Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
England Cricket 2026
Comments
-
Bethell given a bowl when the new ball is only 5 overs old tells you all you need to know about how poorly we have bowled.
Get Robinson and Atkinson back ASAP.0 -
The constant short stuff at tailenders is stupid, barely ever works.
Why stop the bowlers doing what they do well to do something that's less effective?1 -
Root is a hopeless captain, great batter but hopeless captain.0
-
I think he is sending out a signal that he didnt want the captaincy.Hartleypete said:Root is a hopeless captain, great batter but hopeless captain.
Awful first hour. NZ getting away from a par score. Looking likely they will get 400+.0 -
golfaddick said:
I think he is sending out a signal that he didnt want the captaincy.Hartleypete said:Root is a hopeless captain, great batter but hopeless captain.
Awful first hour. NZ getting away from a par score. Looking likely they will get 400+.
He has actually said the complete opposite in pre-match interviews
0 -
Bowler bowls at stumps, takes wicket. Swipe me....0
-
Nothing Root loves more than over bowling Archer and ruining him for a bit1
-
The fact that Archer hasn't bowled, because he is seemingly stiff after bowling 19 overs yesterday, is another example of how centrally contracted players on over £1m a year dictate not just where and when they play for England but also when they come on to bowl. Had he played a couple of CC matches prior to this game then we wouldn't be in this position.2
-
He clearly wasn’t meant to play this test and has been rushed back due to the absences of Stokes/Atkinson/Robinson. He could have refused to play if he’d wanted to but he didn’t. It’s then the captains job to manage the tools at his disposal properly. It might be that is what’s happening this morning, we don’t knowAddick Addict said:The fact that Archer hasn't bowled, because he is seemingly stiff after bowling 19 overs yesterday, is another example of how centrally contracted players on over £1m a year dictate not just where and when they play for England but also when they come on to bowl. Had he played a couple of CC matches prior to this game then we wouldn't be in this position.1 -
Refused to play? I do not know a single person being paid over £1m and being allowed to do that. He should have been playing in the first Test, having had a couple of games for Sussex prior to that and not been at the IPL for the duration. And your best new ball bowler always gets the new ball otherwise you run the risk of ending up with this scenario.fenaddick said:
He clearly wasn’t meant to play this test and has been rushed back due to the absences of Stokes/Atkinson/Robinson. He could have refused to play if he’d wanted to but he didn’t. It’s then the captains job to manage the tools at his disposal properly. It might be that is what’s happening this morning, we don’t knowAddick Addict said:The fact that Archer hasn't bowled, because he is seemingly stiff after bowling 19 overs yesterday, is another example of how centrally contracted players on over £1m a year dictate not just where and when they play for England but also when they come on to bowl. Had he played a couple of CC matches prior to this game then we wouldn't be in this position.
Archer made his Test debut seven years ago. He's been centrally contracted for the duration, including all the periods he's been injured, but only made 19 appearances.2 -
Sponsored links:
-
I think if there’s a plan for your return to manage your fitness and there’s a change to that you are within your rights to say “We had a plan, I think we should stick to it”.Addick Addict said:
Refused to play? I do not know a single person being paid over £1m and be allowed to do that. He should have been playing in the first Test, having had a couple of games for Sussex prior to that and not been at the IPL for the duration.fenaddick said:
He clearly wasn’t meant to play this test and has been rushed back due to the absences of Stokes/Atkinson/Robinson. He could have refused to play if he’d wanted to but he didn’t. It’s then the captains job to manage the tools at his disposal properly. It might be that is what’s happening this morning, we don’t knowAddick Addict said:The fact that Archer hasn't bowled, because he is seemingly stiff after bowling 19 overs yesterday, is another example of how centrally contracted players on over £1m a year dictate not just where and when they play for England but also when they come on to bowl. Had he played a couple of CC matches prior to this game then we wouldn't be in this position.
Obviously it would have been great if he could come back from the IPL early but we all know that would incur a ban. Of course the ECB could force that to happen by revoking his NOC but they know if they do that Archer could just retire from international cricket.
The question is would you rather have no Archer or have him available as and when possible?
