creeeeeeeekeeeeeet
Moderator: Zulus Thousand of em
Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet
Masterclass being continued by morkel and philander.....
- TANGODANCER
- Immortal
- Posts: 44175
- Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 9:35 pm
- Location: Between the Bible, Regency and the Rubaiyat and forever trying to light penny candles from stars.
Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet
Captain Cook discovers South Africa...or something..Mutiny sceduled... 

Si Deus pro nobis, quis contra nos?
Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet
Cook ain't captain any more. The mutiny happened on the voyage to India last winter.
After starting so promisingly this is a terrible day for England!
After starting so promisingly this is a terrible day for England!
- TANGODANCER
- Immortal
- Posts: 44175
- Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 9:35 pm
- Location: Between the Bible, Regency and the Rubaiyat and forever trying to light penny candles from stars.
Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet
Yes, it was a joke, and yes, a bad day at the office for us. Ain't over yet though, keep smiling..

Si Deus pro nobis, quis contra nos?
- Worthy4England
- Immortal
- Posts: 34734
- Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm
Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet
I guess there always going to be bother when the tail doesn't wag.
- BWFC_Insane
- Immortal
- Posts: 38827
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm
Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet
Bottom line is, our bowling attack isn't good enough after Anderson and Broad. When they need a rest or can't find the right line and length we don't have good enough bowlers. That is why SA got about 100 runs too many 1st innings.
That is where we (almost certainly) lost this test. It was a sub-300 type of pitch and situation. We let them get too many through weak bowling.
That is where we (almost certainly) lost this test. It was a sub-300 type of pitch and situation. We let them get too many through weak bowling.
- Worthy4England
- Immortal
- Posts: 34734
- Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm
Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet
Absolute tosh, with a little truth thrown in. Our bowling attack could be stronger, yes. Wood's bowling like a drain and Stokes isn't ripping up any trees at the moment. Broad is also somewhat hit and miss so far. But.
6 batters in the first innings below double figures. (3 out of the top 6). 8 below 20. etc. etc. Last 6 wickets under 50 runs. When that occurs, the momentum moves to the opposition. It's not the bowling that will have cost us this one.
Cook's scores in the three innings so far - 3, 69, 3. Not good enough. I'm still a fan though.
Jennings - 8, 33, 0. Not good enough
Ballance - 20, 34, 27. Not good enough
Stokes - 56, 1, 0. Not good enough (but generally fine)
That's 4 out of the top 6 all below 30 average. That's nowhere near Test match good enough. As a team, we needed to be pushing 300 minimum in the first innings. Having a deficit of 130 was way too large.
6 batters in the first innings below double figures. (3 out of the top 6). 8 below 20. etc. etc. Last 6 wickets under 50 runs. When that occurs, the momentum moves to the opposition. It's not the bowling that will have cost us this one.
Cook's scores in the three innings so far - 3, 69, 3. Not good enough. I'm still a fan though.
Jennings - 8, 33, 0. Not good enough
Ballance - 20, 34, 27. Not good enough
Stokes - 56, 1, 0. Not good enough (but generally fine)
That's 4 out of the top 6 all below 30 average. That's nowhere near Test match good enough. As a team, we needed to be pushing 300 minimum in the first innings. Having a deficit of 130 was way too large.
- BWFC_Insane
- Immortal
- Posts: 38827
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm
Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet
Their 1st innings score was way too large. There was a bit of luck thrown in. Ball was swinging round day 2, day 1 the wind made batting a bit easier. But still. We didn't take wickets early on day 1 in good bowling conditions and suffered for it.Worthy4England wrote: ↑Mon Jul 17, 2017 9:48 amAbsolute tosh, with a little truth thrown in. Our bowling attack could be stronger, yes. Wood's bowling like a drain and Stokes isn't ripping up any trees at the moment. Broad is also somewhat hit and miss so far. But.
6 batters in the first innings below double figures. (3 out of the top 6). 8 below 20. etc. etc. Last 6 wickets under 50 runs. When that occurs, the momentum moves to the opposition. It's not the bowling that will have cost us this one.
Cook's scores in the three innings so far - 3, 69, 3. Not good enough. I'm still a fan though.
Jennings - 8, 33, 0. Not good enough
Ballance - 20, 34, 27. Not good enough
Stokes - 56, 1, 0. Not good enough (but generally fine)
That's 4 out of the top 6 all below 30 average. That's nowhere near Test match good enough. As a team, we needed to be pushing 300 minimum in the first innings. Having a deficit of 130 was way too large.
We need another opening batsman and possibly a number 3. Beyond that I'm relatively happy with our lineup.
Bowling wise, I think we're under par unless there is a lot in the wicket for Ali or the ball hoops round corners for Jimmy. We have no threatening pace. No real 4th bowler with reverse skills. Its all very average outside of Anderson and Broad - and they don't always bowl well - and they need some movement.
- Worthy4England
- Immortal
- Posts: 34734
- Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm
Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet
I don't disagree that there's problems in the bowling attack. I do disagree that their 1st innings score was way too large (whilst not disputing it could've been lower). They got to 194-4, we got to 148-4 (which is still +46 to them). Their tail wagged a bit - which ours does fairly regularly and ours singularly didn't. We can't keep relying on Moeen and lower to keep fishing us out of less than par top order scores (with exceptions for Root and Bairstow). We then get to 10 in front of their "for four" score and that's a problem with the bowling?
Don't get it.
Don't get it.
- TANGODANCER
- Immortal
- Posts: 44175
- Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 9:35 pm
- Location: Between the Bible, Regency and the Rubaiyat and forever trying to light penny candles from stars.
Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet
Okay Joe, here's what you do: Next man out, put the tail end in and tell them to do their best . Take some sting out of the Saffers bowlers with Broad, Jimmy and Mo, and then let the middle order in, then let yourself and Cookie and co bat on and win. Simple... 

