Re: England v New Zealand, 1st Test, Lord's, 21-25 May 2015

by Merlin Tue 26 May 2015, 07:34

Lindsay no.2 wrote:
Merlin wrote:@ vilks - where were you seated? Tavern?

Great day again at Lord's ... AND a full house !
Three excellent days cricket - Chef earned his spurs finally.
Great captaincy, bowling changes and tight fielding... Moeen's catch as an example (10/15 yards from where I was sitting) - would've put money on him not making up the ground ... but wow ... brilliant!
The Kiwis played their part - throughout except for the last 2 sessions ...
Excellent win from England ... now going to lie down ... exhausted!

And so to this little gem posted last night ...

Shambles of a pitch, though, as per usual. I wouldn't feel safe with a 400 lead.
Disgraceful that Lord's can keep on producing such shirt fronts without reproach and
they get TWO Tests per year. Absolute qunts.

The wicket had pace, even bounce, turn (swing at times) ...played perfectly!
1,610 runs scored over 5 days...
40 wickets taken....
Excellent outfield conditions....
A result with 9 overs remaining.

WTF more were you expecting from those guys you so glibly call 'qunts', Brassy Monkeh ?!

FFS

Awww Merlin.

And there we were all getting along nicely and kind of basking in the afterglow of a lovely and surprisingly good start to the summer. It's like we just had wonderful sex and were all unguarded, happy and snuggly and then you went and brought up the fact that we still haven't creosoted the garden fence.

You just wouldn't let it lie would you. Eh? Eh? :-)

The trust has gone now. It'll take a lot to re-build it but if we all try then we can do it. How about we offer you the position of consultant onto the titling of the threads on the forum. It's the only way we can re-build the trust. You know - trust, it's a two way thing. I'm not saying it's all your fault, 'cos others are responsible too. But I'm mainly saying it's your fault. I'd like to trust you again - but I don't know if I can. I don't want to be hurt again.

Yours trustingly,

A.Strauss (henceforth to be known as The Real Special One).

There's not much wrong with some decent banter, Johan ol' son!
However, point taken ... and will try hard to observe the two way street!

Signed.

K.Pietersen
The (non) Chosen One.

by Red Tue 26 May 2015, 09:25

Exciting test - bit of a reality check perhaps for the kiwis and a chance to start afresh from an England team which is partly rebuilding with some old blood to complement the youngsters.

by skully Tue 26 May 2015, 10:15

So Belf is safe because England won? What about Lyth?

by Brass Monkey Tue 26 May 2015, 10:33

Well, aren't the media just going ballistic? Corblimey. Ballistic. Memories of 3 weeks ago are eradicated completely. Go England!

by taipan Tue 26 May 2015, 10:36

Brass Monkey wrote:Well, aren't the media just going ballistic? Corblimey. Ballistic. Memories of 3 weeks ago are eradicated completely. Go England!

You churlish oaf, you.

by PeterCS Tue 26 May 2015, 10:46

skully wrote:So Belf is safe because England won? What about Lyth?

Generally speaking - unless they fall apart completely, or are standing in for a last-minute withdrawal - if you give them one Test, you've got to give them at least two.

Not sure if that's the way they're thinking, or that's the way they think, but I think it's a generally sound policy.

Bell's a different matter. He occasionally turns it on. And has certainly won the odd match. (Was considerably instrumental in the Test England won in the WIndies, just as his pair was part of their bad loss in the final Test.) But so often flatters ("easy on the eye" as the cliche' has it) only to deceive. FWIW, my view was above. He should be required to step up to #3 at this stage, and accept a role of senior responsibility in the team more generally, or else accept that his career is in question.

by taipan Tue 26 May 2015, 10:52

skully wrote:So Belf is safe because England won? What about Lyth?

Knowing England Root will be moved to 4 to protect Bell at 5.

by Henry Tue 26 May 2015, 10:52

horace wrote:...and congrats to the Poms

I rest my case on my long term support of Stokes...scrinch up your undies Mudge, Danny et al

I'm not sure I've ever doubted his ability?

by PeterCS Tue 26 May 2015, 10:54

Brass Monkey wrote:Well, aren't the media just going ballistic? Corblimey. Ballistic. Memories of 3 weeks ago are eradicated completely. Go England!

