Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2015 17:29:26 GMT
Getting back to the thread, Nevill seems to be another of the late maturing breed of Australian wicketkeepers It's very difficult to get back to the thread, though. A child with cancer makes the result of a cricket match seem utterly irrelevant. One knew that the UK media's dignity in not disclosing the details could not last : the ghastly, horrible, despicable Daily Mail has now run the story with heart-rending Christmas pictures of the Haddin family and all the fake sentiment the Mail revels in. Also very disappointed to see the name of Wisden editor Lawrence Booth on the joint by-line on the Mail's story. Hang your head in shame, Lawrence - even the tabloid wannabe Dobell hasn't stooped that low. All our thoughts tonight should be with Brad and Karina Haddin and their three lovely children and damn the irrelevant Ashes. |
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on Jul 16, 2015 6:50:29 GMT
Nick Compton's thoughts on the Lord's wicket, from Twitter:
Nick Compton @thecompdog 7m7 minutes ago
@homeofcricket @ecb_cricket flat maybe a tad slow but even paced. Tough decision this morning if cloudy all day.. Bowl. Best days 2 and 3
|
|
|
|
Post by fraudster on Jul 16, 2015 23:11:48 GMT
Well thank you England - I don't see the point in playing a new attacking brand of cricket and then only playing on featherbeds myself. You're enticing the fans in then pushing them away - I wouldn't pay to watch that s**t today, it's very very boring. I had to turn my radio station over at 2.30 for some music. Apparently England have asked for these pitches, and we all know it's to nullify Johnson & Co but it will also nullify interest in the game if we keep it up. I care less because of it. One frigging wicket all day. Wake up Bayliss - wake up everyone.
|
|
rusty
2nd XI player
Posts: 46
|
Post by rusty on Jul 17, 2015 0:44:04 GMT
With you all the way, Frawdy, but all the cricket-know-nothings in my local will be quite happy if Ingerlund win the Ashes (Trademark).
Great, isn't it?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2015 7:31:31 GMT
Pitch seems similar to the one Sussex played on at Edgbaston.
After all the whingeing this season from coaches and batsmen about playing on "result wickets" , two pieces of prime evidence in the case that argues non-result wickets are a much greater blight on cricket's good name than result wickets!
|
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Jul 17, 2015 7:44:06 GMT
Pitch seems similar to the one Sussex played on at Edgbaston. After all the whingeing this season from coaches and batsmen about playing on "result wickets" , two pieces of prime evidence in the case that argues non-result wickets are a much greater blight on cricket's good name than result wickets! Let's hope this match turns out to be a mind-numbingly boring draw, a la Edgbaston. Perhaps someone up there will then realise that you need a results wicket to get results - and results are what sport is all about. What other sport would manipulate the playing conditions to avoid getting a result? Ridiculous. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2015 8:17:43 GMT
Actually, I sneakingly hope for an Australian win to level the series - that would be even more of a salutary lesson to those who instructed the pitch to be doctored than a draw! Meanwhile, Dobell blames Rashid and suggests he bottled out and now faces the axe. Not sure what to make of that. Just Dobbers looking for his usual quirky 'angle'? Hard to believe any professional cricketer would fake or exaggerate an injury to miss a Test match, but I remember leedsgull a few months ago also questioned whether Rashid has the spunk for Test cricket... www.espncricinfo.com/the-ashes-2015/content/story/899539.html |
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on Jul 17, 2015 9:21:59 GMT
Actually, I sneakingly hope for an Australian win to level the series - that would be even more of a salutary lesson to those who instructed the pitch to be doctored than a draw! Meanwhile, Dobell blames Rashid and suggests he bottled out and now faces the axe. Not sure what to make of that. Just Dobbers looking for his usual quirky 'angle'? Hard to believe any professional cricketer would fake or exaggerate an injury to miss a Test match, but I remember leedsgull a few months ago also questioned whether Rashid has the spunk for Test cricket... www.espncricinfo.com/the-ashes-2015/content/story/899539.htmlIt would be interesting to know who it is who gives the final word on what pitch is to be prepared, and ensures that it is finally cut, rolled, watered to a particular standard. Obviously the head groundsman is responsible for managing the detail, but who gives him his orders, presumably some way in front of a showpiece game like this? To say "it's the ECB" means nothing in itself, but the edict must have come from some kind of panel discussion and someone must have taken responsibility for talking to the groundsman here - and on other grounds - to ensure that things were done as the panel thought right. The timescale is interesting too. Pitches of this kind of consistency must have been allocated back in the early spring and then the final process of barbering, rolling and sweeping would have taken place over the last week or two. Whatever orders were given would have come from, or with the approval of, the previous management structure of the team, but then applied by the new regime. In other words, if it was a policy that Downton approved, and Moores either acceded to or was aware of, then it has not only been passively inherited by Strauss, but he has either chosen to go along with issuing the final instructions or has positively endorsed them himself. If so, what knowledge did Farbrace and Bayliss have? It is particularly ironic for the latter, given his quote here unofficialsussexccc.freeforums.net/post/11063/thread that cricket should be about entertainment. I wouldn't give Dobell's story much credence. I agree, he is just trying to find an angle or to create a story from nothing. In Muriel Spark's splendid phrase he is a pisseur de copie. |
|
|
|
Post by mrsdoyle on Jul 17, 2015 16:00:38 GMT
Well, if they are going to doctor the pitches they have to remember to doctor the toss as well, Cook needs to win each toss and bat first. Now we are under scoreboard pressure and collapsing. Ditch Bayliss and put Farbrace in sole charge.
