England cricket 2023 & 2024
Discussion
Smollet said:
Murph7355 said:
(Like others, I also have no clue what the ECB are doing scheduling wise, too. Seems very daft).
Everything seems to revolve around the completely pointless 100 tournament. A format so successful it’s copied all over the world ……..
Shame to lose by such a small margin but an exciting finish and we played well. Maybe if we didnt enforce the follow on the bowlers could have rested and we could have restricted them more. But who really knows.
I would rather they go for a win, with the risk that they may lose. Its far better than plodding out drawn matches
I would rather they go for a win, with the risk that they may lose. Its far better than plodding out drawn matches
Scabutz said:
Shame to lose by such a small margin but an exciting finish and we played well. Maybe if we didnt enforce the follow on the bowlers could have rested and we could have restricted them more. But who really knows.
I would rather they go for a win, with the risk that they may lose. Its far better than plodding out drawn matches
I agree with this.I would rather they go for a win, with the risk that they may lose. Its far better than plodding out drawn matches
18 months ago we wouldn't have been close to winning this game, let alone having a winning record like we've seen since Baz & Ben took over.
I can't help but recognise a bit of hypocrisy in myself though, if Root or Cook hjad called the follow on and then f
kING LOST ! I'd have been really pissed at them
Perhaps Stokes has earned a couple of freebies with the attitude, or that he has pretty much played the blueprint of aggressive cricket so it kind of negates criticism, I mean you are either with it or not.
Hey ho, it was super close. so many small things could have been different and we'd have won. Even down to a possible wide ball in the last over!
Gargamel said:
I can't help but recognise a bit of hypocrisy in myself though, if Root or Cook hjad called the follow on and then fkING LOST !
I'd have been really pissed at them
Perhaps Stokes has earned a couple of freebies with the attitude, or that he has pretty much played the blueprint of aggressive cricket so it kind of negates criticism, I mean you are either with it or not.
Hey ho, it was super close. so many small things could have been different and we'd have won. Even down to a possible wide ball in the last over!
My feeling is that we can't have an approach that is 70% Bazball and 30% something else. The whole point of Bazball is that you commit wholeheartedly to attack and winning. It makes the game simple - technically, tactically and emotionally.kING LOST ! I'd have been really pissed at them
Perhaps Stokes has earned a couple of freebies with the attitude, or that he has pretty much played the blueprint of aggressive cricket so it kind of negates criticism, I mean you are either with it or not.
Hey ho, it was super close. so many small things could have been different and we'd have won. Even down to a possible wide ball in the last over!
One you try and bring in caveats you end up with the kind of mess that Root's teams got into: trying to play positive cricket but not really buying into it 100%.
Regarding the follow-on, the alternative would probably have resulted in a draw. With a lead of 230 we would probably have batted on to add another 270 - 300, leaving NZ an unassailable 500+. That would have resulted in the them digging in and trying to play for the draw. Boring... //
Slowboathome said:
Gargamel said:
I can't help but recognise a bit of hypocrisy in myself though, if Root or Cook hjad called the follow on and then fkING LOST !
I'd have been really pissed at them
Perhaps Stokes has earned a couple of freebies with the attitude, or that he has pretty much played the blueprint of aggressive cricket so it kind of negates criticism, I mean you are either with it or not.
Hey ho, it was super close. so many small things could have been different and we'd have won. Even down to a possible wide ball in the last over!
My feeling is that we can't have an approach that is 70% Bazball and 30% something else. The whole point of Bazball is that you commit wholeheartedly to attack and winning. It makes the game simple - technically, tactically and emotionally.kING LOST ! I'd have been really pissed at them
Perhaps Stokes has earned a couple of freebies with the attitude, or that he has pretty much played the blueprint of aggressive cricket so it kind of negates criticism, I mean you are either with it or not.
Hey ho, it was super close. so many small things could have been different and we'd have won. Even down to a possible wide ball in the last over!
Sure - I agree - you are either in it as a philosophy or you are a total opportunist. I am just acknowledging my own internal anguish that I would have gone nuts at Cook or Root for blowing the series win and the match, whereas I am forgiving Stokes because... entertainment innit
One you try and bring in caveats you end up with the kind of mess that Root's teams got into: trying to play positive cricket but not really buying into it 100%.
