Re: England vs Sri Lanka, 4th ODI, Trent Bridge, 6 July, 2011

by Brass Monkey Mon 04 Jul 2011, 22:02

It's his season, whichever way you want to look at it. "oh, how's Davies' season coming along? Well, 30.8 in the 40 over stuff. Hmmm. On belters? With fielding restrictions? Not the most compelling case a man has made for his selection."

There. I did the convo for yuh. That was Dusty Miller speaking to Sugar, his tranny alter-ego.

by Chivalry Augustus Mon 04 Jul 2011, 22:12

Oh yeah, real belters. Like the belter where Hampshire were bowled out for 141 and Surrey only scraped home by 4 wkts. The belter against Leicester where the two teams scored less than 400 runs between them for 18 wickets.

The only belter he has played on was at home to Hants. The other two games against Scotland he made a score, but they don't count. So yeah, apart from being wrong about pretty much everything you were factually correct.

I reckon the conversation went more like this:

"How do we make this England team better?"
"By playing less Englishmen?"
"Good point, let's call up Kieswetter and Dernbach to reduce our Englishman quota."

That's what really happened.

by Brass Monkey Mon 04 Jul 2011, 22:19

OK. I'll admit, I made a presumption on that one. You've caught me. You've won an electronic coupon for a beef chimichanga.

by Chivalry Augustus Mon 04 Jul 2011, 22:25

It's a deal if you'll pay postage for the internet.

by Brass Monkey Tue 05 Jul 2011, 00:27

Chivalry Augustus wrote:It's a deal if you'll pay postage for the internet.

REVOKED! He smashed the Jocks at the Oval for 96. 58 in his other four innings.

Hardly compelling.

by Brass Monkey Tue 05 Jul 2011, 19:07

I read a quote, I shouldn't read too much into things I know but this made me almost want to commit suicide:

Cook has also received the support of his Test captain, Andrew Strauss, who is keeping tabs on the one-day series from the sidelines before returning to the job for the Tests against India. Strauss wants the one-day side to be given more time to evolve before judgements are made, but has said he's always happy to offer advice.

"It's important to realise that at the end of the World Cup was the end of the cycle," Strauss said while sitting on a panel at the MCC Spirit of Cricket Lecture. "Post World Cup was the start of a new cycle and therefore it was wrong to expect the England team to suddenly be the best in the world.

"There's a lot of hard work necessary. Alastair Cook and Andy Flower have a fairly blank canvas from which to move forward. It's going to take time and hard work. We'll have good days and bad days, but over time we'll get better. I'm very confident that will happen. I'll help out any way I can."

More time to evolve? Are you kidding me? Loads of the team have played over 50 ODIs FFS! That's loads!

End of the World Cup, end of the cycle? Are you kidding me? We're talking a change in personnel of three you qunt!

Start of the new cycle? Are you kidding me? Most of these qunts played in the WC, that's most likely why we were gashtastic!

Blank canvas? See whinges 1, 2 and 3. It's more like a canvas that Tracy Emin's smeared sh!t on and called it art.

Partyline-toeing Captain Negative being a positive wanker.

F*ck!

by The One Tue 05 Jul 2011, 19:09

the cycle? is this like the anderson cycle? thing is it works in only one mode from one world cup to the next

by LeFromage Tue 05 Jul 2011, 19:28

Brass Monkey wrote:I read a quote, I shouldn't read too much into things I know but this made me almost want to commit suicide:

Cook has also received the support of his Test captain, Andrew Strauss, who is keeping tabs on the one-day series from the sidelines before returning to the job for the Tests against India. Strauss wants the one-day side to be given more time to evolve before judgements are made, but has said he's always happy to offer advice.

"It's important to realise that at the end of the World Cup was the end of the cycle," Strauss said while sitting on a panel at the MCC Spirit of Cricket Lecture. "Post World Cup was the start of a new cycle and therefore it was wrong to expect the England team to suddenly be the best in the world.

"There's a lot of hard work necessary. Alastair Cook and Andy Flower have a fairly blank canvas from which to move forward. It's going to take time and hard work. We'll have good days and bad days, but over time we'll get better. I'm very confident that will happen. I'll help out any way I can."

More time to evolve? Are you kidding me? Loads of the team have played over 50 ODIs FFS! That's loads!