|
|
|
|
Post by fraudster on Jul 17, 2015 21:20:03 GMT
Pitch seems similar to the one Sussex played on at Edgbaston. After all the whingeing this season from coaches and batsmen about playing on "result wickets" , two pieces of prime evidence in the case that argues non-result wickets are a much greater blight on cricket's good name than result wickets! Let's hope this match turns out to be a mind-numbingly boring draw, a la Edgbaston. Perhaps someone up there will then realise that you need a results wicket to get results - and results are what sport is all about. What other sport would manipulate the playing conditions to avoid getting a result? Ridiculous. Monkey tennis? Mrs Doyle doesn't dick about does she - two matches mate, you're gone, and I don't care that you won the first one. I get your point though Mrs D. At the end of the day, or beginning of it, everybody knows that you want a track that has a bit of pace and consistent bounce to start with so that good bowlers get wickets and good batsmen get runs. The track then naturally wares and you get some uneven bounce and turn on the last day or two. Simple. I too hope we lose this one - and I believe we definitely will. We're a good side, we don't need to concern ourselves with what they are. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2015 21:38:20 GMT
Well thank you England - I don't see the point in playing a new attacking brand of cricket and then only playing on featherbeds myself. You're enticing the fans in then pushing them away - I wouldn't pay to watch that s**t today, it's very very boring. I had to turn my radio station over at 2.30 for some music. Apparently England have asked for these pitches, and we all know it's to nullify Johnson & Co but it will also nullify interest in the game if we keep it up. I care less because of it. One frigging wicket all day. Wake up Bayliss - wake up everyone. It seems that Mick Hunt, the Lord's groundsman, has been unfairly maligned by everyone from Fraudster to George Dobell, whose intemperate fulminations appeared yesterday under the dramatic headline, " A pitch to damage Test cricket". Today we had a pitch on which Test cricket was seen at its best - more than 300 runs and 11 wickets, meaning that anyone lucky enough to have been at Lords will have gone home thinking they got exceptional value for their £100 plus ticket. A lesson to all of us, from mighty cricinfo reporters to humble county forum contributors: never rush to snap judgements and rememeber the sage assessment of the Chinese communist leader (some claim it was Mao, others say it was Chou En-Lai) when asked 150 years later about the impact of the French revolution on world history : too early to tell. |
|
|
|
Post by fraudster on Jul 17, 2015 22:27:04 GMT
I haven't blamed the groundsman once, I've squarely blamed England. I even said I heard it was what England were calling for throughout the series. Just because the Aussies gave away a few wickets upping the run rate and we succumbed to scoreboard pressure it doesn't mean this isn't a turgid, slow and atrocious track to play cricket on.
