Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
England Cricket 2025
Comments
-
The way England batted was akin to Angeball. One very attacking and risky way of playing, which occasionally comes off, especially against weaker teams, but gets easily countered by better teams.2
-
We need to ditch Crawley . He’s a liabilityblackpool72 said:We need a completely different mindset when batting.
In the recent 50 over competition we kept getting bowled out in around 30-35 overs.
This has continued in the Test match.
Swinging wildly at balls you should be leaving is something I expect to see in a Sunday league game.
It's not something I expect to see in an Ashes Test match.
No excuse for some of these shots from experienced batsmen.1 -
The latest doing the rounds is that Rob Key is very good friends with Crawley's old man, hence why he's hung around so longBedsaddick said:
We need to ditch Crawley . He’s a liabilityblackpool72 said:We need a completely different mindset when batting.
In the recent 50 over competition we kept getting bowled out in around 30-35 overs.
This has continued in the Test match.
Swinging wildly at balls you should be leaving is something I expect to see in a Sunday league game.
It's not something I expect to see in an Ashes Test match.
No excuse for some of these shots from experienced batsmen.0 -
I actually feel very sorry for him right now. I've criticised his technique for years but it's not his fault that he has been so favoured. For whatever reason (and this might be just because he fits the profile of what this regime are looking for), by no measure can he be considered an England batsman deserving of 109 innings.Bedsaddick said:
We need to ditch Crawley . He’s a liabilityblackpool72 said:We need a completely different mindset when batting.
In the recent 50 over competition we kept getting bowled out in around 30-35 overs.
This has continued in the Test match.
Swinging wildly at balls you should be leaving is something I expect to see in a Sunday league game.
It's not something I expect to see in an Ashes Test match.
No excuse for some of these shots from experienced batsmen.
In terms of averages, of the 127 batsmen in the history of Test cricket that have batted more than 100 times between positions 1-5, he is 126th. McCullum counters that by saying that we should not be looking at averages but match winning innings but I have to take issue with the England coach there too.
Crawley has the lowest number of hundreds (5) to have batted 100 times between 1-5 and has only one MOM in his 60 matches to his name - and that was over five years ago and was down to his 267 on the Southampton "road" against Pakistan in what turned out to be a draw. If we then consider last summer's 124 against the worst Test playing nation in the world, Zimbabwe, there really isn't much meat on the bone. His overseas average of 25.54 from 59 innings says it all.
Crawley will be under unbelievable pressure now. He really should not be in this position but he almost, inadvertently, became the poster boy for Bazball with that drive off the first ball of the last Ashes Series. He has shown, on a few occasions, that he is capable of playing sensibly when he has stopped himself from going so hard at the ball from the very first over. Modern day analysts set plans for batters but you don't have to be one to know that feeding that addiction is one way of getting him out. My other real concern, though, is that he doesn't have the basic technique when the ball is moving and facing Starc with a pink ball will be an all mighty test for him even if he does opt to treat each ball on its merit.
McCullum has intimated that Crawley will play in the next Test. So, for his sake, I really do hope that he makes a proper and meaningful contribution there. If, however, he does bag another couple of low scores then I do fear for his mental well being. He doesn't look at social media but no sports person worth their salt doesn't recognise failure and it will probably not matter, in his head, a jot if and when McCullum backs him privately or publicly. McCullum and Stokes have to do the right thing, in those circumstances and take him out of the firing line. It would be cruel to do anything else.4 -
Think that’s pretty well known on here isn’t it? Big Beckenham golfing pals aren’t they?carly burn said:
The latest doing the rounds is that Rob Key is very good friends with Crawley's old man, hence why he's hung around so longBedsaddick said:
We need to ditch Crawley . He’s a liabilityblackpool72 said:We need a completely different mindset when batting.
In the recent 50 over competition we kept getting bowled out in around 30-35 overs.
This has continued in the Test match.
Swinging wildly at balls you should be leaving is something I expect to see in a Sunday league game.
It's not something I expect to see in an Ashes Test match.
No excuse for some of these shots from experienced batsmen.
