As I write this, England need 178 to win with Stokes and Bairstow batting. They still have a chance to win especially since Australia don't have a frontline spinner on day 5. If they win, the Bazzballers will be shouting from the rooftops. If they lose, the Bazztrollers will feel vindicated. Whatever you want to call this type of test cricket, generally (the short ball fest in this match has been a bit tedious) it has been great to watch.
On a different note. Is this Anderson's last test?
And lastly, really disappointed with the long decline in Windies cricket culminating in their new low of not qualifying for the ODI WC.
Surely they'll give Anderson the Old Trafford game won't they...unless he does a Prince Philip and retires before they let him!
Agree about the WI--although as Ian Bishop has said, this has been a LONG time coming: they weren't in the top 12 teams in the last World T20 and they were only a dodgy umpiring decision and/or five minutes' rain away from not qualifying the last WC as well. It's been pretty comprehensive hasn't it too?--you don't get to lose to two Associates as well as a team that finished three places below you in the ODI league and qualify for an event like that.
I guess if they wanted to drop him he wouldn't still be in the squad so as Neil said probably he'll play at Old Trafford. His dropped catches and the blow against the helmet were a bit startling. But one would him to stop playing on his own terms and not be dropped from the squad. If England go 3-0 down it will be interesting to see how that influences team selection for the last two tests.
If one reviews Ben Stokes' various comments regarding the (new) way England want to play test cricket, it is possible to find a simple explanation: they ARE results led; but those results do not include the draw. They play to win, but whilst doing so are willing to risk losing, if it makes for exciting cricket. I'm English and after years of drudgery, losses and dull, safe play, this is a breath of fresh air. And I believe the English team are still working to optimise their new way of playing - so this is very much a work in progress. Anyone here witness Stokes at Headingley in the 2019 ashes grabbing a seemingly impossible victory from the jaws of defeat? Any doubts about his commitment.
Earlier this year Simon Mann (BBC Test Match Special commentator etc.) was beyond grumpy when England lost the second test in New Zealand after enforcing the follow-on. They lost by one run, in what was an incredible final day's play. But Simon Mann apparently didn't get it. ONE RUN! We should all take that loss in exchange for the sheer thrill of it all. Same goes for the first ashes test at Edgbaston; a nail biter. England will win some, they'll lose some, but I'll take those losses over a dull, safe draw any day of the week.
And as for the tie... looking at the picture i'm not sure it's the tie that's the problem.
Hi Colin, I'm a huge fan of the way England are playing Test cricket currently. Huge fan. But you still have to pick the right times to attack and recognise the wrong moments to attack. And identify what form of attack is most appropriate. You can't 'attack' all the time for five days. It's like trying to sprint a marathon. Sport hasn't evolved that far yet...!
England have fallen into this la la through the looking glass scenario where they are kidding themselves that entertainment is more important than winning. I said this on your last thread, that as an England supporter beating Australia is the most important thing they can do, yet they are kidding themselves. If they go two nil or three down in this series then watch the interest disappear from the media and then fans, then we will see the truth in the situation.
If those "supporters" disappear as soon as their team starts losing then they aren't supporters in any meaningful way!--and they're certainly not the dyed-in-the-wool nationalist supporters you seem to be referring to.
Those supporters will be there anyway--the Barmy Army haven't gone anywhere, and didn't through the Bayliss and Silverwood eras, which were dire in comparison from a purely results point of view. The whole point about England's approach is that it's about converting the people who aren't already coming, and who don't necessarily want to see England (or whichever team) win at the expense of everything else. Not everyone is a nationalist, after all.
I'm somewhat sceptical that they'll succeed, because I'm sceptical that they've identified the issues correctly--if they want to stop test cricket dying then combatting player greed, addressing the issues raised in the ICEC report and using more productively the financial hegemony of the BCCI would all seem to be more important.
But they're at the very least not being any LESS successful than the previous iterations of the England team, at the moment they're being much more successful, they're probably more entertaining in the eyes of most people (though I'm not sure I'd entirely concur with that either), and they're a lot more likeable than the last successful English test team, which seemed to be hated very widely including in England. That doesn't seem especially likely to drive fans away in three weeks of losses, even if they do come to pass.
Commentary today and Ponting is saying the Aussies have played “AusBall” for the last couple of decades True enough They increased scoring rates to more than 3 an over years ago. No doubt ODIs and T20 have changed Test Matches Far fewer Drawn matches But you still have to take 20 wickets no matter how fast you score And on all sorts of pitches under all sorts of conditions. I believe England are far too sentimental with there old guard More especially their Quicks
As I write this, England need 178 to win with Stokes and Bairstow batting. They still have a chance to win especially since Australia don't have a frontline spinner on day 5. If they win, the Bazzballers will be shouting from the rooftops. If they lose, the Bazztrollers will feel vindicated. Whatever you want to call this type of test cricket, generally (the short ball fest in this match has been a bit tedious) it has been great to watch.