0 -
The whole thing is an issue with how the game is structured, it is not an Archer issue. He is well within his rights to earn as much money as possible during his career. The fact that the calendar means he misses England games is unfortunate but not on him1
-
I'd rather have players that want to play for England and are rewarded for doing so. We had to manage without him for four and a half years in Test cricket but still paid him millions. He has 60 Test wickets in seven years at 30.10 and is 31 now. That is hardly Anderson (704 wickets) or Broad (604 wickets). He will probably retire from Test cricket soon anyway.fenaddick said:
I think if there’s a plan for your return to manage your fitness and there’s a change to that you are within your rights to say “We had a plan, I think we should stick to it”.Addick Addict said:
Refused to play? I do not know a single person being paid over £1m and be allowed to do that. He should have been playing in the first Test, having had a couple of games for Sussex prior to that and not been at the IPL for the duration.fenaddick said:
He clearly wasn’t meant to play this test and has been rushed back due to the absences of Stokes/Atkinson/Robinson. He could have refused to play if he’d wanted to but he didn’t. It’s then the captains job to manage the tools at his disposal properly. It might be that is what’s happening this morning, we don’t knowAddick Addict said:The fact that Archer hasn't bowled, because he is seemingly stiff after bowling 19 overs yesterday, is another example of how centrally contracted players on over £1m a year dictate not just where and when they play for England but also when they come on to bowl. Had he played a couple of CC matches prior to this game then we wouldn't be in this position.
Obviously it would have been great if he could come back from the IPL early but we all know that would incur a ban. Of course the ECB could force that to happen by revoking his NOC but they know if they do that Archer could just retire from international cricket.
The question is would you rather have no Archer or have him available as and when possible?4 -
I think if Archer didn’t want to play for England he’d have packed it in a long time ago and just become a franchise player 12 months a year. He’d earn far more and get injured far lessAddick Addict said:
I'd rather have players that want to play for England and are rewarded for doing so. We had to manage without him for four and a half years in Test cricket but still paid him millions. He has 60 Test wickets in seven years at 30.10. That is hardly Anderson or Broad.fenaddick said:
I think if there’s a plan for your return to manage your fitness and there’s a change to that you are within your rights to say “We had a plan, I think we should stick to it”.Addick Addict said:
Refused to play? I do not know a single person being paid over £1m and be allowed to do that. He should have been playing in the first Test, having had a couple of games for Sussex prior to that and not been at the IPL for the duration.fenaddick said:
He clearly wasn’t meant to play this test and has been rushed back due to the absences of Stokes/Atkinson/Robinson. He could have refused to play if he’d wanted to but he didn’t. It’s then the captains job to manage the tools at his disposal properly. It might be that is what’s happening this morning, we don’t knowAddick Addict said:The fact that Archer hasn't bowled, because he is seemingly stiff after bowling 19 overs yesterday, is another example of how centrally contracted players on over £1m a year dictate not just where and when they play for England but also when they come on to bowl. Had he played a couple of CC matches prior to this game then we wouldn't be in this position.
Obviously it would have been great if he could come back from the IPL early but we all know that would incur a ban. Of course the ECB could force that to happen by revoking his NOC but they know if they do that Archer could just retire from international cricket.
The question is would you rather have no Archer or have him available as and when possible?0 -
AA I'll be interested to see what happens with Archer in the winter , technically he's out of contract with Sussex and with our well publicised financial struggles , is a centrally contracted Archer that barely plays for us and just uses our nets for fitness really worth it? It's an interesting conundrum.Addick Addict said:
I'd rather have players that want to play for England and are rewarded for doing so. We had to manage without him for four and a half years in Test cricket but still paid him millions. He has 60 Test wickets in seven years at 30.10. That is hardly Anderson or Broad.fenaddick said:
I think if there’s a plan for your return to manage your fitness and there’s a change to that you are within your rights to say “We had a plan, I think we should stick to it”.Addick Addict said:
Refused to play? I do not know a single person being paid over £1m and be allowed to do that. He should have been playing in the first Test, having had a couple of games for Sussex prior to that and not been at the IPL for the duration.fenaddick said:
He clearly wasn’t meant to play this test and has been rushed back due to the absences of Stokes/Atkinson/Robinson. He could have refused to play if he’d wanted to but he didn’t. It’s then the captains job to manage the tools at his disposal properly. It might be that is what’s happening this morning, we don’t knowAddick Addict said:The fact that Archer hasn't bowled, because he is seemingly stiff after bowling 19 overs yesterday, is another example of how centrally contracted players on over £1m a year dictate not just where and when they play for England but also when they come on to bowl. Had he played a couple of CC matches prior to this game then we wouldn't be in this position.