0 -
That has been in the public domain for years. There is a photo of the two in Rob Key's book along with Terry Crawley plus Ponting and Warne with the caption "The Aussies have never beaten Crawley and I". I believe that @blackpool72 has known Terry for decades and my first wife was a Pit Boss at LIFFE when he was making his millions as a floor trader. We probably both have tales to tell about him.carly burn said:
The latest doing the rounds is that Rob Key is very good friends with Crawley's old man, hence why he's hung around so longBedsaddick said:
We need to ditch Crawley . He’s a liabilityblackpool72 said:We need a completely different mindset when batting.
In the recent 50 over competition we kept getting bowled out in around 30-35 overs.
This has continued in the Test match.
Swinging wildly at balls you should be leaving is something I expect to see in a Sunday league game.
It's not something I expect to see in an Ashes Test match.
No excuse for some of these shots from experienced batsmen.
We can't say how much that friendship has influenced selection. There is no doubt that knowing a cricketer can be a stepping stone but that can be a good as well as a bad thing - the likes of Nasser and Butcher used to joke with Key when the latter was a commentator at Sky and prior to his current position at the ECB in calling Crawley "your boy". I would hate to think that this connection has been the reason his England career has been so elongated. The one thing's for sure is that all Crawley wants to do is to prove them right and the doubters wrong. Sadly, he's a long way off doing that.3 -
Saw a clip on BBC from Michael Vaughan saying they should play a practice match with a pink ball this week.0
-
They have the option against the PM’s XI which is usually a first team fixture but England have decided to send the Lions. At least the openers, Pope and Brooke should play in my opiniongolfaddick said:Saw a clip on BBC from Michael Vaughan saying they should play a practice match with a pink ball this week.1 -
Madness if a decent number of players don't play in this game. The 1st Test finished THREE days early, they've still got plenty of time for nets/indoor practice/golf in addition to some time in the middle.fenaddick said:
They have the option against the PM’s XI which is usually a first team fixture but England have decided to send the Lions. At least the openers, Pope and Brooke should play in my opiniongolfaddick said:Saw a clip on BBC from Michael Vaughan saying they should play a practice match with a pink ball this week.
As Vaughan said, it's weird how they don't see playing cricket as a way of improving and getting acclimatised to playing cricket.8 -
Be interesting to see what happens for the PM X1.killerandflash said:
Madness if a decent number of players don't play in this game. The 1st Test finished THREE days early, they've still got plenty of time for nets/indoor practice/golf in addition to some time in the middle.fenaddick said:
They have the option against the PM’s XI which is usually a first team fixture but England have decided to send the Lions. At least the openers, Pope and Brooke should play in my opiniongolfaddick said:Saw a clip on BBC from Michael Vaughan saying they should play a practice match with a pink ball this week.
As Vaughan said, it's weird how they don't see playing cricket as a way of improving and getting acclimatised to playing cricket.
Stokes was pretty clear when interviewed by Aggers straight after the match that no first teamers would be there. But in an interview with McCullum a few hours later it at least sounded like he hadn't completely dismissed the idea.
All a bit odd. Stokes seems to be completely at odds with what many in the game are seeing. It's like he's on some sort of crusade to prove everyone wrong.
I think they should send some to it. People are paying a lot of money to go over and see these tests. If the team flap again and fans can see little short term prep then the knives will definitely be out imo.1 -
Sponsored links:
-
So, on balance, you seem to be hinting that it might be best to give him a game off. 😃Addick Addict said:
I actually feel very sorry for him right now. I've criticised his technique for years but it's not his fault that he has been so favoured. For whatever reason (and this might be just because he fits the profile of what this regime are looking for), by no measure can he be considered an England batsman deserving of 109 innings.Bedsaddick said:
We need to ditch Crawley . He’s a liabilityblackpool72 said:We need a completely different mindset when batting.
In the recent 50 over competition we kept getting bowled out in around 30-35 overs.
This has continued in the Test match.
Swinging wildly at balls you should be leaving is something I expect to see in a Sunday league game.
