Remove this Banner Ad

Cricket things that annoy you

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Can’t be bothered going back further because ball-by-ball records were more scant but in Richards’ last 10 centuries, only one came at a strike rate below 75, three of them came at a strike rate above 95 and 1 came at a strike rate approaching 200.

Not really sure anyone recent needs to be laying claim to having invented quick scoring at a high average. That’s without addressing Bradman who didn’t seem to have an issue with doing both.

I can't remember the test but Don was held back in the order because the wicket was wet, it dried out and he got out there and belted it everywhere apparently (I"m sure someone here has heard of it)
 
I can't remember the test but Don was held back in the order because the wicket was wet, it dried out and he got out there and belted it everywhere apparently (I"m sure someone here has heard of it)

He opened with Chuck Fleetwood-Smith from memory: the quote went something along the lines of ‘Chuck, you couldn’t edge the ball if it was straight up and down, there’s no way you’ll be able to nick one on that thing.’
 
I think it's pretty safe to safe that England have definitely revolutionized they way THEY play test cricket. Whether they have passed or failed is a different question.

While there's the odd outlier of extremely talented, aggressive batsmen, they are somewhat generational in their ability to maintain it.

I feel like Brook definitely has the potential to one of those. At 26 with an average above 55 and a SR of 90~ he has the perfect platform to combine cricket intelligence with pure striking power, an array of shots, class, and confidence.

I'm sure he would be very disappointed with the way he got out in the second innings - not only the shot selection but the match situation as well. If he comes out at 3/80 on the first innings and nicks off like that then he gets a pass. It's easy to sit back and say this and that, and we all do it. Regardless of the way my team plays or who is at the crease, a collapse like that is inexcusable and people will start questioning things - especially in an ashes test. I also really like what I see from Smith, he looks genuinely dangerous. Pope looks solid again, as does Duckett who has clearly worked on his front foot work - he played some beautiful drives. We also saw what their bowlers can do in the first innings. They have the talent.

Also, we truly don't know how they are internally reacting to the test. I really doubt (or hope), from a neutral perspective, that they are blindly and unwaiveringly doubling down behind closed doors. Just reign it in slightly and you have pure aggression, intent, AND the ability to adjust when needed - that's then they go from a top 3 test side to potentially dominating for a few years. I believe they have the talent - McCullum is right when he says technical ability is only an entry point.

Either way, that was a fantastic test to watch. I'd take that from a viewers perspective almost every time. Looking at it as a test pursuit, obviously we want 4-5 cricket that goes down to the wire, but that is a rarity these days - as is a 2 day thriller.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

I get that the current England players can't just go out and soak up 100+ balls for 20 or 30, I don't think anyone expects that. But surely playing test cricket you have the ability to change gears and control yourself slightly? Why do they feel they NEED to always go at 5+ an over?

Risk reward etc but against world class attacks away from home it's going to backfire more often than not. It's not even on the players, it's the coaching staff that have ingrained this style of play in them so deeply. Duckett, Pope, Root, Stokes, Smith, even Brook have the technical ability to leave or defend until they get their eye in, at the very least 15 balls. There's being proactive and then there's just throwing wickets away.

When they are in control of a match and the only way they can possibly lose is to ignore the state of the game, blindly double down on their philosophy and self-explode - then to not take any accountability or perhaps look at altering things slightly. Well that's more arrogance and head in the sand than anything.

I like the way they play at times, but yesterday wasn't one of those times to play that style. The fact they appear to have no plan B to consolidate a strong position while minimising the risk, is entirely on the coaching staff. Their media are rightfully getting stuck in to them.
Nothing to do with the Coaching Staff at all. This team has been SELECTED because the players have the attacking traits that they want.

It’s the reason Crawley is persisted with.

It is the reason Foakes was jettisoned. (Smith is a very good player but nowhere close to the keeper Foakes is)

It is the reason they refuse to engage with anyone who suggests things like you have done above.

Despite what everyone seems to think this is a cult of the mind. Baz is more mad Psychologist than coach.

When it inevitably blows up it will have left untold damage because aside from maybe Brook, Duckett and Smith the rest will all be gone and I’ve no idea who will take their place.

No technical coaching required here.
 
The fact that every boring ex cricketer and dumb **** journo seem to have their own cricket podcast these days. Talk about over saturation.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Excellent point.

No doubt spectacular innings such as Stokes and Head's are (probably) more easily remembered

But as a cricket traditionalist, there's nothing better than seeing a batsman grind out a long hard innings to win your side a test match

Du Plessis 4th innings epic to force the draw in Adelaide - on debut no less :hearteyes:
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Cricket things that annoy you

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top