should be used like VAR - only when absolutely necessary - and not as a first line of defence. The bat is used for that.
Both are then out hooking. With still 13 overs to go. If a team knows that you are a "happy hooker" they will feed that addiction and set their field to the long side accordingly. We've been here before. And very recently too.
Funny how "keep swinging" stops when you lose 4 quick wickets.
I thought the whole point of "going hard" and "keep swinging" is that you keep going no matter what. If you dont then there's no point saying it and it just becomes reckless batting.
For someone that has a whinge whenever 2 overs in a session are lost in a test, I would have thought you of all people would want to see England bat out 50 overs.
But that's the point. Why say "that's the way we bat" if you arent going to do it for the whole game as you know you need to bat out 50 overs.
20 over match ok.....but 50 overs ?
Is the tactic working in this series? My point is that there needs to be a plan B. Englands 8-11 need to bat out 10 overs to bat through the innings. The players i mentioned in my original post gave their wickets away going for big shots when they didnt need to at that point in the game. Where is the game plan? Is the plan to swing and hope that it pays off more than it doesnt? What happened to pacing an innings?
Stokes scored 27 off of 29. Wouldint it have been better if he scored 80 off of 90, than the lower order batsmen could have tee-d off a bit later and we wouldnt be limping to a difficult to defend 250
Funny how "keep swinging" stops when you lose 4 quick wickets.
I thought the whole point of "going hard" and "keep swinging" is that you keep going no matter what. If you dont then there's no point saying it and it just becomes reckless batting.
For someone that has a whinge whenever 2 overs in a session are lost in a test, I would have thought you of all people would want to see England bat out 50 overs.
But that's the point. Why say "that's the way we bat" if you arent going to do it for the whole game as you know you need to bat out 50 overs.
20 over match ok.....but 50 overs ?
Is the tactic working in this series? My point is that there needs to be a plan B. Englands 8-11 need to bat out 10 overs to bat through the innings. The players i mentioned in my original post gave their wickets away going for big shots when they didnt need to at that point in the game. Where is the game plan? Is the plan to swing and hope that it pays off more than it doesnt? What happened to pacing an innings?
Stokes scored 27 off of 29. Wouldint it have been better if he scored 80 off of 90, than the lower order batsmen could have tee-d off a bit later and we wouldnt be limping to a difficult to defend 250
I think the problem (or rather problems) is that Root is usually the player who plays that "glue" innings that holds us all together in those situations. He hasn't performed in this series. Thats just compounded the fact that the openers are regularly failing (when before this series they had one of the best records in the world opening together). To make it worse the other players who can also play those type of innings have either not delivered in this series (bairstow) or aren't around (morgan) so we are left with the quick starters or the finishers trying to do a glue role and it hasn't really worked.
Funny how "keep swinging" stops when you lose 4 quick wickets.
I thought the whole point of "going hard" and "keep swinging" is that you keep going no matter what. If you dont then there's no point saying it and it just becomes reckless batting.
For someone that has a whinge whenever 2 overs in a session are lost in a test, I would have thought you of all people would want to see England bat out 50 overs.
But that's the point. Why say "that's the way we bat" if you arent going to do it for the whole game as you know you need to bat out 50 overs.
20 over match ok.....but 50 overs ?
Is the tactic working in this series? My point is that there needs to be a plan B. Englands 8-11 need to bat out 10 overs to bat through the innings. The players i mentioned in my original post gave their wickets away going for big shots when they didnt need to at that point in the game. Where is the game plan? Is the plan to swing and hope that it pays off more than it doesnt? What happened to pacing an innings?
Stokes scored 27 off of 29. Wouldint it have been better if he scored 80 off of 90, than the lower order batsmen could have tee-d off a bit later and we wouldnt be limping to a difficult to defend 250
I think the problem (or rather problems) is that Root is usually the player who plays that "glue" innings that holds us all together in those situations. He hasn't performed in this series. Thats just compounded the fact that the openers are regularly failing (when before this series they had one of the best records in the world opening together). To make it worse the other players who can also play those type of innings have either not delivered in this series (bairstow) or aren't around (morgan) so we are left with the quick starters or the finishers trying to do a glue role and it hasn't really worked.
