The Cricket Thread

[Gemmill 35102]

How many overs are left?

[PaddockLad 14771]

Skipper

[Gemmill 35102]

Who just pawed that over the boundary?

 

[Toonpack 6957]

Aussies win by the two wickets we donated to them declaring day one, not to mention the Bairstow charitable acts.

 

Cummings and Lyon deserve huge credit, but we tossed that away.

 

I’m all for bazball and playing aggressively, but we now have to win three out of four to win the Ashes, that won’t happen, the English summer will likely see to that if Lords doesn’t.

[Alex 30654]

Aussies always win at lords too. But, aye. Some poor decisions like the declaration. And the selection of Ali because he bowls so little now with only playing white ball cricket. Which is compounded by Stokes clearly only being able to bowl a couple of overs here and there now. Re: Bairstow there’s a very obvious set of reasons he kept so badly. Apart from his lengthy injury, he wasn’t even keeping wicket before that. Foakes was the test keeper and Buttler in the white ball setup. So you’ve got someone who converted to wicketkeeper anyway, rather than someone who’s practiced the basics since childhood, coming back off a long layoff, not having kept wicket for ages. And all the prep he’s had is a few championship games for Yorkshire. It would be bad enough but Foakes has a better FC average than most of the actual batsmen 

Edited June 20, 2023 by Alex

[Toonpack 6957]

[Ugly Mackems 133]

Declaration & Bairstow (with the gloves) cost us the result. 

Need to drop either of the openers and put Bairstow there - Foakes needs to be keeping. 

Personally Ducket would miss the next test for me. Lack of footwork and knicking a ball (x 2)  that wouldn't have hit a third set of stumps suggest his achilles heal has been exposed. 

It was a great watch though. 

[Alex 30654]

36 minutes ago, Ugly Mackems said:

Declaration & Bairstow (with the gloves) cost us the result. 

Need to drop either of the openers and put Bairstow there - Foakes needs to be keeping. 

Personally Ducket would miss the next test for me. Lack of footwork and knicking a ball (x 2)  that wouldn't have hit a third set of stumps suggest his achilles heal has been exposed. 

It was a great watch though. 

I think the only likely change is Wood for Moeen. Not that I disagree really, although Duckett deserves more of a chance than Crawley, who has had loads of opportunities. I just think they’ll stick with what they’ve gone with in the first test. Maybe Moeen missing out due to his finger issue. Wood might’ve bade the difference in this test ironically. It was too easy for their tail with the lack of pace in the attack (and not having a proper spinner). 

[Ugly Mackems 133]

Moeen 

30 minutes ago, Alex said:

I think the only likely change is Wood for Moeen. Not that I disagree really, although Duckett deserves more of a chance than Crawley, who has had loads of opportunities. I just think they’ll stick with what they’ve gone with in the first test. Maybe Moeen missing out due to his finger issue. Wood might’ve bade the difference in this test ironically. It was too easy for their tail with the lack of pace in the attack (and not having a proper spinner). 

Moeen is goosed. Maybe just play root as the spinner ongoing. Definitely have Wood back in. Just feel Ducket doesn't move his feet and wafts at anything. Maybe rotate Bairstow with the current openers. 

[Dr Gloom 19934]

I still think we can win the series. We only lost because we didn’t take our chances. 
 

Foakes should never have been dropped. We could have won the test if he’d started. I’d  drop Crawley. He’s shit. 

[trophyshy 6441]

Declaring was fucking stupid. We all knew it.  

