Cricket fred

[WaspInWales]

I think we might consider forgiving him for his shite dismissal in the first innings now.

Puja

What kinda message does that send to the lads?

Drop him for the 4th test to teach him a lesson and keep the players on their toes.

[WaspInWales]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ashes

The Ashes is a Test cricket series played between Ben Stokes and Australia.

[WaspInWales]

So, motm then?

[Mellsblue]

Wow. Just wow. Listened on TMS whilst working in the garden. As a rule I don’t do gardening but some idiot has let me down and I’ll class it as carpentry as I was building a bedding box therefore making it acceptable. That ramble aside, the cricket made it more than acceptable. Will admit to a little tear when Lord Stokes of Headingley hit the winning runs. That innings will go down in history. Thank goodness we batted like the England Blind XI in the first innings otherwise this wouldn’t have happened and my day of carpentry would’ve only been acceptable, which isn’t good enough for a Sunday. Great planning from Root et al. As an aside, if you can get your hands on Bieres de Re’s La Blonde it’s a great way to celebrate breaking Aussie hearts.
Arise Lord Stokes of Headingley.

[Mellsblue]

So, motm then?

Roy, obvs.

[Banquo]

I think we might consider forgiving him for his shite dismissal in the first innings now.

Puja

or accept the overly attacking approach that did for him in the 1st innings is what brought him success in the 2nd

except it wasn't; he built an innings through strong discipline at the start. 3 off 62 balls. His adaptability is the takeaway, rather than a single approach, you do him a disservice.

[Puja]

I think we might consider forgiving him for his shite dismissal in the first innings now.

Puja

or accept the overly attacking approach that did for him in the 1st innings is what brought him success in the 2nd

Not at all; I completely disagree. This innings was built on being cautious, leaving stupid balls and stupid shots, defending stoutly, playing himself in, and building a score. It was only when we went down to our last wicket that he started smashing it into the crowd and it was his early work that enabled him to.

This innings was the polar opposite and showed that he can doa proper test innings. Now, of course, we'll expect it every time.

Puja

[Banquo]

I think we might consider forgiving him for his shite dismissal in the first innings now.

Puja

or accept the overly attacking approach that did for him in the 1st innings is what brought him success in the 2nd

Not at all; I completely disagree. This innings was built on being cautious, leaving stupid balls and stupid shots, defending stoutly, playing himself in, and building a score. It was only when we went down to our last wicket that he started smashing it into the crowd and it was his early work that enabled him to.

This innings was the polar opposite and showed that he can doa proper test innings. Now, of course, we'll expect it every time.

Puja

He's played like that quite a bit recently in tests- perhaps overly so- and the first innings was a bad blip, rightly criticised.

[Digby]

I think we might consider forgiving him for his shite dismissal in the first innings now.

Puja

or accept the overly attacking approach that did for him in the 1st innings is what brought him success in the 2nd

except it wasn't; he built an innings through strong discipline at the start. 3 off 62 balls. His adaptability is the takeaway, rather than a single approach, you do him a disservice.

No disservice intended, perhaps oddly so for me, merely an acceptance he's an attacking player far more than a Boycott. And that attacking nature informs his instinctual play when he comes under pressure. Not that he can never temper his approach, but there's a different emphasis in his approach over time Vs a more classical test technique.

And that's something we see in a lot of our players, alongside a number of them (and probably less so Stokes) don't even have a great defence even if that's all they were trying to employ

We keep wanting batsman transition more smoothly between playing ODIs, 20/20 and test matches, but given how much some of the best players in the world struggle to do this (maybe only Kohli is managing it well) it's clearly a bloody hard thing to do. How that's managed is interesting, basically getting back to best players vs best team

[Banquo]

or accept the overly attacking approach that did for him in the 1st innings is what brought him success in the 2nd

except it wasn't; he built an innings through strong discipline at the start. 3 off 62 balls. His adaptability is the takeaway, rather than a single approach, you do him a disservice.

No disservice intended, perhaps oddly so for me, merely an acceptance he's an attacking player far more than a Boycott. And that attacking nature informs his instinctual play when he comes under pressure. Not that he can never temper his approach, but there's a different emphasis in his approach over time Vs a more classical test technique.

And that's something we see in a lot of our players, alongside a number of them (and probably less so Stokes) don't even have a great defence even if that's all they were trying to employ

We keep wanting batsman transition more smoothly between playing ODIs, 20/20 and test matches, but given how much some of the best players in the world struggle to do this (maybe only Kohli is managing it well) it's clearly a bloody hard thing to do. How that's managed is interesting, basically getting back to best players vs best team

Meaningless comparison with Boycott. He also has a good technique, and has successfully tempered his approach in test, and has adapted consistently well over the last few years. The first innings shot was actually out of his character as a test batsman. So tbh, your original comment was just wide of the mark in terms of what Stokes actually does at test level- what brought him success was that very adaptation, not attacking early, and doing the right thing at the right time.