End of the World Cup, end of the cycle? Are you kidding me? We're talking a change in personnel of three you qunt!

Start of the new cycle? Are you kidding me? Most of these qunts played in the WC, that's most likely why we were gashtastic!

Blank canvas? See whinges 1, 2 and 3. It's more like a canvas that Tracy Emin's smeared sh!t on and called it art.

Partyline-toeing Captain Negative being a positive wanker.

F*ck!

A blank canvas of not a single player who hadn't already been involved in the ODI set up?

The frustrating thing is no-one ever calls out this bullsh!t. The Flaming Bails is the lone voice of dissension in the media ranks. And we're not even in the media ranks.

New cycle? It's the just the old cycle but someone has wiped around the saddle with a paper towel.

by Brass Monkey Tue 05 Jul 2011, 19:29

The One wrote:the cycle? is this like the anderson cycle? thing is it works in only one mode from one world cup to the next

Like the England management are analytical enough to know about any cycle. They're just picking random words out of a book and piecing them together.

by Brass Monkey Tue 05 Jul 2011, 19:37

Dello wrote:The frustrating thing is no-one ever calls out this bullsh!t. The Flaming Bails is the lone voice of dissension in the media ranks. And we're not even in the media ranks.

Aye, I just cannot get it. I'm dumbfounded. I mean, nowadays I sound like some utter twat stats-hound, throwing them in like coins in a fountain. It's just that they're so incredibly bad that they need highlighting. And no-one can see it. They're all as blissfully clueless as the management. I've been racking my brains to think what it can be. The only thing I can come up with is that they don't watch any cricket apart from the England games.

by JKLever Tue 05 Jul 2011, 20:48

Yeah but if we pick several players who have all failed before but jiggle up the order a bit it'll shurely work, what?

by beamer Tue 05 Jul 2011, 20:56

Mark Butcher had it spot on in his comment that we're short of impact players and game changers. There's no strike bowlers, and we've got three batsmen who are in great form in Test cricket but are never going to get that momentum-changing 18 off an over, they'll tick along at a run a ball at best. You can afford maybe two batsmen like that in a team, the rest have to be able to find the boundary on a regular basis.

Cook's the captain so is staying for the foreseeable future, no problem with that in principle but it should mean a choice between Trott and Bell, not both. Bowling's a harder one to solve but probably worth going for two spinners and some raw pace.

by LeFromage Tue 05 Jul 2011, 21:00

Brass Monkey wrote:
Dello wrote:The frustrating thing is no-one ever calls out this bullsh!t. The Flaming Bails is the lone voice of dissension in the media ranks. And we're not even in the media ranks.

Aye, I just cannot get it. I'm dumbfounded. I mean, nowadays I sound like some utter twat stats-hound, throwing them in like coins in a fountain. It's just that they're so incredibly bad that they need highlighting. And no-one can see it. They're all as blissfully clueless as the management. I've been racking my brains to think what it can be. The only thing I can come up with is that they don't watch any cricket apart from the England games.

But even then, they'd be able to measure the quality of performance from one player against the next. Or an opposition player.

It's quite baffling how anyone can watch Malinga spearing in fast yorkers, and make approving noises, only to then watch T-Bres lumber in and open the pie shop and suggest "England look a much better side with him back in it" or describe Stuart Broad the "the enforcer".

by LeFromage Tue 05 Jul 2011, 21:01

JKLever wrote:Yeah but if we pick several players who have all failed before but jiggle up the order a bit it'll shurely work, what?

The only media debate at the moment is about the order. We need to get Ian Bell up the order, apparently. He's in the form of his life.

Deck-chairs. Titanic. Heart will go on. Sploosh.

by JKLever Tue 05 Jul 2011, 21:08

You know, the batting really doesn't bother me half as much as the bowling.

Some of the scores that England have put on the board, would be capable of being defended by a decent bowling outfit and i'm pretty sure England wouldn't have got half of them.

We just totally lack wicket taking options in one day cricket unless it is swinging. And none of the qunts want to bowl a yorker, it's all slower ball shiz.

by beamer Tue 05 Jul 2011, 21:15

The batting is more frustrating because it should be easier to solve. Don't play Cook, Trott and Bell in the same top 6, and try out another player or two who can clear the ropes, what is there to lose really? As I've said before there's not too much that stands out in the bowling options, there's no Malingas shouting out to be picked in county cricket.

by Basil Tue 05 Jul 2011, 21:21

I don't think we can have Cook and Trott in the top 3, never mind them and Bell in the top 6.

