RugbyRebels

fivepointer wrote:Hate seeing a wicket fall to a run out in a test match when there is no requirement to chase runs. You are giving a wicket away.
Sibley made a real hash of a straightforward defensive shot and Stokes got beat by a good ball.
Cornwall is in no kind of condition to be playing at this level.

On Stokes, the gap tween bat and pad would be something to look at, and as Digby said those three balls will interest oppo bowlers.

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:Still think the Windies are a bit negative. But they're coming off a low base and building nicely, so far it reminds me of us under Nasser, not easy to know where they suddenly find two decent batters from to take them that next step

I think we are making them look slightly better than they are tbh. They have no batsman averaging in the 40's, and its not that close for most, and only Roach, approaching 33 has an average under 30 as a bowler. Holder is a decent all rounder.

I think Holder is better than decent, but yeah, I struggle to see the quality elsewhere. Ok, Dowrich looks ok, Joseph looks like he might be decent, but...

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:Still think the Windies are a bit negative. But they're coming off a low base and building nicely, so far it reminds me of us under Nasser, not easy to know where they suddenly find two decent batters from to take them that next step

I think we are making them look slightly better than they are tbh. They have no batsman averaging in the 40's, and its not that close for most, and only Roach, approaching 33 has an average under 30 as a bowler. Holder is a decent all rounder.

I think Holder is better than decent, but yeah, I struggle to see the quality elsewhere. Ok, Dowrich looks ok, Joseph looks like he might be decent, but...

I liked their 4 man seam attack in the opening two games, though I think they could push a bit more for wickets. All of them look test standard, and it's been a while since I'd have said that for the Windies. You've got to start somewhere, and there aren't many better places to start than a decent seam attack, the lack of batting is a problem, and how on earth one convinces people to turn down 20/20 money to put in hard graft I've no idea

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:Still think the Windies are a bit negative. But they're coming off a low base and building nicely, so far it reminds me of us under Nasser, not easy to know where they suddenly find two decent batters from to take them that next step

I think we are making them look slightly better than they are tbh. They have no batsman averaging in the 40's, and its not that close for most, and only Roach, approaching 33 has an average under 30 as a bowler. Holder is a decent all rounder.

I think Holder is better than decent, but yeah, I struggle to see the quality elsewhere. Ok, Dowrich looks ok, Joseph looks like he might be decent, but...

Holder was number one all rounder in the world for a while ‘tis true. We probably diverge on what decent means

Banquo wrote:

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote: I think we are making them look slightly better than they are tbh. They have no batsman averaging in the 40's, and its not that close for most, and only Roach, approaching 33 has an average under 30 as a bowler. Holder is a decent all rounder.

I think Holder is better than decent, but yeah, I struggle to see the quality elsewhere. Ok, Dowrich looks ok, Joseph looks like he might be decent, but...

Holder was number one all rounder in the world for a while ‘tis true. We probably diverge on what decent means

Lol, as ever.

I’d take him in this England team. I think he’s an excellent middle overs bowler and his batting can be excellent.

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Stom wrote:
I think Holder is better than decent, but yeah, I struggle to see the quality elsewhere. Ok, Dowrich looks ok, Joseph looks like he might be decent, but...

Holder was number one all rounder in the world for a while ‘tis true. We probably diverge on what decent means

Lol, as ever.

I’d take him in this England team. I think he’s an excellent middle overs bowler and his batting can be excellent.

He probably should bat higher than 8, I agree. He is a very good third seamer. Probably pick him over Woakes for this test team. If Stokes were fit to bowl, would you pick Holder over one of Broad/Anderson/Archer? It'd be a tight call, cos he'd be a decent shout to be skipper, thereby freeing Root up

Banquo wrote:

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote: Holder was number one all rounder in the world for a while ‘tis true. We probably diverge on what decent means

Lol, as ever.

I’d take him in this England team. I think he’s an excellent middle overs bowler and his batting can be excellent.