On a different note. Is this Anderson's last test?
And lastly, really disappointed with the long decline in Windies cricket culminating in their new low of not qualifying for the ODI WC.
Surely they'll give Anderson the Old Trafford game won't they...unless he does a Prince Philip and retires before they let him!
Agree about the WI--although as Ian Bishop has said, this has been a LONG time coming: they weren't in the top 12 teams in the last World T20 and they were only a dodgy umpiring decision and/or five minutes' rain away from not qualifying the last WC as well. It's been pretty comprehensive hasn't it too?--you don't get to lose to two Associates as well as a team that finished three places below you in the ODI league and qualify for an event like that.
I'm pretty sure Anderson will play at Old Trafford! He's just being rested for Headingley, I'm assuming...
...not sure I'd put it past him to be playing at Old Trafford NEXT year!--and not in a County Championship game.
I guess if they wanted to drop him he wouldn't still be in the squad so as Neil said probably he'll play at Old Trafford. His dropped catches and the blow against the helmet were a bit startling. But one would him to stop playing on his own terms and not be dropped from the squad. If England go 3-0 down it will be interesting to see how that influences team selection for the last two tests.
Thanks Manners! I agree 100% with the part about wearing a tie to the 1st day of a a test match 🏏😀
Unfortunately, that little 'tradition' of mine no longer applies. But I did wear one for the first 250-odd Tests I covered... :)
If one reviews Ben Stokes' various comments regarding the (new) way England want to play test cricket, it is possible to find a simple explanation: they ARE results led; but those results do not include the draw. They play to win, but whilst doing so are willing to risk losing, if it makes for exciting cricket. I'm English and after years of drudgery, losses and dull, safe play, this is a breath of fresh air. And I believe the English team are still working to optimise their new way of playing - so this is very much a work in progress. Anyone here witness Stokes at Headingley in the 2019 ashes grabbing a seemingly impossible victory from the jaws of defeat? Any doubts about his commitment.
Earlier this year Simon Mann (BBC Test Match Special commentator etc.) was beyond grumpy when England lost the second test in New Zealand after enforcing the follow-on. They lost by one run, in what was an incredible final day's play. But Simon Mann apparently didn't get it. ONE RUN! We should all take that loss in exchange for the sheer thrill of it all. Same goes for the first ashes test at Edgbaston; a nail biter. England will win some, they'll lose some, but I'll take those losses over a dull, safe draw any day of the week.
And as for the tie... looking at the picture i'm not sure it's the tie that's the problem.
Hi Colin, I'm a huge fan of the way England are playing Test cricket currently. Huge fan. But you still have to pick the right times to attack and recognise the wrong moments to attack. And identify what form of attack is most appropriate. You can't 'attack' all the time for five days. It's like trying to sprint a marathon. Sport hasn't evolved that far yet...!
England have fallen into this la la through the looking glass scenario where they are kidding themselves that entertainment is more important than winning. I said this on your last thread, that as an England supporter beating Australia is the most important thing they can do, yet they are kidding themselves. If they go two nil or three down in this series then watch the interest disappear from the media and then fans, then we will see the truth in the situation.
If those "supporters" disappear as soon as their team starts losing then they aren't supporters in any meaningful way!--and they're certainly not the dyed-in-the-wool nationalist supporters you seem to be referring to.
Those supporters will be there anyway--the Barmy Army haven't gone anywhere, and didn't through the Bayliss and Silverwood eras, which were dire in comparison from a purely results point of view. The whole point about England's approach is that it's about converting the people who aren't already coming, and who don't necessarily want to see England (or whichever team) win at the expense of everything else. Not everyone is a nationalist, after all.
I'm somewhat sceptical that they'll succeed, because I'm sceptical that they've identified the issues correctly--if they want to stop test cricket dying then combatting player greed, addressing the issues raised in the ICEC report and using more productively the financial hegemony of the BCCI would all seem to be more important.
But they're at the very least not being any LESS successful than the previous iterations of the England team, at the moment they're being much more successful, they're probably more entertaining in the eyes of most people (though I'm not sure I'd entirely concur with that either), and they're a lot more likeable than the last successful English test team, which seemed to be hated very widely including in England. That doesn't seem especially likely to drive fans away in three weeks of losses, even if they do come to pass.
Commentary today and Ponting is saying the Aussies have played “AusBall” for the last couple of decades True enough They increased scoring rates to more than 3 an over years ago. No doubt ODIs and T20 have changed Test Matches Far fewer Drawn matches But you still have to take 20 wickets no matter how fast you score And on all sorts of pitches under all sorts of conditions. I believe England are far too sentimental with there old guard More especially their Quicks