England at Headingley in the last 7 years

It's been one f*ck up after another. Against India in 2002, we bowled first in ideal conditions, bowled too short, and India ended up getting 600. Against South Africa in 2003, we had them on the ropes early, before letting them completely off the hook. Then we came off for bad light during a period when we had the Saffies on their knees. Upon resumption the Saffies regrouped and knowcked us over cheaply. 2004 was against the Kiwis. We won but it doesn't really count against such a shit side. I can't really remember 2006. I think we drew against Pakistan after they made close to 600? 2007- Darren Pattinson, whist bowling again- Complete f*ck up. Again. And now, complete, utter shit.

IMHO batting Broad at 7 is pure arrogance from the England management. There is no way Broad is an FC number 7, let alone a test match. Especially with Bell at 4 instead of KP. As you say, major f*ck up and they deserve to lose this match for picking that sort of side.

But Headingley is a curious ground. When we played there in 2007 (I think) the sun was out for the first 2 days and the ball hardly moved at all. Then 10 overs into our innings the clouds came over, the temperature went down and the ball swung all over the place with Sidebottom bowling like a demon.

That is one of the least enjoyable West Indies performances I have ever seen, which is saying something given how carp we are generally and given that we just lost to Bangladesh. Sylvester Joseph and Runako Morton versus the ball hooping about all over the place is not exactly a recipe for competitive cricket..............

Having said that I love the pitch in place for this match, it is fantastic to see such pace and bounce available for the fast bowlers. If I was in charge I would try my level best to make sure a lot of pitches around the World were just like this one.

England's best grounds these days are Edgbaston and The Oval.



Shit everywhere else.

Henry wrote:It's been one f*ck up after another. Against India in 2002, we bowled first in ideal conditions, bowled too short, and India ended up getting 600. Against South Africa in 2003, we had them on the ropes early, before letting them completely off the hook. Then we came off for bad light during a period when we had the Saffies on their knees. Upon resumption the Saffies regrouped and knowcked us over cheaply. 2004 was against the Kiwis. We won but it doesn't really count against such a shit side. I can't really remember 2006. I think we drew against Pakistan after they made close to 600? 2007- Darren Pattinson, whist bowling again- Complete f*ck up. Again. And now, complete, utter shit.

England beat Pakistan in 2006 by 167 despite Younis & youhana putting on 363 for the 3rd wicket. Both sides got 500+ in their first innings but Pakistan were bowled out for 155 in the 4th innings with Sajid Mahmood taking his Test best of 4-22. Darren Pattinson bowled last year when we lost to the Saffies and Vaughan packed it in. In 2006 we beat the Windies by an innings and 283 - our third largest margin of victory ever- with Vaughan making a ton and KP scoring his Test best of 226 but I suppose you would classify that with the defeat of the Kiwis.

Recent history at Headingley illustrates England overall - when they are good they are admirable, when they are bad, they're cr*p awful. More ominously, Headingley is the second luckiest ground in England for Australia after Lord's with 8 victories out of 23 games played (Lord's - 14 wins out of 34 played) with their last victory in 1997 (last of three consecutive victories) although no match was played there in 2005 (2001 saw Butcher making the winning knock in the last innings with 173*).

Allan D wrote:Recent history at Headingley illustrates England overall - when they are good they are admirable, when they are bad, they're cr*p awful.

Or when they're good, they're playing teams that aren't so good?

krikri wrote:

Allan D wrote:Recent history at Headingley illustrates England overall - when they are good they are admirable, when they are bad, they're cr*p awful.

Or when they're good, they're playing teams that aren't so good?

Possibly, although Pakistan was a good, if rather mercurial, side in 2006 and England can obviously play well when they want to as was shown at Lord's.

Apart from Yousuf and Younis, Pakistan were a pretty awful side in 2006.

Monty got them both out left, right and centre in 2006.

Yet they both averaged close to 100 in the series....

I didn't say he got them out cheaply.

WIFAN wrote:IMHO batting Broad at 7 is pure arrogance from the England management.

Incompetence.

They're not intelligent enough to be arrogant.

Dello wrote:

WIFAN wrote:IMHO batting Broad at 7 is pure arrogance from the England management.

Incompetence.

They're not intelligent enough to be arrogant.

More like stupidity when you're 1-0 up. I bet they were trying to look great by going for the 'positive' line-up.

Dello wrote:

WIFAN wrote:IMHO batting Broad at 7 is pure arrogance from the England management.

Incompetence.

They're not intelligent enough to be arrogant.

I see you rate the England management and selectors very highly then

They're only marginally more competent than your mob, and that's saying something! At least you guys have the excuse of inter island politics etc.

Henry wrote:They're only marginally more competent than your mob, and that's saying something! At least you guys have the excuse of inter island politics etc.

LOL your post is perfectly timed with my new topic about the WICBs latest bit of skulduggery (making Darren Sammy captain of a full strength squad). Now your selectors make some mistakes like hugely over-rating Stuart Broad and batting him at 7, and the ECB make some strange decisions like getting into bed with Stanford, but they cannot even be in the same league as the WICB.