It's not something I expect to see in an Ashes Test match.
No excuse for some of these shots from experienced batsmen.
In terms of averages, of the 127 batsmen in the history of Test cricket that have batted more than 100 times between positions 1-5, he is 126th. McCullum counters that by saying that we should not be looking at averages but match winning innings but I have to take issue with the England coach there too.
Crawley has the lowest number of hundreds (5) to have batted 100 times between 1-5 and has only one MOM in his 60 matches to his name - and that was over five years ago and was down to his 267 on the Southampton "road" against Pakistan in what turned out to be a draw. If we then consider last summer's 124 against the worst Test playing nation in the world, Zimbabwe, there really isn't much meat on the bone. His overseas average of 25.54 from 59 innings says it all.
Crawley will be under unbelievable pressure now. He really should not be in this position but he almost, inadvertently, became the poster boy for Bazball with that drive off the first ball of the last Ashes Series. He has shown, on a few occasions, that he is capable of playing sensibly when he has stopped himself from going so hard at the ball from the very first over. Modern day analysts set plans for batters but you don't have to be one to know that feeding that addiction is one way of getting him out. My other real concern, though, is that he doesn't have the basic technique when the ball is moving and facing Starc with a pink ball will be an all mighty test for him even if he does opt to treat each ball on its merit.
McCullum has intimated that Crawley will play in the next Test. So, for his sake, I really do hope that he makes a proper and meaningful contribution there. If, however, he does bag another couple of low scores then I do fear for his mental well being. He doesn't look at social media but no sports person worth their salt doesn't recognise failure and it will probably not matter, in his head, a jot if and when McCullum backs him privately or publicly. McCullum and Stokes have to do the right thing, in those circumstances and take him out of the firing line. It would be cruel to do anything else.2 -
I've just listened to the Atherton/Hussain/Broad podcast and if there is one thing I've taken from that, it is the need for certain of our players to "park the ego". That was said specifically in relation to Brook who they have agreed is vital for us to have any chance of winning the Ashes. He needs to learn not to take the short ball on from fifth stump when pitches are so bouncy. The same applies to others too - Pope and Crawley throwing their hands at wide deliveries on these tracks. It's something Langer mentioned post-match too.
The over-riding thought though from listening to them is that we are mentally "soft". That we've had too many times under McCullum when we've had the foot on the throat only to allow the opposition to win from losing positions. If we aren't prepared to adapt and learn from our continual mistakes then we might just as well pack our bags right now. We have to, as suggested, "park the ego" and not be quite so arrogant in our approach.
6 -
0 -
Something that's confused me about this England setup is not using that Zimbabwe test to have a look at anyone new in the batting department. That was the chance to look at McKinney,Haines, Gay maybe one of the Rew brothers. Instead it just padded averages.0
-
Who is 127th?Addick Addict said:
I actually feel very sorry for him right now. I've criticised his technique for years but it's not his fault that he has been so favoured. For whatever reason (and this might be just because he fits the profile of what this regime are looking for), by no measure can he be considered an England batsman deserving of 109 innings.Bedsaddick said:
We need to ditch Crawley . He’s a liabilityblackpool72 said:We need a completely different mindset when batting.
In the recent 50 over competition we kept getting bowled out in around 30-35 overs.
This has continued in the Test match.
Swinging wildly at balls you should be leaving is something I expect to see in a Sunday league game.
It's not something I expect to see in an Ashes Test match.
No excuse for some of these shots from experienced batsmen.
In terms of averages, of the 127 batsmen in the history of Test cricket that have batted more than 100 times between positions 1-5, he is 126th. McCullum counters that by saying that we should not be looking at averages but match winning innings but I have to take issue with the England coach there too.
Crawley has the lowest number of hundreds (5) to have batted 100 times between 1-5 and has only one MOM in his 60 matches to his name - and that was over five years ago and was down to his 267 on the Southampton "road" against Pakistan in what turned out to be a draw. If we then consider last summer's 124 against the worst Test playing nation in the world, Zimbabwe, there really isn't much meat on the bone. His overseas average of 25.54 from 59 innings says it all.
