Presumably they feel they're behind in the game having failed to score 500 on the first day.Brainless mode activated
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Cricket] Cricket- 3rd Test, Oval, September 6th-10th, 2024, Sri Lanka tour of England
- Thread starter Eeyore
- Start date
Pathetic morning of Test cricket from England.
Arrogant and complacent.
They’ll probably still go on to win this match comfortably - but it’s such poor cricket. Take that attitude in a couple of sessions in Australia and that’s the Ashes gone.
Anderson apparently had to be cast aside whilst still performing well, because it’s all about looking forward to tougher challenges ahead. Well how about that applies to concentration, match craft and application, too.
Arrogant and complacent.
They’ll probably still go on to win this match comfortably - but it’s such poor cricket. Take that attitude in a couple of sessions in Australia and that’s the Ashes gone.
Anderson apparently had to be cast aside whilst still performing well, because it’s all about looking forward to tougher challenges ahead. Well how about that applies to concentration, match craft and application, too.
- Apr 5, 2014
- 26,343
- Thread starter
- #43
Thinking about Josh Hull, I do feel left armers automatically enter Test cricket at a disadvantage. How many left armers have been successful at the highest level without a particular attribute ? Wasim was very quick and the pioneer of reverse swing, Vaas had qualities but was not a 'great'. Johnson bowled extreme pace on those Australian pitches. I never saw Alan Davidson bowl. Apart from that it's spinners.
So bowling at 80 odd miles mph, I'm interested to know what England have seen.
So bowling at 80 odd miles mph, I'm interested to know what England have seen.
Going back a bit, but Bill Voce was probably England's best non-Larwood seamer in the 30s, based largely on being tall, left handed and fastish. We should have won the Ashes down there in 36 if he hadn't played while crocked in the third match.
Yes I was reading a biography of Larwood the other day. I highly recommend it.
Sidebottom had a good record for England and probably should have played more. In another time where Harmison, Hoggard, Anderson etc. weren't all hanging around wanting the new ball he would have done.
I might come across as defensive of this team sometimes, but I completely agree with this. Going back to last season's ashes series, with just a bit more discipline in the first two matches they could and should have won that series 4-0.
- Apr 5, 2014
- 26,343
- Thread starter
- #46
I think one of the disadvantages that left armers face is that there is so much more to get right. Most bowlers will want to come over the wicket, yet most batsman are right handed. So a left armer has so many more angles to work.
Hodgson would have made a better job of that (non) catch than Hull did
What a very average quality day of cricket.
This is something that, many years ago, I was reasonably good at. You either have to be able to swing the ball (I couldn't, having a wrist position so crap that people regularly thought I was bowling chinaman) or use the crease. If you can do either of those it's great and it opens up a whole world of possibilities that aren't really there for the right armer. If you're not good at it the angle naturally opens up for you to get flayed through cover as you pitch it up because a) you can't bowl length on a lot of club wickets because there's no bounce and b) you're not getting tight enough to the stumps and there's no risk for the batter putting their pad across .
This isn't helped by the umpires at club level being, for the most part, ancient arseholes who can't or won't grasp that you need to get tight into the stumps and will willfully stand right up close to them so you can't bowl from close enough over the wicket to be effective. Yes I am still bitter about this.
What a weird day’s play
Very glad I turned over to the football.
I hated facing fast left arm over that could swing it to leg when I played but that was because I was shit. Test players don’t seem to have any problem with it.
Hull’s first spell looked innocuous, predictable and every bit a bowling average of 64. No idea what happened after.
I hated facing fast left arm over that could swing it to leg when I played but that was because I was shit. Test players don’t seem to have any problem with it.
Hull’s first spell looked innocuous, predictable and every bit a bowling average of 64. No idea what happened after.
I've just been catching up after spending the day at a beer festival.
Based on the cricinfo commentary (and I'm happy to be corrected if England's spinners were more threatening than it seems) the last session was a crock of shite. I know they got some stick for not staying out there in the previous test, but that was nonsense then and it's nonsense now when everybody knows England's main threat in these conditions is the seamers, even if we ignore Hull completely.
Well, what do I know?
Machiavelli
Well-known member
Yes, seems like the condition of play continuing was that England needed to bowl spin. I was there on Friday. The umpires wanted to take the players off at the earliest opportunity. No idea it took them half an hour to come back on for that delayed afternoon session.
Test cricket really doesn't help itself at times.
Soton Seagull
Well-known member
Peacehaven Wild Kids
Well-known member
With little or no rain expected tomorrow, I’ve freed myself up and put plans in place to go up there expecting to pick up a ticket for a tenner or so, what with it being day 5….
…..doh!!
(i’m not paying £85)
…..doh!!
(i’m not paying £85)
- Apr 5, 2014
- 26,343
- Thread starter
- #58
It's London and it's Surrey. Most noticeable how prices vary between venues for tickets too. Pretty sure one venue charged £65 for a decent seat and Lords over £100. Not sure about Slurry charge.