Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

England Cricket Team Summer 2019 -ICC World Cup and Ashes etc

1…114115117119120…179

Comments

  • JohnBoyUK
    JohnBoyUK Posts: 9,027
    christ, tale the 2 fours then see out the over FFS, no need to even play it.  Madness.
  • superchrissypowell
    superchrissypowell Posts: 693
    There was literally no need. Just knock the ball about. Rotate the strike. He nearly holed out the four before. Should have realised then that he needed to calm down

  • golfaddick
    golfaddick Posts: 33,684
    Wtf...???  Its not a one day game with limited overs. We even have tomorrow if needs be. Just BLOCK 
  • soapboxsam
    soapboxsam Posts: 23,232
    edited August 2019
    Ben Stokes told him too block the last ball.
    This reminds me of the round Robin game against the Aussies when Stokes ran out of Partners in that WC match at Lord's.
    Or was he last man out ?
  • Laddick01
    Laddick01 Posts: 6,420
    Game. Really needed more from Woakes or Buttler.
  • superchrissypowell
    superchrissypowell Posts: 693
    Sigh. We were doing so well. 2 moments of madness has cost us in this innings (bairstow and the the run out). Completely shifted the momentum of the match
  • Chris_from_Sidcup
    Chris_from_Sidcup Posts: 36,068
    edited August 2019
    Been a much better effort than anyone expected, but ultimately we lost this in our first innings.

    Would've probably won the last test but for rain, and would've won this but for that shambolic first innings. Just scoring a pathetic 150 in the 1st innings would've been enough.

    We could be 2-1 up but now we're 2-0 down. 
  • Addick Addict
    Addick Addict Posts: 39,855
    To think that we only needed a total of 107 in the first innings to win the game makes things 10 times more painful than they should be
  • cafcfan1990
    cafcfan1990 Posts: 12,811
    Addick Addict said:
    To think that we only needed a total of 107 in the first innings to win the game makes things 10 times more painful than they should be
    Why 107? 
  • Laddick01
    Laddick01 Posts: 6,420
    Stokes is simply a ridiculous player. Pietersen levels of talent.

  • Sponsored links:



  • golfaddick
    golfaddick Posts: 33,684
    If only we still had a couple more batsman left. Why did Archer go for the big 'un  ??

  • Chris_from_Sidcup
    Chris_from_Sidcup Posts: 36,068
    golfaddick said:
    If only we still had a couple more batsman left. Why did Archer go for the big 'un  ??

    If only Buttler hadn't got run out.
  • Chris_from_Sidcup
    Chris_from_Sidcup Posts: 36,068
    Brave taking a single off the second and leaving Leach to face 4 balls
  • Chizz
    Chizz Posts: 28,344
    golfaddick said:
    If only we still had a couple more batsman left. Why did Archer go for the big 'un  ??

    Archer was a little bit unlucky.  The shot he got out to was a pretty good sweep shot, aimed at keeping it down; it just caught a leading edge and flew.  Unlike the other two swings, he didn't mean to hit it in the air.  In context, it wasn't the worst shot he played that over! 
  • Chizz
    Chizz Posts: 28,344
    Ben Stokes > Steve Smith
  • killerandflash
    killerandflash Posts: 69,919
    Chris_from_Sidcup said:
    Brave taking a single off the second and leaving Leach to face 4 balls
    It wasn't deliberate!

    Leach is very good for a number 11, as he showed against Ireland he can defend well
  • Addick Addict
    Addick Addict Posts: 39,855


    cafcfan1990 said:
    Addick Addict said:
    To think that we only needed a total of 107 in the first innings to win the game makes things 10 times more painful than they should be
    Why 107? 
    Because that was what it was when I posted - 80 now. And that makes it even more ridiculous that we will probably lose.

    However, if you keep asking and I keep replying then this might happen:

    Chris_from_Sidcup said:
    Callumcafc said:
    Still 130 needed. Not getting carried away yet, always wary of quick wickets with this middle order.