Crawley will be under unbelievable pressure now. He really should not be in this position but he almost, inadvertently, became the poster boy for Bazball with that drive off the first ball of the last Ashes Series. He has shown, on a few occasions, that he is capable of playing sensibly when he has stopped himself from going so hard at the ball from the very first over. Modern day analysts set plans for batters but you don't have to be one to know that feeding that addiction is one way of getting him out. My other real concern, though, is that he doesn't have the basic technique when the ball is moving and facing Starc with a pink ball will be an all mighty test for him even if he does opt to treat each ball on its merit.
McCullum has intimated that Crawley will play in the next Test. So, for his sake, I really do hope that he makes a proper and meaningful contribution there. If, however, he does bag another couple of low scores then I do fear for his mental well being. He doesn't look at social media but no sports person worth their salt doesn't recognise failure and it will probably not matter, in his head, a jot if and when McCullum backs him privately or publicly. McCullum and Stokes have to do the right thing, in those circumstances and take him out of the firing line. It would be cruel to do anything else.0 -
8 -
Madness. If nothing else, any England batsman playing in this game would look as if they were trying to improve.
I understand after a gruelling 5 day game that the players would need to take a break from the middle, but this is the opposite situation.3 -
Chris_from_Sidcup said:
Who is 127th?Addick Addict said:
I actually feel very sorry for him right now. I've criticised his technique for years but it's not his fault that he has been so favoured. For whatever reason (and this might be just because he fits the profile of what this regime are looking for), by no measure can he be considered an England batsman deserving of 109 innings.Bedsaddick said:
We need to ditch Crawley . He’s a liabilityblackpool72 said:We need a completely different mindset when batting.
In the recent 50 over competition we kept getting bowled out in around 30-35 overs.
This has continued in the Test match.
Swinging wildly at balls you should be leaving is something I expect to see in a Sunday league game.
It's not something I expect to see in an Ashes Test match.
No excuse for some of these shots from experienced batsmen.
In terms of averages, of the 127 batsmen in the history of Test cricket that have batted more than 100 times between positions 1-5, he is 126th. McCullum counters that by saying that we should not be looking at averages but match winning innings but I have to take issue with the England coach there too.
Crawley has the lowest number of hundreds (5) to have batted 100 times between 1-5 and has only one MOM in his 60 matches to his name - and that was over five years ago and was down to his 267 on the Southampton "road" against Pakistan in what turned out to be a draw. If we then consider last summer's 124 against the worst Test playing nation in the world, Zimbabwe, there really isn't much meat on the bone. His overseas average of 25.54 from 59 innings says it all.
Crawley will be under unbelievable pressure now. He really should not be in this position but he almost, inadvertently, became the poster boy for Bazball with that drive off the first ball of the last Ashes Series. He has shown, on a few occasions, that he is capable of playing sensibly when he has stopped himself from going so hard at the ball from the very first over. Modern day analysts set plans for batters but you don't have to be one to know that feeding that addiction is one way of getting him out. My other real concern, though, is that he doesn't have the basic technique when the ball is moving and facing Starc with a pink ball will be an all mighty test for him even if he does opt to treat each ball on its merit.
McCullum has intimated that Crawley will play in the next Test. So, for his sake, I really do hope that he makes a proper and meaningful contribution there. If, however, he does bag another couple of low scores then I do fear for his mental well being. He doesn't look at social media but no sports person worth their salt doesn't recognise failure and it will probably not matter, in his head, a jot if and when McCullum backs him privately or publicly. McCullum and Stokes have to do the right thing, in those circumstances and take him out of the firing line. It would be cruel to do anything else.