Si Deus pro nobis, quis contra nos?
- Worthy4England
- Immortal
- Posts: 34734
- Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm
Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet
There's that bowling fcuking us up again.
- TANGODANCER
- Immortal
- Posts: 44175
- Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 9:35 pm
- Location: Between the Bible, Regency and the Rubaiyat and forever trying to light penny candles from stars.
Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet
Where are the Ian Bothams' and Freddie Fintoffs' when you need em? 

Si Deus pro nobis, quis contra nos?
- BWFC_Insane
- Immortal
- Posts: 38827
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm
Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet
You know last test how they crumbled when we had big scores on the board....well...
We're by no means a great batting side, but I maintain we do not carry enough wicket threat nor do we have very disciplined 3rd and 4th seamers. This means we are struggling to make things happen ourselves. We're reliant on conditions and the wicket. It is glaringly obvious that our attack is weak.
- Abdoulaye's Twin
- Legend
- Posts: 9718
- Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 1:27 pm
- Location: Skye high
Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet
Seems to me that we have several what I would term all rounders in the side rather than the old fashioned 1, with everyone else being specialised in bowling, batting or wicket keeping with varying ability at summat else. Maybe more specialised bowlers might help with the ball, though my argument slightly falls down when you look at the specialist batsmen!
- Worthy4England
- Immortal
- Posts: 34734
- Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm
Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet
205 all out.BWFC_Insane wrote: ↑Mon Jul 17, 2017 1:32 pmYou know last test how they crumbled when we had big scores on the board....well...
We're by no means a great batting side, but I maintain we do not carry enough wicket threat nor do we have very disciplined 3rd and 4th seamers. This means we are struggling to make things happen ourselves. We're reliant on conditions and the wicket. It is glaringly obvious that our attack is weak.
I don't disagree that our bowling could be improved. But that's like trying to solve the mobility issue with a support bandage for the arms, whilst not spotting the legs have fallen off.
- TANGODANCER
- Immortal
- Posts: 44175
- Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 9:35 pm
- Location: Between the Bible, Regency and the Rubaiyat and forever trying to light penny candles from stars.
Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet
Not sort of a good day at the office...to put it mildly...Athers reckons England are giving their wickets away.
Si Deus pro nobis, quis contra nos?
Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet
Utterly pathetic today. This side has been dreadful for 12 months when they're a bit up against it due to either scoreboard pressure or the fact that it's doing a bit. Absokutely brainless cricket with them unable to adapt to the situation in front of them. Just make the bloody bowlers work hard t get you out!!!
Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet
Look at Amla - one of the few batsmen left who is happy to graft all day. He's so bloody difficult to get out and it's that attitude that's made the difference
- Worthy4England
- Immortal
- Posts: 34734
- Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm
Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet
Quite. We have a team that's capable, on it's day of very quickly taking a game away from the opposition with the bat.
But there's a balance to be struck between that and people who can dig in when it's tough. We woefully short on the latter.
- BWFC_Insane
- Immortal
- Posts: 38827
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm
Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet
I'd agree. Well we're not short, it is just the digger ins are Ballance (lol) and Root.Worthy4England wrote: ↑Mon Jul 17, 2017 4:13 pmQuite. We have a team that's capable, on it's day of very quickly taking a game away from the opposition with the bat.
But there's a balance to be struck between that and people who can dig in when it's tough. We woefully short on the latter.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 33 guests