1st Test: West Indies v England

Status
Not open for further replies.
johnson said:
You are just the most negative poster I've ever seen.

Why do you follow cricket you get absolutely no enjoyment from it. Idiot.



Grow up mate
Click to expand...
Logon or register to see this image


Icarebecauseyoudo said:
Controlling one end?

Reminded me of what Boycs said. Only score two an over off the shit spinner and make sure he stays on all day
Click to expand...

Second innings they didn't need to score runs, just stay in. Cook is so consumed by fear of failure he sets up the team to keep runs down, not take wickets. Maiden after maiden from Tredders is considered success.

Seem to remember Jimmy throwing a huff when Cook moved his gully to square leg to save runs. Cook then takes him off next over...
 
Last edited:


Extremely poor performance from England. They had plenty of overs to bowl WI out and never really looked capable. As I've already said, most of the 7 wickets that did fall were gifts.

The pitch was good but the bowlers weren't exactly left with nothing - the ball swung or reverse swung for most of the innings and offered some spin throughout. The fact is that England were shit and wouldn't have even threatened to win had WI not thrown wickets away. God knows what might have happened had WI actually fielded a full strength team.

Even if they are going to get the pitch as an excuse (which they shouldn't) - they knew what they would have to bowl on. Why, in light of that and with a significant lead on first innings, is it taking Ballance 250 balls to score a ton? I appreciate that it's counter-intuitive to have a dig at someone who's scored a hundred, but that has to be looked at as another example of England's shit, conservative cricket.
 
Sweeper said:
Extremely poor performance from England. They had plenty of overs to bowl WI out and never really looked capable. As I've already said, most of the 7 wickets that did fall were gifts.

The pitch was good but the bowlers weren't exactly left with nothing - the ball swung or reverse swung for most of the innings and offered some spin throughout. The fact is that England were shit and wouldn't have even threatened to win had WI not thrown wickets away. God knows what might have happened had WI actually fielded a full strength team.

Even if they are going to get the pitch as an excuse (which they shouldn't) - they knew what they would have to bowl on. Why, in light of that and with a significant lead on first innings, is it taking Ballance 250 balls to score a ton? I appreciate that it's counter-intuitive to have a dig at someone who's scored a hundred, but that has to be looked at as another example of England's shit, conservative cricket.
Click to expand...

They didnt trouble the batsman for most of the game, Reckon I could have survived the last hour it was that easy
 
Lot of windies fans going mad over here, saying this is not West Indies cricket would rather see them attacking the bowling then staying in for the draw.

Having said that brilliant to watch the game with proper cricket fans.
 
Keith S30S said:
I think he must have smoked them all off the way they're licking his arse. He shouldn't be even on the trip but he's done OK.

However, he can't bat and the Aussies will murder him.
Click to expand...
He averages 20 odd in first class cricket and has more tons an 50s than broad has.
 
smoker said:
Logon or register to see this image




Second innings they didn't need to score runs, just stay in. Cook is so consumed by fear of failure he sets up the team to keep runs down, not take wickets. Maiden after maiden from Tredders is considered success.

Seem to remember Jimmy throwing a huff when Cook moved his gully to square leg to save runs. Cook then takes him off next over...
Click to expand...
Anderson wanted a slip moved to cover in the first over to save singles and Cook said no to him.

Sweeper said:
Extremely poor performance from England. They had plenty of overs to bowl WI out and never really looked capable. As I've already said, most of the 7 wickets that did fall were gifts.

The pitch was good but the bowlers weren't exactly left with nothing - the ball swung or reverse swung for most of the innings and offered some spin throughout. The fact is that England were shit and wouldn't have even threatened to win had WI not thrown wickets away. God knows what might have happened had WI actually fielded a full strength team.

Even if they are going to get the pitch as an excuse (which they shouldn't) - they knew what they would have to bowl on. Why, in light of that and with a significant lead on first innings, is it taking Ballance 250 balls to score a ton? I appreciate that it's counter-intuitive to have a dig at someone who's scored a hundred, but that has to be looked at as another example of England's shit, conservative cricket.
Click to expand...
Ballance had to play the situation, we lost 3 early wickets (again) and Taylor was bowling beautifully at the start of the innings.
 
Sweeper said:
Extremely poor performance from England. They had plenty of overs to bowl WI out and never really looked capable. As I've already said, most of the 7 wickets that did fall were gifts.

The pitch was good but the bowlers weren't exactly left with nothing - the ball swung or reverse swung for most of the innings and offered some spin throughout. The fact is that England were shit and wouldn't have even threatened to win had WI not thrown wickets away. God knows what might have happened had WI actually fielded a full strength team.

Even if they are going to get the pitch as an excuse (which they shouldn't) - they knew what they would have to bowl on. Why, in light of that and with a significant lead on first innings, is it taking Ballance 250 balls to score a ton? I appreciate that it's counter-intuitive to have a dig at someone who's scored a hundred, but that has to be looked at as another example of England's shit, conservative cricket.
Click to expand...

:lol: we declared before tea of day 4n had 130 overs to bowl them out

mikemanc said:
Anderson wanted a slip moved to cover in the first over to save singles and Cook said no to him.


Ballance had to play the situation, we lost 3 early wickets (again) and Taylor was bowling beautifully at the start of the innings.
Click to expand...

I know

@Sweeper clearly doesn't watch the action, he just looks at the scorecard after the game.

We were about 40-3 and Taylor was swinging it around corners, Ballance was excellent.

I guess KP would of scored a 50 ball 100 and then bowled out the Windies.

smoker said:
Logon or register to see this image




Second innings they didn't need to score runs, just stay in. Cook is so consumed by fear of failure he sets up the team to keep runs down, not take wickets. Maiden after maiden from Tredders is considered success.

Seem to remember Jimmy throwing a huff when Cook moved his gully to square leg to save runs. Cook then takes him off next over...
Click to expand...

You are the ones having a meltdown mate! Few of use have a melt down every wicket.

I think you are following the wrong sport if you get so little enjoyment from watching a test match!
 
johnson said:
:lol: we declared before tea of day 4n had 130 overs to bowl them out



I know

@Sweeper clearly doesn't watch the action, he just looks at the scorecard after the game.

We were about 40-3 and Taylor was swinging it around corners, Ballance was excellent.

I guess KP would of scored a 50 ball 100 and then bowled out the Windies.
Click to expand...
KP can spin it more than Tredwell in fairness ;)
 
Keith S30S said:
His ODI average is marginally worse than Broad's. You can't compare anything else as Tredwell is playing county cricket and Broad hardly ever does.

Tredwell won't score runs at international level IMO.
Click to expand...
When he'll be batting 10 it's not exactly a priority. I hope that we won't be relying on our number 10 to get runs anyway.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top