[Puja]

or accept the overly attacking approach that did for him in the 1st innings is what brought him success in the 2nd

except it wasn't; he built an innings through strong discipline at the start. 3 off 62 balls. His adaptability is the takeaway, rather than a single approach, you do him a disservice.

No disservice intended, perhaps oddly so for me, merely an acceptance he's an attacking player far more than a Boycott. And that attacking nature informs his instinctual play when he comes under pressure. Not that he can never temper his approach, but there's a different emphasis in his approach over time Vs a more classical test technique.

And that's something we see in a lot of our players, alongside a number of them (and probably less so Stokes) don't even have a great defence even if that's all they were trying to employ

We keep wanting batsman transition more smoothly between playing ODIs, 20/20 and test matches, but given how much some of the best players in the world struggle to do this (maybe only Kohli is managing it well) it's clearly a bloody hard thing to do. How that's managed is interesting, basically getting back to best players vs best team

Not unfair points in general, but your example of Stokes and his first innings dismissal are both not good for your argument. Stokes is perfectly capable of playing in a Test fashion, as shown here and last match with his hundred. He is naturally more attacking than a Boycott, but not more so than a Flintoff or a Hayden who were both fine test players.

And the first innings dismissal was egregious because England were mid-collapse and needed someone to stop the momentum. They needed to go 10 overs with no wickets, even if they only scored 5 run, they needed a leader to stand up and say, "We're not going to chase anything wide, we're just going to leave anything not going near the stumps, we're just going to survive and let the Aussie bowlers tire." He chose to chase a wide ball that was barely there to be hit, let alone that was any danger to him. He gifted them his wicket and facilitated the further collapse. It wasn't to do with his cricketing nature, because in that match situation he should've gone nowhere near it, regardless of his inclination.

Still, as I said, I suppose we'll grudgingly forgive him, after today.

Puja

[Digby]

except it wasn't; he built an innings through strong discipline at the start. 3 off 62 balls. His adaptability is the takeaway, rather than a single approach, you do him a disservice.

No disservice intended, perhaps oddly so for me, merely an acceptance he's an attacking player far more than a Boycott. And that attacking nature informs his instinctual play when he comes under pressure. Not that he can never temper his approach, but there's a different emphasis in his approach over time Vs a more classical test technique.

And that's something we see in a lot of our players, alongside a number of them (and probably less so Stokes) don't even have a great defence even if that's all they were trying to employ

We keep wanting batsman transition more smoothly between playing ODIs, 20/20 and test matches, but given how much some of the best players in the world struggle to do this (maybe only Kohli is managing it well) it's clearly a bloody hard thing to do. How that's managed is interesting, basically getting back to best players vs best team

Meaningless comparison with Boycott. He also has a good technique, and has successfully tempered his approach in test, and has adapted consistently well over the last few years. The first innings shot was actually out of his character as a test batsman. So tbh, your original comment was just wide of the mark in terms of what Stokes actually does at test level- what brought him success was that very adaptation, not attacking early, and doing the right thing at the right time.

I apologise for suggesting what comes naturally to a player will inform their actions when under pressure. I have to confess it seems relevant to me, but I've been wrong plenty of times before.

I agree Stoke has a good technique, with Root off the boil Stokes arguably has the best technique going in our batting lineup right now, he's worked very hard on that improvement in technique and deserves much credit for bring that to actuality

[Banquo]

No disservice intended, perhaps oddly so for me, merely an acceptance he's an attacking player far more than a Boycott. And that attacking nature informs his instinctual play when he comes under pressure. Not that he can never temper his approach, but there's a different emphasis in his approach over time Vs a more classical test technique.

And that's something we see in a lot of our players, alongside a number of them (and probably less so Stokes) don't even have a great defence even if that's all they were trying to employ

We keep wanting batsman transition more smoothly between playing ODIs, 20/20 and test matches, but given how much some of the best players in the world struggle to do this (maybe only Kohli is managing it well) it's clearly a bloody hard thing to do. How that's managed is interesting, basically getting back to best players vs best team

Meaningless comparison with Boycott. He also has a good technique, and has successfully tempered his approach in test, and has adapted consistently well over the last few years. The first innings shot was actually out of his character as a test batsman. So tbh, your original comment was just wide of the mark in terms of what Stokes actually does at test level- what brought him success was that very adaptation, not attacking early, and doing the right thing at the right time.

I apologise for suggesting what comes naturally to a player will inform their actions when under pressure. I have to confess it seems relevant to me, but I've been wrong plenty of times before.