Slowboathome said:
My feeling is that we can't have an approach that is 70% Bazball and 30% something else. The whole point of Bazball is that you commit wholeheartedly to attack and winning. It makes the game simple - technically, tactically and emotionally.
Gargamel said:
Sure - I agree - you are either in it as a philosophy or you are a total opportunist. I am just acknowledging my own internal anguish that I would have gone nuts at Cook or Root for blowing the series win and the match, whereas I am forgiving Stokes because... entertainment innit
I know what you mean. Stokes can do no wrong in my eyes at the moment.Slowboathome said:
Gargamel said:
I can't help but recognise a bit of hypocrisy in myself though, if Root or Cook hjad called the follow on and then fkING LOST !
I'd have been really pissed at them
Perhaps Stokes has earned a couple of freebies with the attitude, or that he has pretty much played the blueprint of aggressive cricket so it kind of negates criticism, I mean you are either with it or not.
Hey ho, it was super close. so many small things could have been different and we'd have won. Even down to a possible wide ball in the last over!
My feeling is that we can't have an approach that is 70% Bazball and 30% something else. The whole point of Bazball is that you commit wholeheartedly to attack and winning. It makes the game simple - technically, tactically and emotionally.kING LOST ! I'd have been really pissed at them
Perhaps Stokes has earned a couple of freebies with the attitude, or that he has pretty much played the blueprint of aggressive cricket so it kind of negates criticism, I mean you are either with it or not.
Hey ho, it was super close. so many small things could have been different and we'd have won. Even down to a possible wide ball in the last over!
One you try and bring in caveats you end up with the kind of mess that Root's teams got into: trying to play positive cricket but not really buying into it 100%.
A complete test team should be able to respond to circumstances. Sure, go for the win. But the win is the series on a test series, so that has to be balanced.
The follow on wasn't the issue. The game, and specifically the series, was firmly in England's grip. And they let it go.
They get a gimme because of their record thus far. But they need to become that complete side rather than "over the top boys no matter what".
The run out screwed things, so maybe OK. But, and I've said this before, it will be very interesting to see how the over the top boys method works with India or Australia (NZ are 4th in the rankings, but this NZ was not full strength too).
Gargamel said:
Sure - I agree - you are either in it as a philosophy or you are a total opportunist. I am just acknowledging my own internal anguish that I would have gone nuts at Cook or Root for blowing the series win and the match, whereas I am forgiving Stokes because... entertainment innit
He shows application and spirit.Cook and Root had an air of predictability and resignation about them (unless Root had received pelters recently) and went down looking like they had no fight.
That can never be levelled at Stokes.
But if he goes on a losing streak and can only try route1, I don't think any level of "entertainment" will matter. You play to win, and as noted that is winning series and ranking points.
Roll on summer. I'm at a couple of tests this year so bring it on
Murph7355 said:
I disagree.
A complete test team should be able to respond to circumstances. Sure, go for the win. But the win is the series on a test series, so that has to be balanced.
Sure, ideally every team would be able to do that. The Australian side around the millennium probably achieved it.A complete test team should be able to respond to circumstances. Sure, go for the win. But the win is the series on a test series, so that has to be balanced.
But I don't know if this England team are able to do it. Remember, they tried to be the complete test team, responding to circumstances, under Root.
It's hard to see how they can move forward to become the kind of team you describe without it feeling like they're actually taking a step back.
Stan the Bat said:
Is Stokes' knee injury serious ?
He doesn't appear to be saying what the problem is.
He has had on and off for some time. He's not saying what it is but has said he hopes he won't have to worry about it by the time of the ashes. Not sure if he's secretly going to have some surgery or something. He doesn't appear to be saying what the problem is.
I've not played cricket but have watched for 50+ years and to me it seems that if we had taken our 2nd innings after NZ's 1st it would have almost certainly resulted in a draw. Surely we would have had to bat to add 275 - 300 runs giving us a lead of over 500 then NZ would have dug in for a draw. What would have been the alternative outcome? 
Slowboathome said:
Sure, ideally every team would be able to do that. The Australian side around the millennium probably achieved it.