[Dr Gloom 19934]

36 minutes ago, trophyshy said:

Declaring was fucking stupid. We all knew it.  

unconventional, yes. Risky? 100% but It worked last time he did it. It was ultra aggressive, made with half an eye on the weather forecast and designed to give us the best chance of winning the game. That’s the ethos. If we’d batted on and got another 50 runs, it would have ended up in a draw. 
 

you can say it’s naive or arrogant. I love it. Bring it on. We will carry on like this, they won’t deviate from the game plan, and one game soon we will take the chances we missed in this game and stuff the Aussies. I can’t wait for the rest of the series. I still fancy us  

Edited June 20, 2023 by Dr Gloom

[Dr Gloom 19934]

All that being said, I would drop Crawley for Foakes and Moeen for Wood 

[trophyshy 6441]

18 minutes ago, Dr Gloom said:

unconventional, yes. Risky? 100% but It worked last time he did it. It was ultra aggressive, made with half an eye on the weather forecast and designed to give us the best chance of winning the game. That’s the ethos. If we’d batted on and got another 50 runs, it would have ended up in a draw. 
 

you can say it’s naive or arrogant. I love it. Bring it on. We will carry on like this, they won’t deviate from the game plan, and one game soon we will take the chances we missed in this game and stuff the Aussies. I can’t wait for the rest of the series. I still fancy us  

People seem to be giving him kudos for forcing a result even though it was a loss?  Wtf?  

[RobinRobin 9326]

I have no issue with the declaration. If we had got one of the openers everyone would have said it was genius. 

The single issue realistically was the dropped catches. Bairstow shouldn't have replaced Foakes. End of.

If they felt he was needed for his batting he should've replaced another batsman.

You can't argue loyalty to Crawley or Duckett and then drop the "best keeper in the world".

If Foakes played we would've won. 

[Alex 30654]

Re: the declaration, you obviously can’t 100% predict what would have happened but defending it by saying it would’ve been a draw otherwise is a massive assumption. It would’ve created more scoreboard pressure having more runs on the board. This would’ve allowed far more attacking fields in the second Australian innings as well putting more pressure on their first innings. 

[Dr Gloom 19934]

56 minutes ago, Alex said:

Re: the declaration, you obviously can’t 100% predict what would have happened but defending it by saying it would’ve been a draw otherwise is a massive assumption. It would’ve created more scoreboard pressure having more runs on the board. This would’ve allowed far more attacking fields in the second Australian innings as well putting more pressure on their first innings. 

if we’d batted on for another half a session, we probably would have batted Australia out of the game, given how much time was lost to rain. And they would probably have batted defensively to secure the draw on a pitch which was hard to take 20 wickets on. 

 

Stokes couldn’t have known exactly how much time would be lost to weather but he knew some would. The declaration was made to give us the best chance of winning the game, by decreasing the chance of a draw but also increasing the chances of an Australian win.
 

It was a calculated gamble which almost worked. It would have worked if we’d taken our chances. of course it was risky and it seems mad. But it’s fresh as hell and I like it. They will win games in this series playing like this 

Edited June 21, 2023 by Dr Gloom

[Toonpack 6957]

58 minutes ago, Alex said:

Re: the declaration, you obviously can’t 100% predict what would have happened but defending it by saying it would’ve been a draw otherwise is a massive assumption. It would’ve created more scoreboard pressure having more runs on the board. This would’ve allowed far more attacking fields in the second Australian innings as well putting more pressure on their first innings. 

Exactly that, as Mark Butcher put it, Root was batting like God, the pitch/ball was doing nothing, it cost us 6 overs and even at fives (and that’s low IMO) that’s another 30 runs. Lyon coming in with 80 plus to get as opposed to 50, massive difference, not to mention the rate they would have had to maintain over virtually all of the remaining overs.

 

The declaration was sheer folly, but even with that, the missed chances (and they were regulation) first innings is what did us.

 

We got Smith and Lambuschagne for next to nothing, twice each, that’s not going to happen in three out of the four remaining matches I reckon, they are too good, it needs to happen but Johnny’ll spill one or both of them at some point.