Obviously it would have been great if he could come back from the IPL early but we all know that would incur a ban. Of course the ECB could force that to happen by revoking his NOC but they know if they do that Archer could just retire from international cricket.
The question is would you rather have no Archer or have him available as and when possible?0 -
As I say, I think he will retire from red ball. He can then play four or five franchises a year.MarcusH26 said:
AA I'll be interested to see what happens with Archer in the winter , technically he's out of contract with Sussex and with our well publicised financial struggles , is a centrally contracted Archer that barely plays for us and just uses our nets for fitness really worth it? It's an interesting conundrum.Addick Addict said:
I'd rather have players that want to play for England and are rewarded for doing so. We had to manage without him for four and a half years in Test cricket but still paid him millions. He has 60 Test wickets in seven years at 30.10. That is hardly Anderson or Broad.fenaddick said:
I think if there’s a plan for your return to manage your fitness and there’s a change to that you are within your rights to say “We had a plan, I think we should stick to it”.Addick Addict said:
Refused to play? I do not know a single person being paid over £1m and be allowed to do that. He should have been playing in the first Test, having had a couple of games for Sussex prior to that and not been at the IPL for the duration.fenaddick said:
He clearly wasn’t meant to play this test and has been rushed back due to the absences of Stokes/Atkinson/Robinson. He could have refused to play if he’d wanted to but he didn’t. It’s then the captains job to manage the tools at his disposal properly. It might be that is what’s happening this morning, we don’t knowAddick Addict said:The fact that Archer hasn't bowled, because he is seemingly stiff after bowling 19 overs yesterday, is another example of how centrally contracted players on over £1m a year dictate not just where and when they play for England but also when they come on to bowl. Had he played a couple of CC matches prior to this game then we wouldn't be in this position.
Obviously it would have been great if he could come back from the IPL early but we all know that would incur a ban. Of course the ECB could force that to happen by revoking his NOC but they know if they do that Archer could just retire from international cricket.
The question is would you rather have no Archer or have him available as and when possible?0 -
Yeah I could see that , be the first player to sign one of these oft feared one franchise deals.Addick Addict said:
As I say, I think he will retire from red ball. He can then play four or five franchises a year.MarcusH26 said:
AA I'll be interested to see what happens with Archer in the winter , technically he's out of contract with Sussex and with our well publicised financial struggles , is a centrally contracted Archer that barely plays for us and just uses our nets for fitness really worth it? It's an interesting conundrum.Addick Addict said:
I'd rather have players that want to play for England and are rewarded for doing so. We had to manage without him for four and a half years in Test cricket but still paid him millions. He has 60 Test wickets in seven years at 30.10. That is hardly Anderson or Broad.fenaddick said:
I think if there’s a plan for your return to manage your fitness and there’s a change to that you are within your rights to say “We had a plan, I think we should stick to it”.Addick Addict said:
Refused to play? I do not know a single person being paid over £1m and be allowed to do that. He should have been playing in the first Test, having had a couple of games for Sussex prior to that and not been at the IPL for the duration.fenaddick said:
He clearly wasn’t meant to play this test and has been rushed back due to the absences of Stokes/Atkinson/Robinson. He could have refused to play if he’d wanted to but he didn’t. It’s then the captains job to manage the tools at his disposal properly. It might be that is what’s happening this morning, we don’t knowAddick Addict said:The fact that Archer hasn't bowled, because he is seemingly stiff after bowling 19 overs yesterday, is another example of how centrally contracted players on over £1m a year dictate not just where and when they play for England but also when they come on to bowl. Had he played a couple of CC matches prior to this game then we wouldn't be in this position.
Obviously it would have been great if he could come back from the IPL early but we all know that would incur a ban. Of course the ECB could force that to happen by revoking his NOC but they know if they do that Archer could just retire from international cricket.
The question is would you rather have no Archer or have him available as and when possible?