Mohammad Ashraful of Bangladesh but, then, given his admission to match fixing, that might not be just down to his inability to bat.4 -
Disgraceful arrogance not to make Crawley and Root at the very least play in the Lions game. Hate to say it but we deserve to get hammered in Brisbane2
-
Sponsored links:
-
-
Seb is in Derby this week on what is the next stage of getting his coaching badges. Among his fellow candidates is Rory Burns who might have been in Australia right now if things had worked out differently for him - instead, when things did go wrong, Crawley took his spot at the top. Of the various coaching mentors (from batting, keeping, spin, seam, fielding and the psychological experts in the game) and of a comparable age to Burns, there is another former Test player but one whose cricketing career was cruelly cut short for other reasons at the tender age of 26, James Taylor who is the current assistant and batting coach at Leicestershire CC. Both Burns and Taylor are examples of how fragile the life of a professional sportsman can be.
So this does beg the question - do our current squad value to the nth degree this opportunity? There is a saying that was originally penned by Billie Jean King -"pressure is a privilege and champions learn to adjust" - and it is one that, perhaps, our current side would do well to think about. Rather than being quite so entrenched in the way they play and react to situations when things do go wrong.
This goes right to the top and to deny our players that are struggling the opportunity to play during the next 12 days or so, in the guise of keeping the squad together, does seem, as many others on here and the likes of Vaughan, Hussain and Atherton have suggested, somewhat shortsighted. Broad, on the podcast mentioned above, was asked by one of the other two "what if, say, someone like Crawley said "I want to go and play against the PMs XI"? Broad said that he suspected that McCullum and Stokes would prefer to keep the players together.
This isn't unique so far as this regime is concerned. Look at last season when Bethell was denied the opportunity to play in the CC. Is he a better play for that given his limited career red ball matches? Of course he isn't. The likes of Head, Carey and Labuschagne will not just go back to playing Sheffield Shield games but also turn out for their clubs if they feel they need to. It isn't above them to do so and they aren't afraid of failing playing in that grade of cricket.
Key, McCullum and Stokes will stand or fail by insisting that this "togetherness" is the way they go about things. One suspects, though, that this has been somewhat overdone and the dangers are that the group becomes comforted by their mutual and respective mediocrity.
6 -
-
Wondering if we see 2 of Bethell, Tongue and Potts in the next test team. Potts comparative lack of pace is less of an issue with the pink ball, Tongue has to be ready in case of injuries and they obviously want to get Bethell in somewhere0
-
Addick Addict said:
Seb is in Derby this week on what is the next stage of getting his coaching badges. Among his fellow candidates is Rory Burns who might have been in Australia right now if things had worked out differently or him - instead, when things did go wrong, Crawley took his spot at the top. Of the various coaching mentors (from batting, keeping, spin, fielding and the psychological experts in the game) and of a comparable age to Burns, there is another former Test player but one whose cricketing career was cruelly cut short for other reasons at the tender age of 26, James Taylor who is the current assistant and batting coach at Leicestershire CC. Both Burns and Taylor are examples of how fragile the life of a professional sportsman can be.
So this does beg the question - do our current squad value to the nth degree this opportunity? There is a saying that was originally penned by Billie Jean King -"pressure is a privilege and champions learn to adjust" - and it is one that, perhaps, our current side would do well to think about. Rather than being quite so entrenched in the way they play and react to situations when things do go wrong.
This goes right to the top and to deny our players that are struggling the opportunity to play during the next 12 days or so, in the guise of keeping the squad together, does seem, as many others on here and the likes of Vaughan, Hussain and Atherton have suggested, somewhat shortsighted. Broad, on the podcast mentioned above, was asked by one of the other two "what if, say, someone like Crawley said "I want to go and play against the PMs XI"? Broad said that he suspected that McCullum and Stokes would prefer to keep the players together.
This isn't unique so far as this regime is concerned. Look at last season when Bethell was denied the opportunity to play in the CC. Is he a better play for that given his limited career red ball matches? Of course he isn't. The likes of Head, Carey and Labuschagne will not just go back to playing Sheffield Shield games but also turn out for their clubs if they feel they need to. It isn't above them to do so and they aren't afraid of failing playing in that grade of cricket.
Key, McCullum and Stokes will stand or fail by insisting that this "togetherness" is the way they go about things. One suspects, though, that this has been somewhat overdone and the dangers are that the group becomes comforted by their mutual and respective mediocrity.