Everybody loves a winner. Not least the Tory press in a time of "their own" government and plucky national embattlement on several fronts. Very Happy

(Scotland, the EU question, foodbanks, benefits instead of living wages, and still tightened belts of a majority.)

Was watching a TV programme on Churchill and the 1945 election last night. Remarkable in several respects. Shocked

by WideWally Tue 26 May 2015, 11:17

PeterCS wrote:
skully wrote:So Belf is safe because England won? What about Lyth?

Generally speaking - unless they fall apart completely, or are standing in for a last-minute withdrawal - if you give them one Test, you've got to give them at least two.

Not sure if that's the way they're thinking, or that's the way they think, but I think it's a generally sound policy.

Bell's a different matter. He occasionally turns it on. And has certainly won the odd match. (Was considerably instrumental in the Test England won in the WIndies, just as his pair was part of their bad loss in the final Test.) But so often flatters ("easy on the eye" as the cliche' has it) only to deceive. FWIW, my view was above. He should be required to step up to #3 at this stage, and accept a role of senior responsibility in the team more generally, or else accept that his career is in question.

.... and how many runs did Bell make in the Test England won in the WIndies?

by Brass Monkey Tue 26 May 2015, 11:22

Henry wrote:
horace wrote:...and congrats to the Poms

I rest my case on my long term support of Stokes...scrinch up your undies Mudge, Danny et al

I'm not sure I've ever doubted his ability?

Nor have I. However, an awful run with the bat plus the fact he's completely tonkalicious with the ball led me to think that he wasn't particularly missed in the world cup and that he's not your third seamer at the minute... Both opinions I still maintain and will continue to maintain.

by PeterCS Tue 26 May 2015, 12:03

WideWally wrote:
PeterCS wrote:
skully wrote:So Belf is safe because England won? What about Lyth?

Generally speaking - unless they fall apart completely, or are standing in for a last-minute withdrawal - if you give them one Test, you've got to give them at least two.

Not sure if that's the way they're thinking, or that's the way they think, but I think it's a generally sound policy.

Bell's a different matter. He occasionally turns it on. And has certainly won the odd match. (Was considerably instrumental in the Test England won in the WIndies, just as his pair was part of their bad loss in the final Test.) But so often flatters ("easy on the eye" as the cliche' has it) only to deceive. FWIW, my view was above. He should be required to step up to #3 at this stage, and accept a role of senior responsibility in the team more generally, or else accept that his career is in question.

.... and how many runs did Bell make in the Test England won in the WIndies?

Ah, touche'. My memory played me tricks. Twas in the drawn First Test he knocked the ton.

So I suppose tests 2090 and 2091 are the last times he made a decisive input. He'd better buck his ideas up even more - instead of looking for reassurances all the time.

by PeterCS Tue 26 May 2015, 12:07

Brass Monkey wrote:
Henry wrote:
horace wrote:...and congrats to the Poms

I rest my case on my long term support of Stokes...scrinch up your undies Mudge, Danny et al

I'm not sure I've ever doubted his ability?

Nor have I. However, an awful run with the bat plus the fact he's completely tonkalicious with the ball led me to think that he wasn't particularly missed in the world cup and that he's not your third seamer at the minute... Both opinions I still maintain and will continue to maintain.

A bit of Merlin rectitude rubbing off on you at the last, Monkehh?

I thought his present role was *fourth* seamer, with (mainly) a licence to go for runs with the willow? Time will (soon) tell, but that might be his nitch.

At least the dressing room locker was spared this time.

by Brass Monkey Tue 26 May 2015, 12:30

PeterCS wrote:
Brass Monkey wrote:
Henry wrote:
horace wrote:...and congrats to the Poms

I rest my case on my long term support of Stokes...scrinch up your undies Mudge, Danny et al

I'm not sure I've ever doubted his ability?

Nor have I. However, an awful run with the bat plus the fact he's completely tonkalicious with the ball led me to think that he wasn't particularly missed in the world cup and that he's not your third seamer at the minute... Both opinions I still maintain and will continue to maintain.

A bit of Merlin rectitude rubbing off on you at the last, Monkehh?

I thought his present role was *fourth* seamer, with (mainly) a licence to go for runs with the willow? Time will (soon) tell, but that might be his nitch.

At least the dressing room locker was spared this time.

