Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
England Cricket 2022
Comments
-
I would open with Buttler in T20, even if it means Bairstow keep to be honest.killerandflash said:
That was before Buttler became captain though. Maybe they'll switch things, as lets face it all 3 (Buttler, Roy and YJB) are world class power play openersCafc43v3r said:
Didn't Butler and Roy open in the last t20 world cup with Bairstow at 3?killerandflash said:Will Bairstow open when he returns to the side?
Roy must be under a little bit, very little, of pressure now.0 -
Doubt it because Buttler has opened in T20s since March 2021 and Bairstow has dropped down the order. Buttler might, as I say, choose to bat a bit lower in which case Bairstow could open although the option is there for Salt to do so too. On today's form Roy isn't certain of his place but there's always an option to replace that number 3 with Buttler.killerandflash said:Will Bairstow open when he returns to the side?0 -
Can't believe there's been no comment on the T20 today.
Looks like England are trying to lose another limited overs games. Perhaps we should leave chasing a target to the Test team.0 -
Dreadful performance from England0
-
I can't take Internationals played in Southampton with a weakened team that seriously.
I watch all England games, but somehow feel detatched and am not really bothered.0 -
advice to Liam Livingstone .. next time take that restricting helmet camera off and stamp it into the ground .. it's a serious, competitive game and not a fucking circus act0
-
Salt is back in the 20/20 team today .. he should be w/k and allow Buttler to concentrate on captaincy and talking to his bowlers1
-
Morgan's commentary style reminds me of a comment made about Murray Walker .. 'he always sounds like a man whose trousers are on fire'1
-
Well played Malan1
-
February has 29 days every 4 years too. Difference is February is never dropped on 4!Johnnysummers5 said:Well played Malan0 - Sponsored links:
-
SighAddick Addict said:
February has 29 days every 4 years tooJohnnysummers5 said:Well played Malan1 -
good bowling from England's pace bowlers, outside off with a lot of bounce .. the spinners will be in for a tough time mind you0
-
India won't mind losing this with the series already won .. keep interest well alive for the forthcoming World Cup 20/200
-
Add to that - "at the same time ensuring that the team isn't penalised for a slow over rate which might prove crucial in terms of the result"Addick Addict said:I've raised this previously and you certainly can't be categorical after one game but I'm really not comfortable with Buttler keeping and captaining - the workload (and it is more of a mind than physical thing) is at its worst in T20s and on days like today when we've fielded first and he has to go straight out to bat.
Setting aside my concern that he is an introvert, how many players have to 120 plus times - be the voice and energy out there in galvanising the fielders and getting in the head of the batsmen, prepare and concentrate on catching the ball/take a stumping, run to the stumps to take throws, run to field the ball and shy at the stumps on occasions, think about field settings, think about bowling changes, regularly run mid over to consult with the bowler and then back again to your fielding place and at the same time make sure that the team isn't taking too long to bowl the overs? Then, at the end of the innings, race off the pitch, whip the pads off and put on more protection and different pads and then be in the right mental state to face world class bowling? No chance whatsoever to gather ones thoughts.
I'm struggling to think of anyone who has done that at the very top level. Not Dhoni. Not de Koch. Not Paine. McCullum for a few games possibly but he gave up the gloves to captain. Sangakkara opened just once and kept in his T20 international career and 21 times in ODIs but not in the last seven years of his career and didn't captain the side in those. Anyone else? Apart from The Hundred (and I'm not sure if he does do so) where else does Buttler keep, open the batting and captain the side in franchise cricket?
Buttler might be a super hero and be capable of doing it. And it might be easier for him in ODIs because he won't be opening. But those same things that occur when fielding in T20s will do so in an ODI - but, potentially, more than 300 times instead of 120. The jury really is out for me because you want each player to give themselves the best possible chance in each discipline be it batting (especially opening), bowling, keeping or skippering the side. And Buttler is having to do three of them.
There is one other solution and that is for Buttler not to open and someone like Salt to do so instead. But that's probably another discussion.1 -
Nice to see England win an exciting game of T20 cricket1
-
Good to see Reece Topley win MOM but it really should not have been him, in my opinion, for taking 3-22. I've never understood this desire to always give MOM to a member of the winning team, especially when someone on the losing side does something extraordinary - with 117 off 55 balls (14 fours and 6 sixes) surely Suryakumar Yadav deserved the award?
To take this to the nth degree, if someone took 6-4 but the opposition won with a score of 120, should the winning team's top scorer with 45 or their best bowler with 4-20, really deserve to collect the award?
There are no rules in place that dictate that it has to be on the winning side. In fact, I'm pretty sure that when the MOM award was first created, on occasions, it was given to a member of the losing side. Convention now seems to dictate otherwise nowadays.3 -
Malan should have been MOMAddick Addict said:Good to see Reece Topley win MOM but it really should not have been him, in my opinion, for taking 3-22. I've never understood this desire to always give MOM to a member of the winning team, especially when someone on the losing side does something extraordinary - with 117 off 55 balls (14 fours and 6 sixes) surely Suryakumar Yadav deserved the award?
To take this to the nth degree, if someone took 6-4 but the opposition won with a score of 120, should the winning team's top scorer with 45 or their best bowler with 4-20, really deserve to collect the award?