But I don't know if this England team are able to do it. Remember, they tried to be the complete test team, responding to circumstances, under Root.
It's hard to see how they can move forward to become the kind of team you describe without it feeling like they're actually taking a step back.
Root wasn't the right captain. And there were other issues, when he was captain, elsewhere in the whole set up.But I don't know if this England team are able to do it. Remember, they tried to be the complete test team, responding to circumstances, under Root.
It's hard to see how they can move forward to become the kind of team you describe without it feeling like they're actually taking a step back.
Not all of those are fixed as yet.
If this team cannot do it, I suspect they will get found out by India and Australia. But I was unsure the captaincy for Stokes would be a good thing, and thus far that's not looking like a great prediction
Also depends what we mean by a "step back". Personally speaking I'd have been happy with a spirited go but then grinding out a draw when it started to slip in order to take the series. If I want big bash utter balls out cricket, I watch T20
(I'll be full on changing my tune when they go balls out during the Ashes and we smash the tourists...)
Murph7355 said:
Root wasn't the right captain. And there were other issues, when he was captain, elsewhere in the whole set up.
Not all of those are fixed as yet.
If this team cannot do it, I suspect they will get found out by India and Australia. But I was unsure the captaincy for Stokes would be a good thing, and thus far that's not looking like a great prediction
Also depends what we mean by a "step back". Personally speaking I'd have been happy with a spirited go but then grinding out a draw when it started to slip in order to take the series. If I want big bash utter balls out cricket, I watch T20
(I'll be full on changing my tune when they go balls out during the Ashes and we smash the tourists...)
Like you I wasn’t sure about him being captain due to the pressure the job brings and his previous self confessed mental issues. However he’s firmly laid those fears to rest and is a great advert for overcoming them and should be an inspiration for those suffering similar problems. I think a team reflects a captain’s persona and we all know he’s a flamboyant personality so we now are getting a flamboyant team. Bring it on I say Not all of those are fixed as yet.
If this team cannot do it, I suspect they will get found out by India and Australia. But I was unsure the captaincy for Stokes would be a good thing, and thus far that's not looking like a great prediction
Also depends what we mean by a "step back". Personally speaking I'd have been happy with a spirited go but then grinding out a draw when it started to slip in order to take the series. If I want big bash utter balls out cricket, I watch T20
(I'll be full on changing my tune when they go balls out during the Ashes and we smash the tourists...)
Murph7355 said:
Root wasn't the right captain. And there were other issues, when he was captain, elsewhere in the whole set up.
Not all of those are fixed as yet.
If this team cannot do it, I suspect they will get found out by India and Australia. But I was unsure the captaincy for Stokes would be a good thing, and thus far that's not looking like a great prediction
Also depends what we mean by a "step back". Personally speaking I'd have been happy with a spirited go but then grinding out a draw when it started to slip in order to take the series. If I want big bash utter balls out cricket, I watch T20
(I'll be full on changing my tune when they go balls out during the Ashes and we smash the tourists...)
Yes Stokes has been a revelation. I thought it was a classic example of making the best player captain but he's been phenomenal.Not all of those are fixed as yet.
If this team cannot do it, I suspect they will get found out by India and Australia. But I was unsure the captaincy for Stokes would be a good thing, and thus far that's not looking like a great prediction
Also depends what we mean by a "step back". Personally speaking I'd have been happy with a spirited go but then grinding out a draw when it started to slip in order to take the series. If I want big bash utter balls out cricket, I watch T20
(I'll be full on changing my tune when they go balls out during the Ashes and we smash the tourists...)
I think my point is that this team works best when they have a clear unambiguous brief - essentially everything is made simple for them: go out, enjoy yourself and put the other team under pressure. I can't believe how quickly Stokes and McCullum have been able to switch the mentality of this group of players around. I'm suggesting that telling them to play more cautiously, whilst still punishing the bad balls, and 'lads we're wanting to hang on for a draw here' might make their mindset revert to the bad old days. It shouldn't happen, because they should be mentally strong enough and flexible enough to handle it, but I'm not sure they are yet.
As you say, Australia will be the acid test. In particular, whether they can stay strong after one or two defeats.
Gassing Station | Sports | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff