Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
England Cricket 2025
Comments
-
Root was easily our player of the series.killerandflash said:Not sure how Brook got the England player of the series, when Root scored more runs than him, and Stokes was excellent with bat and ball.1 -
Although Brook's fantastic bowling might have swung it.4
-
fenaddick said:
But then Woakes is on strike right? Take some pace off and bowl at the stumps to him and he should be out before he can hit a single surelyAddick Addict said:
Because at that pace if he misses it, it's 4 runs. It only takes one ball down the legside and he's stuffed.fenaddick said:Im not a keeper but why wouldn’t Jurel stand up to the stumps as he has against other seamers and hope it goes into his glove? Removes the bye and if it goes past him it hits the rope and Woakes is on strike anyway
With only 8 or 9 runs to win, it's still a big gamble. Does the keeper then stand up the first ball the next over when it's a certainty that they will run a bye to the keeper and it's then just one hit away from losing the game? On Saturday in the Kent League, my son stood up to an opening bowler that bowls at about 75mph but who can bowl at the stumps and channel, to stop the Queensland batter, Bryce Street, from taking his guard outside his crease. He was never going to do that to another Queensland player bowling from the other end who bowls at 85mph plus and who does spray it. Most keepers, at pro level, with a glove off, would trust themselves to hit the stumps more often that not in any event.1 -
Pant gets injured & his sub fielder takes his place behind the stumps.Covered End said:Bollocks, drew the series almost certainly due to Woakes dislocating his shoulder.
So why didnt we have a sub fielder for Woakes who could bowl ? And if someone says the rules say you cant then why could Pant's sub fielder keep wicket ?
Our sub fielder for Woakes was Dawson. Could Dawson have bowled ? Did we have a fast /swing/seam bowler who could have been a substitute ?
Genuine questions as I've got no clue.1 -
Point taken re the catches…….but at the point he threw his wicket away India had already given up.thai malaysia addick said:
It's a good point. He took risks to get us into a winning position, but I, too, felt he took an unnecessary risk as we were putting huge pressure on a despondent Indian side. However, not entirely his fault when six catches were missed.SuedeAdidas said:Brook’s fault.It was time to forget about entertainment and just bore everyone to death.1 -
Shouldn't it be Pope being interviewed, seeing that he was the captain for this match?0
-
I gave up watching yesterday afternoon with England 301/3 thought it was in the bag. Last seven wickets went for 66.0
-
Our team selection for this Test was the problem, not someone top scoring with 111.SuedeAdidas said:Brook’s fault.
Why Bethel ?
0 -
30 or 40 years ago there probably wouldn't have been the post match respect that there is these days for one reason (Ian Botham and Ian Chappell wanting to fight in the car park for example) - franchise cricket and specifically the IPL. Players from around play with players that they never would have done in previous eras. They still play hard but what happens on the pitch stays on the pitch. Plus, from a career perspective, it's perhaps not the best thing to do to fall out with individuals that might influence whether you get an IPL contract or not.bobmunro said:ValleyGary said:And an even bigger bell endI was referring to his bowling, not his character. We wouldn't consider him a bellend if he played for England, or at the very worst he would be 'our bellend'.The needle between the two sides added greatly to the series, and we all loved Crawley's shithousery to deny another over before stumps - which I'm sure lead to a lot of Indian supporters calling him a bellend
0 -
It's quite simple. The Laws says that you can sub a fielder and that person can be a specialist keeper but they don't allow a sub fielder to bowl or bat.golfaddick said:
Pant gets injured & his sub fielder takes his place behind the stumps.Covered End said:Bollocks, drew the series almost certainly due to Woakes dislocating his shoulder.
So why didnt we have a sub fielder for Woakes who could bowl ? And if someone says the rules say you cant then why could Pant's sub fielder keep wicket ?
Our sub fielder for Woakes was Dawson. Could Dawson have bowled ? Did we have a fast /swing/seam bowler who could have been a substitute ?
Genuine questions as I've got no clue.0 - Sponsored links:
-
Twats!0
-
A substitute can't bat or bowl. This was applied fairly and equally to both Pant and Woakes. Pant's substitute was allowed to keep wicket, since that's not disallowed; he wasn't, however, allowed either to bat or bowl.golfaddick said:
Pant gets injured & his sub fielder takes his place behind the stumps.Covered End said:Bollocks, drew the series almost certainly due to Woakes dislocating his shoulder.
So why didnt we have a sub fielder for Woakes who could bowl ? And if someone says the rules say you cant then why could Pant's sub fielder keep wicket ?
Our sub fielder for Woakes was Dawson. Could Dawson have bowled ? Did we have a fast /swing/seam bowler who could have been a substitute ?
Genuine questions as I've got no clue.
Dawson couldn't have bowled - see above.
Yes, there are plenty of "fast/swing/seam bowlers" who could have been a substitute. But they too would not have been allowed to bowl. Or bat. Also, see above.
Genuine answers. Hope these finally give you a clue.0 -
Players getting out when the conditions are moving against them is always frustrating. But that's not the reason we lost the Test. For that, you shouldn't have to look further than the six dropped catches and the 22 wides. For that to happen in a match that was a hit away from being tied is unforgivable.
We lost it in the field, not while we were batting.3 -
Bethell has been next in line since doing well in New Zealandgolfaddick said:
Our team selection for this Test was the problem, not someone top scoring with 111.SuedeAdidas said:Brook’s fault.
Why Bethel ?0 -
Why ? Is a wicketkeeper such a specialist position but a fast bowler isnt ?Addick Addict said:
It's quite simple. The Laws says that you can sub a fielder and that person can be a specialist keeper but they don't allow a sub fielder to bowl or bat.golfaddick said:
Pant gets injured & his sub fielder takes his place behind the stumps.Covered End said:Bollocks, drew the series almost certainly due to Woakes dislocating his shoulder.
So why didnt we have a sub fielder for Woakes who could bowl ? And if someone says the rules say you cant then why could Pant's sub fielder keep wicket ?
Our sub fielder for Woakes was Dawson. Could Dawson have bowled ? Did we have a fast /swing/seam bowler who could have been a substitute ?
Genuine questions as I've got no clue.
Alec Stewart kept wicket to a quiet decent standard but was a top order batsman. Foakes & Smith keep wicket but can bat well too. So they aren't "specialists" in si far as they can't do anything else.
But you are saying they can be replaced but if Jimmy Anderson (the highest non spinner wicket taker) got injured then you couldn't replace him. His batting was a proper no 11 do you aren't losing out there.
Bonkers rules.0 -
Right peg in wrong hole and at wrong time given the refusal of the regime to have him playing red ball. It is such a different animal to white ball, as he found, in both innings let alone when you've played one game and scored just 32 runs all season in that form of the game.wmcf123 said:
Bethell has been next in line since doing well in New Zealandgolfaddick said:
Our team selection for this Test was the problem, not someone top scoring with 111.SuedeAdidas said:Brook’s fault.
Why Bethel ?
McCullum has been asked why Bethell didn't have time in the middle elsewhere - he dodged it and has already said, when talking about Tongue, that he wants players in and around the group. He says that the good thing that he was "brave" in the way he got out. Really?2 -
Brook got a bit carried away when he got out, but England were 301-4 when he departed. At the time, nobody thought that was the game, we still should have won easily from there.1
-
Bethell thing reminds me a little of shoehorning Dan Lawrence in to open. It's all well and good being loyal to the next in line but if they aren't the right player for the role you specifically need then you shouldn't play them1
-
So you are saying that the rules specifically DONT rule it out but in all other cases it is. I wonder why that is ?Chizz said:
A substitute can't bat or bowl. This was applied fairly and equally to both Pant and Woakes. Pant's substitute was allowed to keep wicket, since that's not disallowed; he wasn't, however, allowed either to bat or bowl.golfaddick said:
Pant gets injured & his sub fielder takes his place behind the stumps.Covered End said:Bollocks, drew the series almost certainly due to Woakes dislocating his shoulder.
So why didnt we have a sub fielder for Woakes who could bowl ? And if someone says the rules say you cant then why could Pant's sub fielder keep wicket ?
Our sub fielder for Woakes was Dawson. Could Dawson have bowled ? Did we have a fast /swing/seam bowler who could have been a substitute ?
Genuine questions as I've got no clue.
Dawson couldn't have bowled - see above.
Yes, there are plenty of "fast/swing/seam bowlers" who could have been a substitute. But they too would not have been allowed to bowl. Or bat. Also, see above.
Genuine answers. Hope these finally give you a clue.
Tells me the rules need changing so that no sub fielder can bat bowl or keep wicket.
Fair for everything then.0 -
We should have won the last 2 test but there you go. Tbf they've won by 6 runs and we've had one less player for most of the test.
1 - Sponsored links:
-
And sorry you think I might be clueless. I've never played cricket (apart for a couple of pub teams) and haven't swallowed the rule book.
My bad.0 -
That shot by Bethell wasn't brave, it was a shot of desperation.Addick Addict said:
Right peg in wrong hole and at wrong time given the refusal of the regime to have him playing red ball. It is such a different animal to white ball, as he found, in both innings let alone when you've played one game and scored just 32 runs all season in that form of the game.wmcf123 said:
Bethell has been next in line since doing well in New Zealandgolfaddick said:
Our team selection for this Test was the problem, not someone top scoring with 111.SuedeAdidas said:Brook’s fault.
Why Bethel ?
McCullum has been asked why Bethell didn't have time in the middle elsewhere - he dodged it and has already said, when talking about Tongue, that he wants players in and around the group. He says that the good thing that he was "brave" in the way he got out. Really?3 -
England's next batting cab off the rank is I'm pretty sure Rehan Ahmed now0
-
Coles is not a bad shout for going on the tour tbh, his bowling seems a tiny bit more serious than Bethell's too (if not quite frontline)1
-
What a great series,I still think this went away from us when Bethell got out,India where looking beaten but then they got this life line and they started to believe.This morning we still had a good chance,but Smith looked petrified and was always going to snick one.Indias bowling was excellent all the way through,especially Siraj who at times looked unplayable.
Still ,a great advert for Test cricket,roll on the ashes.1 -
Done all days of the test as usual, and that is one of the most amazing final morning I have had the privilidge to attend.
It was a great test some marvelous batting at times from players in both teams, but Siraj was the deginetly man of the match. That spell of seambowlingYesterday afternoon and this morning some of the best I have seen, and what an engine he has.5 -
Coles bowling wise is probably the middle ground between Bethell and Dawson. Not quite a front line spinner but someone that could give you a few useful overs. Does remind me bowling wise a lot of Mike Yardy with the quicker dart type balls that don't really turn.Leuth said:Coles is not a bad shout for going on the tour tbh, his bowling seems a tiny bit more serious than Bethell's too (if not quite frontline)
Will be interesting to see who's in the Lions squad that goes to Oz because Coles I would fully expect to be there.1 -
Siraj is a really good bowler.
Almost makes me want to like him, then he does cringy things like copy Cristiano Ronaldo's celebration and I can't.
Shame we couldn't knock off the runs, would have been funny him standing on the boundary rope costing the game.1 -
The blame for us losing this falls squarely on the shoulders of the Surrey boys - 96 runs in 8 innings and 10-324 between them.4