It's akin to Southgate and England0 -
Some very good points about Crawley. There would always be those referencing the links to Key and his Dad however you can’t help but feel they are amplified by the ‘mates’ culture that seems to permeate through the team. Players should of course be backed and you can’t change the XI each and every time they have a bad game as that can happen.However, there appears to be absolutely no accountability in this team whatsoever. Key especially comes across like he wants to be one of the lads when actually his role is meant to be one of the highest ranking executives in the English game. Does anyone genuinely see him as such? To me it looks like he is managed by Mccullum and Stokes and not the other way round.
Backing the players is all well and good and very noble but surely there has to be a limit? In any workplace mistakes have to be tolerated, but not someone making the same mistake over and over again without having any plan whatsoever to remedy those mistakes. That is literally the definition of insanity. If Stokes and Mccullum aren’t willing to hold people accountable and support them to improve then surely it is for the likes of Key etc to manage that accordingly, except it is blindingly obvious nobody dares to challenge Stokes or Mccullum.I’m sure being a part of this tour is an absolute laugh for the players and no doubt the easiest money they have ever earned. There are far worse jobs out there than playing two days of cricket then having 12 days off but surely some will look back in years to come and wish they’d actually had a bit of coaching and mentoring off the management setup as opposed to this cult like setup where they can do exactly what they want with no accountability or repercussions. Which players have genuinely got better over the last couple of years? Crawley is a case in point, it’s great he is being backed but is anyone actually bothering to coach him on the aspects of his game he needs to improve. Or, is he just being told that it doesn’t matter that he throws away his wicket because he scored that great 200 plus a few years back.Anyone who has followed this setup for any length of time will have known they were never going to send players to the Prime Minister’s XI game. This would have been the most sensible course of action but they seem to revel in doing the exact opposite of what seems rational so on the odd occasion they win a game they can turn round and say everyone else was wrong. And on the occasions they lose they can just turn round and say it doesn’t matter anyway because ‘who cares’ in the words of our vice captain.6 -
Interesting from the Guardian - if it were individuals within the England camp who opted not to play against the PM's XI, that rather reinforces my thoughts on who has been making some of these decisions not to play in the CC on occasions i.e. the players themselves. As I've said before, that is in complete contrast with the attitude of the Aussies who would rather be playing:
Cricket Australia originally slated the fixture for England’s first team as a warm-up for the day-night second Test that starts in Brisbane on 4 December, only to be informed a number of weeks ago that the Lions would be taking their place instead. It was felt the ground’s slow pitch would not prepare the players adequately before the traditional bounce of the Gabba.
Although the head coach, Brendon McCullum, did then offer individuals the chance to divert to Canberra after the defeat in Perth, only three fringe players took up the offer.2 -
Presumably Crawley knows he won’t be dropped for the Gabba so why risk more failures in the warm-up game.Addick Addict said:Interesting from the Guardian - if it were individuals within the England camp who opted not to play against the PM's XI, that rather reinforces my thoughts on who has been making some of these decisions not to play in the CC on occasions i.e. the players themselves. As I've said before, that is in complete contrast with the attitude of the Aussies who would rather be playing:Cricket Australia originally slated the fixture for England’s first team as a warm-up for the day-night second Test that starts in Brisbane on 4 December, only to be informed a number of weeks ago that the Lions would be taking their place instead. It was felt the ground’s slow pitch would not prepare the players adequately before the traditional bounce of the Gabba.
Although the head coach, Brendon McCullum, did then offer individuals the chance to divert to Canberra after the defeat in Perth, only three fringe players took up the offer.Disappointing that Root and/or Stokes didn’t feel able to set the right example by playing and (hopefully) scoring some runs.1 -
Agnew saying what most of us feel. Head's innings was way different from how England batted. He does also say some more positive things, but this comment was damning. Especially as Brook is now the vice captain.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/articles/cq604ngrengo
The shots Brook was playing were from the third XI of a village team. He needs to grow up. Compare Brook with the wonderful innings of Travis Head. There is a huge difference between recklessness and controlled aggression.1