Uhhhh, yes he is the fourth seamer. I've never said he wasn't. But people were touting him as being part of three, when I was objecting. If he is the fourth seamer, he's got to be worth his salt with the bat, which I'm sure you'd agree that he wasn't until the Caribbean. Can't believe I'm having to dust off his stats, but here we go... last year:

0, 5, 4, 0, 0, 0, 0, 23, 2, 33*, 16, 6

So, he wasn't worth a fourth seamer place if he couldn't bat.

In the same time frame, his bowling stats were (ODI) 6+ rpo & Tests:

0/13, 0/54, 3/47, 0/36, 0/28, 0/21 & in Tests 2/81, 0/60, 2/40, 3/51, 0/64, 0/50, 1/66, 0/34....

So, as I said - potential - but has to start realising it. Not particularly missed at the WC........

by PeterCS Tue 26 May 2015, 12:36

I agree with all of that.

It's easy to put the boot in and say "What idiocy leaving him out of the WC!" ... in retrospect. They did give him every opportunity, it seems.

by Brass Monkey Tue 26 May 2015, 13:08

PeterCS wrote:I agree with all of that.

It's easy to put the boot in and say "What idiocy leaving him out of the WC!" ... in retrospect. They did give him every opportunity, it seems.

You could hear the hyperbole build throughout his 2nd innings, to orgasmic levels by the end of it.

That's it for him, I'm afraid: can biff it? wang it down the other end? = TNB. He's now TNB. TNF to the younger viewers out there.

Heaven help him if his Ashes campaign is a good one.

Until this match all anyone would ever refer to is the Perth match. The whole thing is dangerous to him - dangerous to his progression.

It's already all anyone is talking about. Even Mike Atherton is. I'd almost prefer him to not score runs and take wickets in the next game just to keep his feet on the ground.

by PeterCS Tue 26 May 2015, 13:18

Even better would be a more modest contribution to a solid team win, against what is a very decent opposition - with a few others around him making a better impression. Not least at #2-4.

We don't want bipolar disorders becoming another national ailment.

A 45 and a nippy 25, with a couple of wickets - less expensively - each innings. Would be perfect.

by Brass Monkey Tue 26 May 2015, 13:21

In the end, it's futile. He's still going to be a TN from now on.

by Guest Tue 26 May 2015, 13:33

Yeah he is already TNB, no matter how he performs.

If we get anything like a TNF would be good but hopefully the pressure doesn't give us a TNI.

by PeterCS Tue 26 May 2015, 13:36

TNCL (with sunburnt bald head and sunstroke)?

by Guest Tue 26 May 2015, 17:04

Incidentally, did anyone catch what Nass had to say about the difference between Botham and Flintoff?

"Flintoff had one great series, Botham had a great career".

Couldn't believe it, Flintoff was f*cking brilliant for a number of years and was far more than just "one great series". Wanted to punch him for that bit of revisionism.

by PeterCS Tue 26 May 2015, 17:14

A suggestion of camp formations.

by beamer Tue 26 May 2015, 18:21

vilkrang wrote:Incidentally, did anyone catch what Nass had to say about the difference between Botham and Flintoff?

"Flintoff had one great series, Botham had a great career".

Couldn't believe it, Flintoff was f*cking brilliant for a number of years and was far more than just "one great series". Wanted to punch him for that bit of revisionism.

Yeah, his overall stats aren't spectacular and he went from a "batsman who bowls" to a "bowler who barely bats" with only a couple of years (2004-05) when he was really firing with both disciplines. But for those two years he was genuine world class, and he changed the course of plenty of Tests right down to that decisive Drunky run-out in his final Test, so deserves to be rated above many players with more eye-catching averages. Anyway, Botham was pretty ordinary for the second half of his career as well, as injuries and off the field issues took their toll.

Perhaps one of Nasser's biggest failings as captain was not unleashing Freddie's full potential with the ball, and using him as a negative stock bowler. He rarely ran through a side but if you needed to make something happen with the old ball he was the man, and Vaughan certainly made the most of that.

by Basil Tue 26 May 2015, 18:27

I think Nass's memory is letting him down, Beefy was running on empty for the couple of his of his international career, and he never actually scored the volume of runs that his talent demanded.

by beamer Tue 26 May 2015, 18:43

His batting average is only 2 runs above Flintoff's, though with a massively higher century count, which suggests a high proportion of failures. You shouldn't be averaging 33 with 14 tons to your name.

by Sponsored content