RugbyRebels

Timbo wrote:Steve Smith seems bang on course to be a genuine great batsman, but the whole 2nd after Bradman seems hugely presumptuous. For comparison, I think Ponting and Sangakarra had 60+ averages after they’d played around 110-115 tests. When it’s that high you don’t even have to do badly to see it fall away quite quickly. Ponting has 3-4 years where he was unstoppable, but a relative slow decline towards the end of his career and his numbers came back towards the pack.

I apologise for my huge presumption and bow to your statistical analysis

Mind- the actual comment was....Smith shaping up to be the number 2 GOAT....and currently closer than anyone else.

Ponting was averaging 59.99 after 107 tests (he went on for 50 + more, too long); Sangakarra was averaging 58.94 only 7 tests before he finished on 134 tests and an average of 57+- timed it about right.

Smith is averaging nearly 64, which is pretty remarkable, but of course it could fall away.

Chance for Moeen to eke back some cred..as a batsman. when some decent turn was what mattered with his bowling.
Anyhow, 350+ will make a game of it..

Decent from Curran and Broad has hit some crackers out there...although he has just been caught for 31.

That's 100 for Moeen, Curran and Broad.

Down to Crane and Anderson to give us 350+...400 would be nice though

346 all out. No change to the score since Broad fell.

Bowled him.

Beauty.

1-1.

Same old, same old...
It's Khawaja this time, with Smith lurking.
177-2 says Eng already preparing for the rack again..

too many 20's and 30's.....stickability poor. Contrast with the aussies so far; mind, our attack really lacks bowlers capable of doing the unexpected in these conditions. Crane predictably expensive, though may become a factor if we can into position to set them any sort of 4th innings chase. Feels like same old for this series tho.

Not even just too many 20s and 30s, 8 players got in (maybe 7 if we reasonably discount Broad) and not one went on to make a decent score

And Crane went okay I thought, certainly for a 1st innings showing when that's not really why he'd be picked. Got some turn, gave the batsman some questions to ponder, and 3.5 an over isn't that bad, even Warne took some fearful pastings starting out

Digby wrote:And Crane went okay I thought, certainly for a 1st innings showing when that's not really why he'd be picked. Got some turn, gave the batsman some questions to ponder, and 3.5 an over isn't that bad, even Warne took some fearful pastings starting out

in the context of the other bowlers its pretty high, but as i said predictable, and maybe better come any aussie second innings

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:And Crane went okay I thought, certainly for a 1st innings showing when that's not really why he'd be picked. Got some turn, gave the batsman some questions to ponder, and 3.5 an over isn't that bad, even Warne took some fearful pastings starting out

in the context of the other bowlers its pretty high, but as i said predictable, and maybe better come any aussie second innings

He and Ali both bowled 17 overs, Ali for 51 runs and Crane for 58, it doesn't seem much divergence. He was more expensive than Broad and Anderson, but people often are. Bigger picture we'd want Crane to drop 4 or so boundary bowls from that 17 over spell and add in 4 maidens (and take a wicket even in 1st innings)

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:And Crane went okay I thought, certainly for a 1st innings showing when that's not really why he'd be picked. Got some turn, gave the batsman some questions to ponder, and 3.5 an over isn't that bad, even Warne took some fearful pastings starting out

in the context of the other bowlers its pretty high, but as i said predictable, and maybe better come any aussie second innings

He and Ali both bowled 17 overs, Ali for 51 runs and Crane for 58, it doesn't seem much divergence. He was more expensive than Broad and Anderson, but people often are. Bigger picture we'd want Crane to drop 4 or so boundary bowls from that 17 over spell and add in 4 maidens (and take a wicket even in 1st innings)

well Ali is hardly a high level benchmark, having taken 1 wicket and been expensive all series. As we seem to agree the 'bigger picture' I'm not sure what this exchange is about!

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote: in the context of the other bowlers its pretty high, but as i said predictable, and maybe better come any aussie second innings

He and Ali both bowled 17 overs, Ali for 51 runs and Crane for 58, it doesn't seem much divergence. He was more expensive than Broad and Anderson, but people often are. Bigger picture we'd want Crane to drop 4 or so boundary bowls from that 17 over spell and add in 4 maidens (and take a wicket even in 1st innings)

well Ali is hardly a high level benchmark, having taken 1 wicket and been expensive all series. As we seem to agree the 'bigger picture' I'm not sure what this exchange is about!

Ali is one of the other bowlers though to set context against of whether he was too expensive, unless one starts with the premise Ali isn't a bowler and I've some sympathy for that position. And Crane was expensive Vs Broad and Anderson, but they are in part still deciding not to risk going for runs in seeking wickets. Actually if there is anything to discuss it's why are Anderson and Broad being allowed to set their own bowling strategy when it's not making any sense in the wider context that the Aussies can just wait for the other bowlers?

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:
He and Ali both bowled 17 overs, Ali for 51 runs and Crane for 58, it doesn't seem much divergence. He was more expensive than Broad and Anderson, but people often are. Bigger picture we'd want Crane to drop 4 or so boundary bowls from that 17 over spell and add in 4 maidens (and take a wicket even in 1st innings)

well Ali is hardly a high level benchmark, having taken 1 wicket and been expensive all series. As we seem to agree the 'bigger picture' I'm not sure what this exchange is about!

Ali is one of the other bowlers though to set context against of whether he was too expensive, unless one starts with the premise Ali isn't a bowler and I've some sympathy for that position. And Crane was expensive Vs Broad and Anderson, but they are in part still deciding not to risk going for runs in seeking wickets. Actually if there is anything to discuss it's why are Anderson and Broad being allowed to set their own bowling strategy when it's not making any sense in the wider context that the Aussies can just wait for the other bowlers?

If Ali isn't a bowler, then he shouldn't be in the side; given he isn't turning it/taking wickets, he is also expensive, hence so is Crane- that was kinda my point.

England don't have a cohesive strategy, as you are highlighting, partly because they only have one quality bowler bowling well, and one quality bowler misfiring. Even if say Anderson were more aggressive, they could just see him off- that's the aussie strategy. Strangle them only works when you have an attack with all quality bowlers. Anderson has effectively done a day's more bowling than any other seamer.

this makes sobering reading, if not surprising

http://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/ ... ural-flaws

Banquo wrote:this makes sobering reading, if not surprising

http://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/ ... ural-flaws

Andrew Strauss took a different message to many from the parable of the canoe race

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:this makes sobering reading, if not surprising

http://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/ ... ural-flaws

Andrew Strauss took a different message to many from the parable of the canoe race

He bought a Ford?

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:this makes sobering reading, if not surprising

http://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/ ... ural-flaws

Andrew Strauss took a different message to many from the parable of the canoe race

He bought a Ford?

Mike?

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:
Andrew Strauss took a different message to many from the parable of the canoe race

He bought a Ford?

Mike?

The canoe parable is often cited in relation to Ford and Toyota

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote: He bought a Ford?

Mike?

The canoe parable is often cited in relation to Ford and Toyota

So you don't think Mike Ford could get the gig?

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:
Mike?

The canoe parable is often cited in relation to Ford and Toyota

So you don't think Mike Ford could get the gig?

Mike Ford's agent does. See tomorrow's papers linking him to the job.

I am surprised at what a crap job Strauss appears to be doing, distracted understandably aside

They could always give Squeaky a call

Digby wrote:They could always give Squeaky a call

He’d only blame Strauss, anyway.......in a book, a couple of years after the event.

It's all the 2's...(222-2) as Khawaja gets his ton & Smiff limbers up...grim.