    And Lyon is looking ominous too...
    That's our problem. 235/4 could easily turn into 245/7
    And 359-9 ;-)
  • suzisausage
    suzisausage Posts: 11,502
    I can’t bear it. 
  • supaclive
    supaclive Posts: 6,516
    Chizz said:
    Ben Stokes > Steve Smith
    Not EVEN close but he's the best we have. 
  • Todds_right_hook
    Todds_right_hook Posts: 10,887
    I was only joking when I said stokes will do this in 6’s

  • Sponsored links:



  • Laddick01
    Laddick01 Posts: 6,420
    supaclive said:
    Chizz said:
    Ben Stokes > Steve Smith
    Not EVEN close but he's the best we have. 
    In this situation Stokes blows smith away. Has to go big, has to keep the strike. 

    Its genius cricket.
  • blackpool72
    blackpool72 Posts: 23,703
    If Stokes wins this match for England his innings will be talked about in the same way that Bothams was all those years ago. 
  • supaclive
    supaclive Posts: 6,516
    Laddick01 said:
    supaclive said:
    Chizz said:
    Ben Stokes > Steve Smith
    Not EVEN close but he's the best we have. 
    In this situation Stokes blows smith away. Has to go big, has to keep the strike. 

    Its genius cricket.
    Against the second best test batsmen of all time ?.... do me a favour.  He ran out Butler.
  • Chizz
    Chizz Posts: 28,344
    Laddick01 said:
    supaclive said:
    Chizz said:
    Ben Stokes > Steve Smith
    Not EVEN close but he's the best we have. 
    In this situation Stokes blows smith away. Has to go big, has to keep the strike. 

    Its genius cricket.
    I can't remember a better 0 not out in ten balls than Leach, too...
  • ForeverAddickted
    ForeverAddickted Posts: 94,597
    blackpool72 said:
    If Stokes wins this match for England his innings will be talked about in the same way that Bothams was all those years ago. 
    Has SPOTY secured even if we lose today!!
  • killerandflash
    killerandflash Posts: 69,919
    Chizz said:
    Laddick01 said:
    supaclive said:
    Chizz said:
    Ben Stokes > Steve Smith
    Not EVEN close but he's the best we have. 
    In this situation Stokes blows smith away. Has to go big, has to keep the strike. 

    Its genius cricket.
    I can't remember a better 0 not out in ten balls than Leach, too...
    Leach is exactly what we need at the other end, a blocker rather than a slogger
  • Laddick01
    Laddick01 Posts: 6,420
    supaclive said:
    Laddick01 said:
    supaclive said:
    Chizz said:
    Ben Stokes > Steve Smith
    Not EVEN close but he's the best we have. 
    In this situation Stokes blows smith away. Has to go big, has to keep the strike. 

    Its genius cricket.
    Against the second best test batsmen of all time ?.... do me a favour.  He ran out Butler.
    I’m not saying he’s better in tests format . This is a one day game now. It’s Stokes vs Australia.
  • philcafc
    philcafc Posts: 3,890
    what an effort this is by Stokes, can we really do it!
  • Laddick01
    Laddick01 Posts: 6,420
    This is the greatest innings I’ve ever seen. 
  • supaclive
    supaclive Posts: 6,516
    Laddick01 said:
    supaclive said:
    Laddick01 said:
    supaclive said:
    Chizz said:
    Ben Stokes > Steve Smith
    Not EVEN close but he's the best we have. 
    In this situation Stokes blows smith away. Has to go big, has to keep the strike. 

    Its genius cricket.
    Against the second best test batsmen of all time ?.... do me a favour.  He ran out Butler.
    I’m not saying he’s better in tests format . This is a one day game now. It’s Stokes vs Australia.
    For The Ashes.  On a four day old pitch.  With no fielding restrictions and over 100 overs....??

    Right.....

Categories

“Marketplace”