I agree Stoke has a good technique, with Root off the boil Stokes arguably has the best technique going in our batting lineup right now, he's worked very hard on that improvement in technique and deserves much credit for bring that to actuality

Passive aggressive eh. Avoid clothes lines.

The original point you made was just wrong. What brought him success in the second innings was application- he stayed in, and that enabled the greatness that followed along with world class shot selection. I'd encourage you to research Ken Barrington.

[Which Tyler]

I think we might consider forgiving him for his shite dismissal in the first innings now.

Puja

or accept the overly attacking approach that did for him in the 1st innings is what brought him success in the 2nd

Not at all; I completely disagree. This innings was built on being cautious, leaving stupid balls and stupid shots, defending stoutly, playing himself in, and building a score. It was only when we went down to our last wicket that he started smashing it into the crowd and it was his early work that enabled him to.

This innings was the polar opposite and showed that he can doa proper test innings. Now, of course, we'll expect it every time.

Puja

Exactly, he hung around, made sure he had his eye in, eventually calmed Barstow down (not enough), and o it out the hammer down once he felt established, confident and we reading the ball (though I was stil bloody nervous he was playing with fire when he started hitting it into the crowd)

[Digby]

Meaningless comparison with Boycott. He also has a good technique, and has successfully tempered his approach in test, and has adapted consistently well over the last few years. The first innings shot was actually out of his character as a test batsman. So tbh, your original comment was just wide of the mark in terms of what Stokes actually does at test level- what brought him success was that very adaptation, not attacking early, and doing the right thing at the right time.

I apologise for suggesting what comes naturally to a player will inform their actions when under pressure. I have to confess it seems relevant to me, but I've been wrong plenty of times before.

I agree Stoke has a good technique, with Root off the boil Stokes arguably has the best technique going in our batting lineup right now, he's worked very hard on that improvement in technique and deserves much credit for bring that to actuality

Passive aggressive eh. Avoid clothes lines.

The original point you made was just wrong. What brought him success in the second innings was application- he stayed in, and that enabled the greatness that followed along with world class shot selection. I'd encourage you to research Ken Barrington.

Did he open with Boycott? A little before my time, but I've certainly heard the name.

I wasn't aiming for passive aggressive, I was merely amused to be told I was being meaningless, I'm now amused you can call someone's analysis meaningless and then advise them they're being aggressive.

And yes he stayed in during the 2nd innings, but he is more naturally a more aggressive player than many. That doesn't mean he'll play every shot without regard for defence or the match situation, just it tips the balance more that way, and sometimes that approach isn't going to work for him

[Banquo]

I apologise for suggesting what comes naturally to a player will inform their actions when under pressure. I have to confess it seems relevant to me, but I've been wrong plenty of times before.

I agree Stoke has a good technique, with Root off the boil Stokes arguably has the best technique going in our batting lineup right now, he's worked very hard on that improvement in technique and deserves much credit for bring that to actuality

Passive aggressive eh. Avoid clothes lines.

The original point you made was just wrong. What brought him success in the second innings was application- he stayed in, and that enabled the greatness that followed along with world class shot selection. I'd encourage you to research Ken Barrington.

Did he open with Boycott? A little before my time, but I've certainly heard the name.

I wasn't aiming for passive aggressive, I was merely amused to be told I was being meaningless, I'm now amused you can call someone's analysis meaningless and then advise them they're being aggressive.

And yes he stayed in during the 2nd innings, but he is more naturally a more aggressive player than many. That doesn't mean he'll play every shot without regard for defence or the match situation, just it tips the balance more that way, and sometimes that approach isn't going to work for him

Didn't have you as a touchy sort. I was being quite blunt I guess, but clearly prickled you so sincere apologies.

No Ken Barrington was a naturally aggressive player who adapted his technique to test cricket, such that he was known as barnacle but averaged north of 55, a true and undersung great.

Your original point remains wide of the mark,

[fivepointer]

Unable to watch the action live. Now catching up and can only wonder at Stokes incredible performance. He really is some player.
From a game we looked odds on to lose yesterday, to pulling off a memorable win.
How sweet is that?

[Digby]

Passive aggressive eh. Avoid clothes lines.

The original point you made was just wrong. What brought him success in the second innings was application- he stayed in, and that enabled the greatness that followed along with world class shot selection. I'd encourage you to research Ken Barrington.

Did he open with Boycott? A little before my time, but I've certainly heard the name.

I wasn't aiming for passive aggressive, I was merely amused to be told I was being meaningless, I'm now amused you can call someone's analysis meaningless and then advise them they're being aggressive.

And yes he stayed in during the 2nd innings, but he is more naturally a more aggressive player than many. That doesn't mean he'll play every shot without regard for defence or the match situation, just it tips the balance more that way, and sometimes that approach isn't going to work for him

Didn't have you as a touchy sort. I was being quite blunt I guess, but clearly prickled you so sincere apologies.

No Ken Barrington was a naturally aggressive player who adapted his technique to test cricket, such that he was known as barnacle but averaged north of 55, a true and undersung great.

Your original point remains wide of the mark,

I'm happy to confirm I'm not touchy, I really was only amused. That could be the beer and wine of course.

The only thing not amusing me is the missus is making a horrendous job of trying to cook some burgers, although I probably wouldn't have the balls to go and take over even if my foot wasn't rather too large

[Banquo]

Did he open with Boycott? A little before my time, but I've certainly heard the name.

I wasn't aiming for passive aggressive, I was merely amused to be told I was being meaningless, I'm now amused you can call someone's analysis meaningless and then advise them they're being aggressive.

And yes he stayed in during the 2nd innings, but he is more naturally a more aggressive player than many. That doesn't mean he'll play every shot without regard for defence or the match situation, just it tips the balance more that way, and sometimes that approach isn't going to work for him

Didn't have you as a touchy sort. I was being quite blunt I guess, but clearly prickled you so sincere apologies.

No Ken Barrington was a naturally aggressive player who adapted his technique to test cricket, such that he was known as barnacle but averaged north of 55, a true and undersung great.

Your original point remains wide of the mark,

I'm happy to confirm I'm not touchy, I really was only amused. That could be the beer and wine of course.

The only thing not amusing me is the missus is making a horrendous job of trying to cook some burgers, although I probably wouldn't have the balls to go and take over even if my foot wasn't rather too large

[Big D]

Unreal performance.

This summer for Stokes has been terrific.

Now finish the job off.

[Galfon]

Eight sixes ( a few ridiculous shots by normal Test standards ) and 11 fours was Bothamesque in belligerence, but sustained and mixed in with clever stewarding and strike management.(apart from pushing Buttler overboard )
Paine was impressively philosophical afterwards given the way the Ashes slipped to remain up for grabs - Stokes dropped twice ( albeit tuffies ), Lyon fluffing a run-out and Leach lbw missed..Pope in, Roy rested in Manchester ? Anyone's urn.

[Mellsblue]

Catching up on the highlights. That innings was unbelievable. Truly unbelievable. Even better was Nathan ‘end careers’ Lyon getting smacked around the ground then sh!tting his pants for the runout. The Aussies went to pieces under pressure.
Biggest question of the day is what was going on with Vaughan’s cuffs.

[Digby]

Catching up on the highlights. That innings was unbelievable. Truly unbelievable. Even better was Nathan ‘end careers’ Lyon getting smacked around the ground then sh!tting his pants for the runout. The Aussies went to pieces under pressure.
Biggest question of the day is what was going on with Vaughan’s cuffs.

Lyons would have the slim defence he got Stokes out lbw with Stokes taking a big old heave at the ball. Sadly the Aussies had wasted their last review on a lbw which not only pitched outside leg but almost pitched on the wrong wicket. Hardly the only moment of luck for Stokes as he went on the rampage

I would imagine Lyons is also coping flak for not having a mystery ball, because it's just that easy to be more akin to a Warne or Murali. And of course he's having to put up too with the idea he's significantly increased his lead as the bowler in test history to have conceded the most 6s

[canta_brian]

So, motm then?

Jason Roy. Obvs.

[Puja]

Catching up on the highlights. That innings was unbelievable. Truly unbelievable. Even better was Nathan ‘end careers’ Lyon getting smacked around the ground then sh!tting his pants for the runout. The Aussies went to pieces under pressure.
Biggest question of the day is what was going on with Vaughan’s cuffs.

Lyons would have the slim defence he got Stokes out lbw with Stokes taking a big old heave at the ball. Sadly the Aussies had wasted their last review on a lbw which not only pitched outside leg but almost pitched on the wrong wicket. Hardly the only moment of luck for Stokes as he went on the rampage

I would imagine Lyons is also coping flak for not having a mystery ball, because it's just that easy to be more akin to a Warne or Murali. And of course he's having to put up too with the idea he's significantly increased his lead as the bowler in test history to have conceded the most 6s

That was part of the glory of Stokes's innings - he had no right to score as he did and, every time, luck was with him. Some of his sixes he didn't catch properly and the entirety of the ground held their breath watching it fly, death or glory, before erupting in a wall of noise when it just cleared the fielder on the boundary. It was like a football game - everyone leaping to their feet in unison as it clears the diving player.

I'd be fuming with Paine if I were Aussie though. That review was utterly pointless and to have it rubbed in his face with Lyon having got Stokes out was incredible. Does anyone know if Stokes got a tickle on the ball as I don't think anyone checked ultra-edge and that's the only thing that would've saved him.

Puja