With a heavy heart, I would drop Trott and have KP and Bell at three and four. Somewhere along the line though, we have to try to bring Hales into the side as well as Ben Stokes - possibly in place of Bresnan.

For a long shot, maybe Meaker is worth looking at

by doremi Tue 05 Jul 2011, 21:27

Good test players will make the transition to being good ODI players. So, I think Cook and Trott should be in there. I haven't watched too much of the Belf to have an opinion either way. But I think that England have a good enough batting line-up which should work with a few minor changes. I'd keep Cook, Trott, Pietersen and Morgan and work with the other two, one of which may/may not be Bell.

by LeFromage Tue 05 Jul 2011, 21:31

How long does that transitional period take, dorrie? Ian Bell's played 100 ODIs.

Does he need another 100 to "bed in"?

by doremi Tue 05 Jul 2011, 21:38

As I said, I haven't watched enough of the Belf to have an opinion on whether he's a good test player (he plays some classy effortless shots sometimes though). And if he is a good test player, he's made that transition less than 6 months ago. I'd give it time, if I thought he was good enough.

The way I look at it, 50 over cricket is not that different from tests as far as the batting is concerned. You do need people who can stay there and score big, just a bit faster. Quick 20's/30's only work for top order batsmen in the 20 over game.

by Brass Monkey Tue 05 Jul 2011, 21:53

JKLever wrote:Some of the scores that England have put on the board, would be capable of being defended by a decent bowling outfit and i'm pretty sure England wouldn't have got half of them.

I reckon that these scores we've been getting have been the sort of scores we'd have got 8 years ago. It's just that we were more likely to defend them than we are now.

by Brass Monkey Tue 05 Jul 2011, 22:01

doremi wrote:I want to see Ian Bell in arseless chaps ride it like pony

The last 6 months? Sort of the start of this year? Well:

17 innings, 476 runs at an average of 28.00 with a strike rate 74.84. Mainly on good batting wickets. A lot of the time batting in powerplays. Played Bangla. Played Holland. Played Ireland.

He is in the form of his life™, though.

by beamer Tue 05 Jul 2011, 22:08

doremi wrote:As I said, I haven't watched enough of the Belf to have an opinion on whether he's a good test player (he plays some classy effortless shots sometimes though). And if he is a good test player, he's made that transition less than 6 months ago. I'd give it time, if I thought he was good enough.

The way I look at it, 50 over cricket is not that different from tests as far as the batting is concerned. You do need people who can stay there and score big, just a bit faster. Quick 20's/30's only work for top order batsmen in the 20 over game.

You need unorthodox shots to score quickly in one-day cricket. The sort of shots these players make their runs with in Tests tend to just pick out the fielder in the white ball game. It's not just about power, if you don't have that you can learn to improvise, but it seems these England batsmen aren't even capable of doing that. Just play the same front foot drives for no run most of the time, the odd one gets through the field, strike rate of 70 or 80, easy to bowl at. Frustration grows and they chip one to cover or run themselves out.

by Gary 111 Tue 05 Jul 2011, 22:14

JKLever wrote:You know, the batting really doesn't bother me half as much as the bowling.

Some of the scores that England have put on the board, would be capable of being defended by a decent bowling outfit and i'm pretty sure England wouldn't have got half of them.

We just totally lack wicket taking options in one day cricket unless it is swinging. And none of the qunts want to bowl a yorker, it's all slower ball shiz.

This is a good point. I think its partly a selection problem - but also to do with England's mindset. The only bowler with a bit of adventure is Swann.

It reminds me of when Mark Ealham used to play - and he'd shuffle through 10 overs for 40 runs more often than not, but unless we were playing the Zimboks the batsmen would just milk him, not lose any wickets and as a consequence the death bowlers would always get hit out of the park because the oppo always had 7 or 8 wickets in hand.

by Gary 111 Tue 05 Jul 2011, 22:15

Out of interest who would people say are our best strike bowlers on the county scene? (even if they go round the park)

by Sponsored content