Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

[Cricket] 2nd ODI England v Australia



Beach Hut

Brighton Bhuna Boy
Jul 5, 2003
71,907
Living In a Box
Start delayed due to wet outfield so game reduced to 49 overs each although there appears to be a football warm up on the out pitch !

Plunkett plays instead of Wood

England win toss and will bowl
 


Beach Hut

Brighton Bhuna Boy
Jul 5, 2003
71,907
Living In a Box
Ouch Warner retires injured, snorter of a ball though
 


BensGrandad

New member
Jul 13, 2003
72,015
Haywards Heath
Our bowlers seem to have lost the ability to bowl tight overs with many maidens. I would have thought in limited over cricket that is the prime objective wickets are secondary.
 


Bold Seagull

strong and stable with me, or...
Mar 18, 2010
29,719
Hove
Our bowlers seem to have lost the ability to bowl tight overs with many maidens. I would have thought in limited over cricket that is the prime objective wickets are secondary.

ODI cricket has moved on with maidens a dying out art, mainly because batsmen are attacking throughout an innings rather than batting through the middle overs. Scores of less than 300 winning games seem to becoming a rarity.
 


BensGrandad

New member
Jul 13, 2003
72,015
Haywards Heath
Wouldnt the likes of Brian Statham have prospered in the limited over game as he was very accurate and always bowled to line and length. He forced the batsmen back on the wicket and didnt allow them to attack him by his accuracy.
 




Pantani

Il Pirata
Dec 3, 2008
5,445
Newcastle
Wouldnt the likes of Brian Statham have prospered in the limited over game as he was very accurate and always bowled to line and length. He forced the batsmen back on the wicket and didnt allow them to attack him by his accuracy.

Line and length? The ball in the same place every ball? He would get smashed all over the place if he did that in modern ODI cricket.
 


BensGrandad

New member
Jul 13, 2003
72,015
Haywards Heath
Line and length? The ball in the same place every ball? He would get smashed all over the place if he did that in modern ODI cricket.

Not so because it was always a difficult line and length to play attacking strokes. So what you are really saying is that the modern day batsmen are superior to their predecessors in technique.
 


BensGrandad

New member
Jul 13, 2003
72,015
Haywards Heath
Had the bowlers all followed Woakes example Australia would have been about 230 for 0 at the close of the innings more attainable for us than 309 for 7.
 




Pantani

Il Pirata
Dec 3, 2008
5,445
Newcastle
Not so because it was always a difficult line and length to play attacking strokes. So what you are really saying is that the modern day batsmen are superior to their predecessors in technique.

In attacking strokes, yes they are. Modern batsmen with modern bats on modern day batting tracks with smaller boundaries score faster than ever before. Find me a bowler who just bowls line and length in modern ODI cricket and I will show you one who is going for a crazy amount of runs. Watch this match, count how many times you hear the words 'that was in the slot' then count the runs scored off those balls.

I'm not saying the bowlers (and batsmen for that matter) from the past could not have adjusted to the modern game, just that you need to do more than bowl line and length to succeed on the vast majority of wickets these days.
 


BensGrandad

New member
Jul 13, 2003
72,015
Haywards Heath
Woakes seemed to manage to contain them in his 8 overs but was the only bowler to do so. The bowlers do not appear to be being encouraged to reduce the run rate by tight bowling and the emphasis seems to be on how many wickets they take not the runs they conceded.
 






Bold Seagull

strong and stable with me, or...
Mar 18, 2010
29,719
Hove
Has the collapse started and why was Stokes out just caught up with score as watching England v San Marino.

Because they're cheating twats with no respect for the spirit of the game.

Stokes drove hard, Starc caught it and from halfway down the wicket shy'd at the stumps, but as he dived for cover Stokes put his hand up to protect himself but Australia appealed for obstructing in the field. 3rd umpire gave it because in slow mo it looked like intentional, but in real time and from anyone whose played knows there was no intent from Stokes. Poor poor decision, Aussies letting themselves down.

Lords boo'd them for the rest of the innings, never heard that there before. Changed the game simple as that.
 


Mackenzie

Old Brightonian
Nov 7, 2003
33,508
East Wales
Australian cheats and incompetent umpiring.

Game ruined.

Congratulations.
 












Mackenzie

Old Brightonian
Nov 7, 2003
33,508
East Wales
Owen Morgan said he would have withdrawn the appeal had the roles been reversed.

Smith said that Morgan's reply was 'disappointing'........crowd (at Lords!) booing Smith.

Aussie ****.
 




jakarta

Well-known member
May 25, 2007
15,616
Sullington
Lets not forget all the top 3 got themselves in (again) and promptly lost their wickets. Also Buttler can't get a run at the moment.
 


BensGrandad

New member
Jul 13, 2003
72,015
Haywards Heath
Watching the video it looked clear that he wasnt taking evasive action as was not going to hit him but the stumps but when it happened would he have known that, I dont think so. Perhaps should have been given the benefit of the doubt and not out.
 



Paying the bills

Latest Discussions

Paying the bills

Paying the bills

Paying the bills

Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here