He probably should bat higher than 8, I agree. He is a very good third seamer. Probably pick him over Woakes for this test team. If Stokes were fit to bowl, would you pick Holder over one of Broad/Anderson/Archer? It'd be a tight call, cos he'd be a decent shout to be skipper, thereby freeing Root up

I'd pick him over one of those seamers and leave the other 2 to take the new ball. I'm not 100% sold on his on-field captaincy, though.

It'd be the shortest tail in world cricket, lol.

I think Holder is a little negative in the field, but he's done very well to make them much harder to beat and part of that is the extra discipline he's brought, and he's not getting many scores over 400 from his side to work against in the field so he's not being judged on an equal footing.

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Stom wrote:
Lol, as ever.

I’d take him in this England team. I think he’s an excellent middle overs bowler and his batting can be excellent.

He probably should bat higher than 8, I agree. He is a very good third seamer. Probably pick him over Woakes for this test team. If Stokes were fit to bowl, would you pick Holder over one of Broad/Anderson/Archer? It'd be a tight call, cos he'd be a decent shout to be skipper, thereby freeing Root up

I'd pick him over one of those seamers and leave the other 2 to take the new ball. I'm not 100% sold on his on-field captaincy, though.

It'd be the shortest tail in world cricket, lol.

He's a terrific team captain. Which one would you drop?
On the shortest tail note, Bess was at 10 for us in the last test.

Meanwhile, Windies all over us this morning. Disappointing for Pope, disappointed in Woakes. Mind, I think if we get to 350 that'd be a good score.

FFS, chucking away a great position, good innings from Buttler, but he needed to stick for another hour at least.

Looks a tad like we were expecting rain and simply weren't ready to start

Digby wrote:Looks a tad like we were expecting rain and simply weren't ready to start

Fortunately Broad was ready

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:Looks a tad like we were expecting rain and simply weren't ready to start

Fortunately Broad was ready

And the Windies having made such a positive start rather lost the plot, if they've been using plans they keep changing them.

A great little support innings from Bess

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:Looks a tad like we were expecting rain and simply weren't ready to start

Fortunately Broad was ready

And the Windies having made such a positive start rather lost the plot, if they've been using plans they keep changing them.

A great little support innings from Bess

He’s got a great technique. Worth investing in I think

Bad drop from Lord Stokes

This about as close to watching test match cricket as I can recall in a while. There have been a few SA sides willing to grind things out, but there are two teams here willing to work their way into a match

Anderson still has it

Will be disappointed not to get the follow on option.
Good to see the pair properly in tandem sgain .

Galfon wrote:Will be disappointed not to get the follow on option.
Good to see the pair properly in tandem sgain .

They only need c30 now though, so unlikely I'd think; both these two are decent bats.

Banquo wrote:

Galfon wrote:Will be disappointed not to get the follow on option.
Good to see the pair properly in tandem sgain .

They only need c30 now though, so unlikely I'd think; both these two are decent bats.

I’d think around 230 is where they’ll get to.

Btw, what was the name of that other obese wi spinner?

Jofra not having a great time. Not sure why he and woakes opened this am- though in fairness jofra had an over to finish

Broad has 4No. 3 wicket spells this year. Pretty good going.

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Galfon wrote:Will be disappointed not to get the follow on option.
Good to see the pair properly in tandem sgain .

They only need c30 now though, so unlikely I'd think; both these two are decent bats.

I’d think around 230 is where they’ll get to.

Btw, what was the name of that other obese wi spinner?

He wasn't WI, that's why I was confused. Bermudan: Dwayne Leverock

Feels like a poor decision not to promote Stokes and Buttler to 3 and 4. It was right to open with Sibley and Burns as we weren't far enough ahead that we could gamble, but they've done a fine job, got the lead over 270, taken the shine off the ball, wearied the bowlers, and now we need to take a chance to accelerate and try and beat the weather to get a result. It's overcautious captaincy from Root - looking to erase any possibility of defeat rather than looking at ways to win.

Puja