[Alex 30654]

They weren’t likely to bat another half a session though. Root was smashing all over and 8 wickets were down. It’s more the point there were relatively easy runs to plunder. I agree it’s the missed chances that cost us. But that’s massively on Stokes, McCullum and ‘Bazball’ too seeing as that’s the reason you had Bairstow playing instead of someone who’d almost certainly have taken those crucial chances. 

[Toonpack 6957]

10 minutes ago, Dr Gloom said:

if we’d batted on for another half a session, we probably would have batted Australia out of the game, given how much time was lost to rain. And they would probably have batted defensively to secure the draw on a pitch which was hard to take 20 wickets on. 

 

Stokes couldn’t have known exactly how much time would be lost to weather but he knew some would. The declaration was made to give us the best chance of winning the game, by decreasing the chance of a draw but also increasing the chances of an Australian win.
 

It was a calculated gamble which almost worked. It would have worked if we’d taken our chances. of course it was risky and it seems mad. But it’s fresh as hell and I like it. They will win games in this series playing like this 

if we’d batted those six overs, the Aussies would have been batting in that 20 minute floodlight session.

 

It was a stupid gamble made for some psychological point scoring, it wasn’t calculated.

[Toonpack 6957]

11 minutes ago, Alex said:

They weren’t likely to bat another half a session though. Root was smashing all over and 8 wickets were down. It’s more the point there were relatively easy runs to plunder. I agree it’s the missed chances that cost us. But that’s massively on Stokes, McCullum and ‘Bazball’ too seeing as that’s the reason you had Bairstow playing instead of someone who’d almost certainly have taken those crucial chances. 

6 overs is all it was, don’t give runs away on first innings, ever, especially against the best team in the world.

 

We lost by 2 wickets, 2 wickets we gave them free on day one (one of which was Joe Root who was on fire).

 

That’s actually the first time I’ve thought about it like that, we got Joe Root out for them, fuck me, I feel even worse now 🙄

Edited June 21, 2023 by Toonpack

[Dr Gloom 19934]

20 minutes ago, Toonpack said:

if we’d batted those six overs, the Aussies would have been batting in that 20 minute floodlight session.

 

It was a stupid gamble made for some psychological point scoring, it wasn’t calculated.

disagree that it was stupid. He won the test match last time he made this type of aggressive early first innings declaration. It can work. It’s designed to give yourself enough time to win the game, by taking the draw out of the equation, even if it increases your chances of losing - and it almost worked.  We would have won if we’d taken those missed chances and instead we’d be talking about how stokes and baz are innovative.

 

Of course you can also be made to look naive if it goes tits up as it did this time. 

 

It’s unsettling because it goes against conventional wisdom. But that’s the whole point of what they’re trying to do. They’re rewriting the rules of test cricket and putting bums on seats. And by playing ultra aggressively, we’ve got australia on the defensive. I hope that continues across the series, I think it will and that it’s our best chance of winning. I think we win at least a couple of tests in the series with better pitches and Foakes taking chances behind the stumps instead of Bairstow fluffing them. 

[trophyshy 6441]

23 minutes ago, Toonpack said:

 

That’s actually the first time I’ve thought about it like that, we got Joe Root out for them, fuck me, I feel even worse now 🙄

Exactly.  If we had a couple of tails in then maybe it’s slightly more justifiable. To give them the wicket of our greatest batsman for a meagre total.  Stokes isn’t too bright.  Nor is “Baz”.  

[Dr Gloom 19934]

6 minutes ago, trophyshy said:

Exactly.  If we had a couple of tails in then maybe it’s slightly more justifiable. To give them the wicket of our greatest batsman for a meagre total.  Stokes isn’t too bright.  Nor is “Baz”.  

I think they’ll have the last laugh in this series. And even if they don’t, it’ll be good craic along the way

[trophyshy 6441]

2 minutes ago, Dr Gloom said:

I think they’ll have the last laugh in this series. And even if they don’t, it’ll be good craic along the way

I’ll look forward to lording it over my Aussie mates that we won the craic trophy.