Completely agree that he should have played our last Championship game too , feels like he's come in completely undercooked1 -
Earn far more? He's getting over £1m a year from England plus franchise money. That's a lot of money to give up and he simply would not make up the difference given he already plays in the IPL and the Hundred. And unlike England those franchises would not have paid him for the duration of those long periods he was out injured.fenaddick said:
I think if Archer didn’t want to play for England he’d have packed it in a long time ago and just become a franchise player 12 months a year. He’d earn far more and get injured far lessAddick Addict said:
I'd rather have players that want to play for England and are rewarded for doing so. We had to manage without him for four and a half years in Test cricket but still paid him millions. He has 60 Test wickets in seven years at 30.10. That is hardly Anderson or Broad.fenaddick said:
I think if there’s a plan for your return to manage your fitness and there’s a change to that you are within your rights to say “We had a plan, I think we should stick to it”.Addick Addict said:
Refused to play? I do not know a single person being paid over £1m and be allowed to do that. He should have been playing in the first Test, having had a couple of games for Sussex prior to that and not been at the IPL for the duration.fenaddick said:
He clearly wasn’t meant to play this test and has been rushed back due to the absences of Stokes/Atkinson/Robinson. He could have refused to play if he’d wanted to but he didn’t. It’s then the captains job to manage the tools at his disposal properly. It might be that is what’s happening this morning, we don’t knowAddick Addict said:The fact that Archer hasn't bowled, because he is seemingly stiff after bowling 19 overs yesterday, is another example of how centrally contracted players on over £1m a year dictate not just where and when they play for England but also when they come on to bowl. Had he played a couple of CC matches prior to this game then we wouldn't be in this position.
Obviously it would have been great if he could come back from the IPL early but we all know that would incur a ban. Of course the ECB could force that to happen by revoking his NOC but they know if they do that Archer could just retire from international cricket.
The question is would you rather have no Archer or have him available as and when possible?0 -
And Archer gets a wicket with his fourth ball after NZ have put on exactly 100 runs without him.0
-
As they say, its what they do, not what they say that matters.Addick Addict said:golfaddick said:
I think he is sending out a signal that he didnt want the captaincy.Hartleypete said:Root is a hopeless captain, great batter but hopeless captain.
Awful first hour. NZ getting away from a par score. Looking likely they will get 400+.
He has actually said the complete opposite in pre-match interviews0 -
Sponsored links:
-
I heard on TMS that the plan was for him to play in this Test & the next. After the IPL he went on holiday / see family in Barbados.fenaddick said:
I think if there’s a plan for your return to manage your fitness and there’s a change to that you are within your rights to say “We had a plan, I think we should stick to it”.Addick Addict said:
Refused to play? I do not know a single person being paid over £1m and be allowed to do that. He should have been playing in the first Test, having had a couple of games for Sussex prior to that and not been at the IPL for the duration.fenaddick said:
He clearly wasn’t meant to play this test and has been rushed back due to the absences of Stokes/Atkinson/Robinson. He could have refused to play if he’d wanted to but he didn’t. It’s then the captains job to manage the tools at his disposal properly. It might be that is what’s happening this morning, we don’t knowAddick Addict said:The fact that Archer hasn't bowled, because he is seemingly stiff after bowling 19 overs yesterday, is another example of how centrally contracted players on over £1m a year dictate not just where and when they play for England but also when they come on to bowl. Had he played a couple of CC matches prior to this game then we wouldn't be in this position.
Obviously it would have been great if he could come back from the IPL early but we all know that would incur a ban. Of course the ECB could force that to happen by revoking his NOC but they know if they do that Archer could just retire from international cricket.
The question is would you rather have no Archer or have him available as and when possible?0 -
Archer is also a key member of the England white ball team. Indeed, I think he's a better white ball than red ball bowler anyway
I questioned the lineup before the game, and thing think it looks wrong. 4 bowlers on a flat Oval pitch was a bizarre call, when 2 are rookies, and a 3rd has only been playing T20.
Yes another bowler would leave a longer tail, but that's a better compromise than what we ended up with. Ahmed is good bat anyway.0 -
Got a feeling Glenn Phillips is in for a nasty surprise in the next few minutes...0
-
Although we won the first Test we got that selection wrong too. No spinner bowled a single ball in the match. A look at the wicket for that game and the weather forecast for the duration should have told us something.killerandflash said:Archer is also a key member of the England white ball team. Indeed, I think he's a better white ball than red ball bowler anyway
I questioned the lineup before the game, and thing think it looks wrong. 4 bowlers on a flat Oval pitch was a bizarre call, when 2 are rookies, and a 3rd has only been playing T20.
Yes another bowler would leave a longer tail, but that's a better compromise than what we ended up with. Ahmed is good bat anyway.0 -
Stokes in the Durham squad for the Championship0
-
Post lunch pies being delivered here0
-
then that0
-
Ducket needed to make up for that Phillips drop catch…………ah well.0
-
Duckett was flying then gets run out
0 -
Gay is batting for two now and won't want to be seeing Duckett in the dressing room in a hurry.0