Agreed. Looking at the phases of an ODI, there are 3 phases of the innings
You want aggressive openers to set the tone during the powerplay and exploit the lack of boundary fielders You want brisk but "sensible" batting in the middle, pushing the ball into the gaps for lots of 1s and 2s You want aggressive finishers to accelerate in the final 15
So T20 style hitters in the 1st and 3rd phases, and someone like Root in the middle. If you lose an opener in the powerplay, you want another big hitter at 3 to continue the aggression, so maybe England need to be more flexible with their batting order and move Root down the order until after the powerplay?
Funny how "keep swinging" stops when you lose 4 quick wickets.
I thought the whole point of "going hard" and "keep swinging" is that you keep going no matter what. If you dont then there's no point saying it and it just becomes reckless batting.
For someone that has a whinge whenever 2 overs in a session are lost in a test, I would have thought you of all people would want to see England bat out 50 overs.
But that's the point. Why say "that's the way we bat" if you arent going to do it for the whole game as you know you need to bat out 50 overs.
20 over match ok.....but 50 overs ?
Is the tactic working in this series? My point is that there needs to be a plan B. Englands 8-11 need to bat out 10 overs to bat through the innings. The players i mentioned in my original post gave their wickets away going for big shots when they didnt need to at that point in the game. Where is the game plan? Is the plan to swing and hope that it pays off more than it doesnt? What happened to pacing an innings?
Stokes scored 27 off of 29. Wouldint it have been better if he scored 80 off of 90, than the lower order batsmen could have tee-d off a bit later and we wouldnt be limping to a difficult to defend 250
I think the problem (or rather problems) is that Root is usually the player who plays that "glue" innings that holds us all together in those situations. He hasn't performed in this series. Thats just compounded the fact that the openers are regularly failing (when before this series they had one of the best records in the world opening together). To make it worse the other players who can also play those type of innings have either not delivered in this series (bairstow) or aren't around (morgan) so we are left with the quick starters or the finishers trying to do a glue role and it hasn't really worked.
Agreed. Looking at the phases of an ODI, there are 3 phases of the innings
You want aggressive openers to set the tone during the powerplay and exploit the lack of boundary fielders You want brisk but "sensible" batting in the middle, pushing the ball into the gaps for lots of 1s and 2s You want aggressive finishers to accelerate in the final 15
So T20 style hitters in the 1st and 3rd phases, and someone like Root in the middle. If you lose an opener in the powerplay, you want another big hitter at 3 to continue the aggression, so maybe England need to be more flexible with their batting order and move Root down the order until after the powerplay?
The other issue is the inability of the so called "hitters" to rotate at certain periods of the game. Livingstone, for example (and not picking on him just because I've mentioned him before), scored 27 off 31 but 20 of those came in boundaries and he actually ended up with 21 dot balls. It is those dot balls that are forcing him to take on the big shot each and every time rather than being selective in doing so and being capable of manipulating the field means that there is less likelihood of being caught when you do go for that big shot.
Livingstone, like others of his ilk, is not a tail ender. He is a batsmen and perhaps there is too much focus on T20 style "maximums" rather than actually thinking about creating gaps and scoring opportunities. As a result we've given up 25 balls with my previously expressed fear that the tail would be exposed coming to fruition. As it did in the last game where we "only" lost 6 balls.
Funny how "keep swinging" stops when you lose 4 quick wickets.
I thought the whole point of "going hard" and "keep swinging" is that you keep going no matter what. If you dont then there's no point saying it and it just becomes reckless batting.
For someone that has a whinge whenever 2 overs in a session are lost in a test, I would have thought you of all people would want to see England bat out 50 overs.
But that's the point. Why say "that's the way we bat" if you arent going to do it for the whole game as you know you need to bat out 50 overs.
20 over match ok.....but 50 overs ?
Is the tactic working in this series? My point is that there needs to be a plan B. Englands 8-11 need to bat out 10 overs to bat through the innings. The players i mentioned in my original post gave their wickets away going for big shots when they didnt need to at that point in the game. Where is the game plan? Is the plan to swing and hope that it pays off more than it doesnt? What happened to pacing an innings?
Stokes scored 27 off of 29. Wouldint it have been better if he scored 80 off of 90, than the lower order batsmen could have tee-d off a bit later and we wouldnt be limping to a difficult to defend 250
I think the problem (or rather problems) is that Root is usually the player who plays that "glue" innings that holds us all together in those situations. He hasn't performed in this series. Thats just compounded the fact that the openers are regularly failing (when before this series they had one of the best records in the world opening together). To make it worse the other players who can also play those type of innings have either not delivered in this series (bairstow) or aren't around (morgan) so we are left with the quick starters or the finishers trying to do a glue role and it hasn't really worked.
Agreed. Looking at the phases of an ODI, there are 3 phases of the innings
You want aggressive openers to set the tone during the powerplay and exploit the lack of boundary fielders You want brisk but "sensible" batting in the middle, pushing the ball into the gaps for lots of 1s and 2s You want aggressive finishers to accelerate in the final 15
So T20 style hitters in the 1st and 3rd phases, and someone like Root in the middle. If you lose an opener in the powerplay, you want another big hitter at 3 to continue the aggression, so maybe England need to be more flexible with their batting order and move Root down the order until after the powerplay?
The other issue is the inability of the so called "hitters" to rotate at certain periods of the game. Livingstone, for example (and not picking on him just because I've mentioned him before), scored 27 off 31 but 20 of those came in boundaries and he actually ended up with 21 dot balls. It is those dot balls that are forcing him to take on the big shot each and every time rather than being selective in doing so and being capable of manipulating the field means that there is less likelihood of being caught when you do go for that big shot.
Livingstone, like others of his ilk, is not a tail ender. He is a batsmen and perhaps there is too much focus on T20 style "maximums" rather than actually thinking about creating gaps and scoring opportunities. As a result we've given up 25 balls with my previously expressed fear that the tail would be exposed coming to fruition. As it did in the last game where we "only" lost 6 balls.
It's the hit or dot nature of many T20 players which can make T20 cricket quite one dimensional. You come in with 4 overs left, and slog at everything, get out and are replaced by someone else who slogs at everything.
I've always been a big fan of the well run 2. If they have fielders on the boundary, hit the ball slowly into a partial gap and get 2. Do this a few times and they'll change the field, creating new gaps to exploit.
something a commentator would never have said even 5 years ago .. 'England do not have the pace of the Indian bowlers' Topley however, especially with his height. IF IF he keeps fit, could be the pacey(ish) left armer the test team has lacked for years
Funny how "keep swinging" stops when you lose 4 quick wickets.
I thought the whole point of "going hard" and "keep swinging" is that you keep going no matter what. If you dont then there's no point saying it and it just becomes reckless batting.
For someone that has a whinge whenever 2 overs in a session are lost in a test, I would have thought you of all people would want to see England bat out 50 overs.
But that's the point. Why say "that's the way we bat" if you arent going to do it for the whole game as you know you need to bat out 50 overs.
20 over match ok.....but 50 overs ?
Is the tactic working in this series? My point is that there needs to be a plan B. Englands 8-11 need to bat out 10 overs to bat through the innings. The players i mentioned in my original post gave their wickets away going for big shots when they didnt need to at that point in the game. Where is the game plan? Is the plan to swing and hope that it pays off more than it doesnt? What happened to pacing an innings?
Stokes scored 27 off of 29. Wouldint it have been better if he scored 80 off of 90, than the lower order batsmen could have tee-d off a bit later and we wouldnt be limping to a difficult to defend 250
I think the problem (or rather problems) is that Root is usually the player who plays that "glue" innings that holds us all together in those situations. He hasn't performed in this series. Thats just compounded the fact that the openers are regularly failing (when before this series they had one of the best records in the world opening together). To make it worse the other players who can also play those type of innings have either not delivered in this series (bairstow) or aren't around (morgan) so we are left with the quick starters or the finishers trying to do a glue role and it hasn't really worked.
I understand that but after Root went straight after bairstow, stokes should have played the anchor. England haven't batted the 50 overs once in this series, and that's poor
Fantastic innings by Pant today but when he was on just 18, Buttler missed a regimental stumping off Moeen that would have made the score 70-4. Pant went on to make 125 not out. Sangakkara was asked by Nasser what he thought of the miss and he said that he felt that Buttler hadn't cleared his mind from thinking as a captain rather than a keeper which was the job at hand. Since he took the job of skipper, Buttler's scores have been 0-4-18-30-4 & 60 and even today's innings was ended somewhat prematurely with a questionable shot.
I now not only believe that Buttler cannot captain, keep and open (as I said before) but I don't think he can successfully captain, keep and be prolific with the bat wherever he is in the order. Something will give in a lot of games and he needs to give the gloves to someone else or relinquish the captaincy. Dhoni was unique in being able to do all three but then he was, habitually, the final batting course and not the main one. Payne panicked at a vital time when trying to do just two main jobs. Sangakkara and McCullum both gave one of them up.
Buttler was honest enough to admit his mistake cost us dear in his post match speech. I hope that he's equally honest enough to admit that the work load, mentally, is just too much. Either Bairstow or Salt should take the gloves out of the two that might be playing or Buttler gives the captaincy to someone else.
Comments
Maybe others will follow suit.....
...and put their health & families before money.
Unlikely but I 'd have to reprimand myself for smirking.
All of this had happened before topley took his 2nd wicket. Also no one said it was a criticism nor a reason to drop him but just some thoughts about bowlers that don't bat at all.
Anyway, let's hope for another win this weekend and that no-one needs to be singled out for criticism.
There is, however, another player that you might sort of recognise in the opposition when you turn up to play. He comes on as 6th bowler. As one bloke is heard saying (I assume one of the scorers) "me, I'd take guard, turn around and walk off!!!" Some of the footage has to be seen -
First ball the keeper can't sop and it goes for 4 byes
Second delivery, the batsman (who is on 42 off 24) jumps in the air so the ball misses him!
Third ball - another 4 byes
Fourth - the batsman jumps back but manages to get bat on ball and sprints to the other end to get off strike
The number 9 comes in and hits the bowler for two 4s and two 6s at the same time as shaking hands with the square leg Umpire!
The bowler finishes with 5-1-24-5 with 20 of those runs coming from those four hits from the number 9
My Durham spy (actually it's via a mate of Seb's who was at the DLCA in the winter) says that the opposition had no idea that this bowler was going to be playing and were absolutely fuming when they saw him! Don't know about "fuming" - their batsmen looked petrified!
He come on to bowl at 4:46:10 on the footage:
https://ashington.play-cricket.com/website/results/5024606
I get that big scores win matches but so does batting out the 50 overs! Ali is now in with 35 overs to go. We need him coming in with 10, 15, 20 overs left, to go big
im all for englands see ball smack ball approach but if you are a couple of wickets down then surely you go to plan b, look for gaps, takes singles, re access every 5 overs then go big when the time is right.
I thought the whole point of "going hard" and "keep swinging" is that you keep going no matter what. If you dont then there's no point saying it and it just becomes reckless batting.
20 over match ok.....but 50 overs ?
A strange series. With hot conditions and flat pitches across the country, you'd have predicted scores of 300-400
Both are then out hooking. With still 13 overs to go. If a team knows that you are a "happy hooker" they will feed that addiction and set their field to the long side accordingly. We've been here before. And very recently too.
You want aggressive openers to set the tone during the powerplay and exploit the lack of boundary fielders
You want brisk but "sensible" batting in the middle, pushing the ball into the gaps for lots of 1s and 2s
You want aggressive finishers to accelerate in the final 15
So T20 style hitters in the 1st and 3rd phases, and someone like Root in the middle. If you lose an opener in the powerplay, you want another big hitter at 3 to continue the aggression, so maybe England need to be more flexible with their batting order and move Root down the order until after the powerplay?
Livingstone, like others of his ilk, is not a tail ender. He is a batsmen and perhaps there is too much focus on T20 style "maximums" rather than actually thinking about creating gaps and scoring opportunities. As a result we've given up 25 balls with my previously expressed fear that the tail would be exposed coming to fruition. As it did in the last game where we "only" lost 6 balls.
I've always been a big fan of the well run 2. If they have fielders on the boundary, hit the ball slowly into a partial gap and get 2. Do this a few times and they'll change the field, creating new gaps to exploit.
Topley however, especially with his height. IF IF he keeps fit, could be the pacey(ish) left armer the test team has lacked for years
I now not only believe that Buttler cannot captain, keep and open (as I said before) but I don't think he can successfully captain, keep and be prolific with the bat wherever he is in the order. Something will give in a lot of games and he needs to give the gloves to someone else or relinquish the captaincy. Dhoni was unique in being able to do all three but then he was, habitually, the final batting course and not the main one. Payne panicked at a vital time when trying to do just two main jobs. Sangakkara and McCullum both gave one of them up.
Buttler was honest enough to admit his mistake cost us dear in his post match speech. I hope that he's equally honest enough to admit that the work load, mentally, is just too much. Either Bairstow or Salt should take the gloves out of the two that might be playing or Buttler gives the captaincy to someone else.