There are no rules in place that dictate that it has to be on the winning side. In fact, I'm pretty sure that when the MOM award was first created, on occasions, it was given to a member of the losing side. Convention now seems to dictate otherwise nowadays.2 -
Of course that statement rather proves my argument. Which is better? 77 runs off 39 balls at a S/R of 197.43 or 117 runs off 55 balls at a S/R 212.72?Johnnysummers5 said:
Malan should have been MOMAddick Addict said:Good to see Reece Topley win MOM but it really should not have been him, in my opinion, for taking 3-22. I've never understood this desire to always give MOM to a member of the winning team, especially when someone on the losing side does something extraordinary - with 117 off 55 balls (14 fours and 6 sixes) surely Suryakumar Yadav deserved the award?
To take this to the nth degree, if someone took 6-4 but the opposition won with a score of 120, should the winning team's top scorer with 45 or their best bowler with 4-20, really deserve to collect the award?
There are no rules in place that dictate that it has to be on the winning side. In fact, I'm pretty sure that when the MOM award was first created, on occasions, it was given to a member of the losing side. Convention now seems to dictate otherwise nowadays.
Perhaps they should give it to Malan on the basis that it was his first T20 international 50 for over a year. He might, after all, have to wait another year or so for the next one!0 -
You love to get Inter MalanAddick Addict said:
Of course that statement rather proves my argument. Which is better? 77 runs off 39 balls at a S/R of 197.43 or 117 runs off 55 balls at a S/R 212.72?Johnnysummers5 said:
Malan should have been MOMAddick Addict said:Good to see Reece Topley win MOM but it really should not have been him, in my opinion, for taking 3-22. I've never understood this desire to always give MOM to a member of the winning team, especially when someone on the losing side does something extraordinary - with 117 off 55 balls (14 fours and 6 sixes) surely Suryakumar Yadav deserved the award?
To take this to the nth degree, if someone took 6-4 but the opposition won with a score of 120, should the winning team's top scorer with 45 or their best bowler with 4-20, really deserve to collect the award?
There are no rules in place that dictate that it has to be on the winning side. In fact, I'm pretty sure that when the MOM award was first created, on occasions, it was given to a member of the losing side. Convention now seems to dictate otherwise nowadays.
Perhaps they should give it to Malan on the basis that it was his first T20 international 50 for over a year. He might, after all, have to wait another year or so for the next one!6 -
Only stating the facts. I will give him that he is a fast, flat track bully but the second the ball does anything he's in trouble. It's why he is better in Test cricket playing in Australia and South Africa. And of course run rates don't matter so much in Test cricket although McCullum seems to be changing that.Johnnysummers5 said:
You love to get Inter MalanAddick Addict said:
Of course that statement rather proves my argument. Which is better? 77 runs off 39 balls at a S/R of 197.43 or 117 runs off 55 balls at a S/R 212.72?Johnnysummers5 said:
Malan should have been MOMAddick Addict said:Good to see Reece Topley win MOM but it really should not have been him, in my opinion, for taking 3-22. I've never understood this desire to always give MOM to a member of the winning team, especially when someone on the losing side does something extraordinary - with 117 off 55 balls (14 fours and 6 sixes) surely Suryakumar Yadav deserved the award?
To take this to the nth degree, if someone took 6-4 but the opposition won with a score of 120, should the winning team's top scorer with 45 or their best bowler with 4-20, really deserve to collect the award?
There are no rules in place that dictate that it has to be on the winning side. In fact, I'm pretty sure that when the MOM award was first created, on occasions, it was given to a member of the losing side. Convention now seems to dictate otherwise nowadays.
Perhaps they should give it to Malan on the basis that it was his first T20 international 50 for over a year. He might, after all, have to wait another year or so for the next one!0 - Sponsored links:
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/62125667
Australia lost the 2nd Test in Sri Lanka heavily. Marks for sticking it out though, and not fleeing the country with all the current unrest0 -
I would not play Malan in test cricket all the years he was at Middlesex, I thought he was a very good white ball player in T20 cricket he's scoring rate is not far behind Buttler and RoyAddick Addict said:
Only stating the facts. I will give him that he is a fast, flat track bully but the second the ball does anything he's in trouble. It's why he is better in Test cricket playing in Australia and South Africa. And of course run rates don't matter so much in Test cricket although McCullum seems to be changing that.Johnnysummers5 said:
You love to get Inter MalanAddick Addict said:
Of course that statement rather proves my argument. Which is better? 77 runs off 39 balls at a S/R of 197.43 or 117 runs off 55 balls at a S/R 212.72?Johnnysummers5 said:
Malan should have been MOMAddick Addict said:Good to see Reece Topley win MOM but it really should not have been him, in my opinion, for taking 3-22. I've never understood this desire to always give MOM to a member of the winning team, especially when someone on the losing side does something extraordinary - with 117 off 55 balls (14 fours and 6 sixes) surely Suryakumar Yadav deserved the award?
To take this to the nth degree, if someone took 6-4 but the opposition won with a score of 120, should the winning team's top scorer with 45 or their best bowler with 4-20, really deserve to collect the award?
There are no rules in place that dictate that it has to be on the winning side. In fact, I'm pretty sure that when the MOM award was first created, on occasions, it was given to a member of the losing side. Convention now seems to dictate otherwise nowadays.
Perhaps they should give it to Malan on the basis that it was his first T20 international 50 for over a year. He might, after all, have to wait another year or so for the next one!0 -
India win the toss and bowl in the 1st one dayer, starts 1pm.1
-
Roy really does look out of sorts. That was an awful execution of the shot.2
-
Oh dear! 6-2 and Root gone. Both to Bumrah.0
-
Bumrah is such a great bowler.1
-
OMG Stokes gone
7-30 -
We've still got more than 47 overs to bat!0
-
Anybody gone?0
-
3 so farmendonca said:Anybody gone?1