It is truly a pitch to damage Test cricket - those actually sound like the sort of words that come from you BM, I reckon you've said it as well. I'll remember nothing from three billion years ago especially the ramblings of some commy psychopath, thanks.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2015 6:43:30 GMT
I haven't blamed the groundsman once, I've squarely blamed England. I even said I heard it was what England were calling for throughout the series. Just because the Aussies gave away a few wickets upping the run rate and we succumbed to scoreboard pressure it doesn't mean this isn't a turgid, slow and atrocious track to play cricket on. It is truly a pitch to damage Test cricket - those actually sound like the sort of words that come from you BM, I reckon you've said it as well. But they didn't really,did they? They lost four top batsmen - Rogers, Clarke, Voges and Marsh - in the first 33 overs of day two while proceeding at a sedate three runs an over, as the ball nibbled about and Broad in particular bowled superbly well. Let's wait until the end of the weekend and then judge whether this game has "damaged Test cricket" or whether this goes down as a memorable Test match, eh? Like you I condemn "turgid slow and atrocious" wickets , such as the one Warwicks prepared for Sussex at Edgbaston in which a dozen wickets fell in four days. And like you at the end of day one in this Test I believed all the commentators who said this was similar; a wicket on which they could play until August and still not achieve a result. But after yesterday I'm not so sure it is a 12-wickets in-four-days track and the condemnation based on day one appears to have been a little hasty. As for not blaming the groundsman, I'm afraid by definition if you blame the pitch you are blaming whoever was responsible for preparing it (although others involved must shoulder their share, too, like Warwicks coach Dougie Brown who changed the strip v Sussex at Edgbaston at the last minute when he found himself with a depleted seam attack after losing Keith Barker to injury...) Finally, England may have "succumbed to scoreboard pressure". But they also succumbed to good bowling and if England had batted first and the Aussies had bowled like that at them on day one, the outcome quite possibly would have been very similar. The notion I heard Stuart Broad express that they "weren't switched on" sounds like a bit of an excuse. It's a Test match, it's Lord's in front of a full house and these are highly paid world-class professionals. The truth is that three or four down in the the first 20 overs happens with such regularity it is hard to claim England's batting collapse yesterday was a one-off brought about by unique circumstances. The only thing that was unique about yesterday was that for once Root failed to dig England out of its hole. |
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on Jul 19, 2015 6:52:48 GMT
The truth is that three or four down in the the first 20 overs happens with such regularity it is hard to claim England's batting collapse yesterday was a one-off brought about by unique circumstances. The only thing that was unique about yesterday was that for once Root failed to dig England out of its hole. And by contrast yesterday a combination of poor fielding, luck and good but not superlative bowling helped Warner and Rogers to seal the game as decisively as England did at Cardiff on the third day. It is a slow wicket and probably was prepared with the idea of dulling down pace attacks, but this doesn't excuse the way England's top order, Cook excepted, played balls pitched up at speed. Poor judgment and lousy footwork betrayed them all, with Ballance looking horribly ungainly as his shuffle across the crease was found out once again. He and Bell could probably be replaced from the frontrunners in the championship averages and those with proven class (perm from Yorkshire, Durham and Notts) but the further failure of Lyth, compounded by his awful miss at gully yesterday, is going to be much harder to repair. Couple with that the tendency to make changes to the bowling first when a side goes down to a big defeat - is Wood bowling at his best or is he carrying an injury? - and we suddenly have only half a team that looks certain fro the rest of the series. The reality is that probably one batsman and one bowler will be replaced, but it does rub in how foolish we were not to use the Caribbean tests to give a new generation of players a chance to fight for their places and to learn from their mistakes. Strauss, Bayliss and Farbrace have to go through this process now during a high-pressure Ashes series in order to build squads that can play against Pakistan in the Emirates and South Africa at home in the next few months - that really is a very demanding, not to say atrocious schedule. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2015 7:28:17 GMT
It is a slow wicket and probably was prepared with the idea of dulling down pace attacks...The reality is that probably one batsman and one bowler will be replaced... The idea of preparing slow wickets to blunt your opponents' pace attack has one fundamental flaw - if they have two who bowl at 90 mph+ they will still get the ball through with uncomfortable alacrity. Everyone says Hazlewood doesn't have genuine place, but he clocked 88mph. Even Mitchell Marsh - who has a touch of Botham, I think - got up to 87.5 mph, which was faster than anyone in the England attack. So England are blunted far more than Australia as their fast-medium line-up is rendered inocuous. Will there be replacements? Wood may be rested and Finn brought back, unless they want to take a gamble on Matt Coles who has 54 CC wickets but is being rested for Tunbridge Wells week (could Kent have been asked by England to wrap him in cotton wool in case he's needed?). Among the batsmen, the last knell should toll for Bell but if they drop anyone it will be Lyth and they could go back to Compton or Robson. Anyway, it's a cracking Test match despite the slow pitch. Australia will either storm to a memorable triumph or England will mount a famous rearguard and bat for 150 overs with the tension maintained until the final afternoon. I don't have any problem with an Aussie victory - 1-1 with three to play sets up a fantastic series. |
|
