• The forum upgrades are now largely complete.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.

Australia not better than England, says Stoneman...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Comeback_Kenwyne

Comeback_Kenwyne

Striker
You must be logged on to see external links


Wrong and embarrassingly, laughably so. Goes on to say "we are two sides of fairly balanced bowling attacks" which is even more inaccurate.

This is a particularly lamentable comment because it effectively gives Steve Smith his teamtalk before Melbourne. A teamtalk which, when you think about it, might have been more difficult for him because its always tricky to guard against demotivation when you've already achieved your objective.

On the positive side, however, we may now learn whether Stoneman is flattering to deceive or the real deal. He has heaped pressure upon himself - those three quicks are going to look at these comments and try to ram them down his throat. Literally: his throat is exactly where the ball is headed as far as he is concerned.

Punters hate it when cricketers speak blandly, using media training to ensure nothing like this gets picked up. This is a reminder why its often essential - especially in Australia. Another, small insight into just how unprofessionally we have been prepared on this debacle of a tour.
 

It's only his opinion, which he gave, having been on the pitch during these games.

We are watching and it's coming over nowt like that but if he feels that it is, he is an experienced player and must believe it.

He could have said we are absolutely out of our depth and it will be 5-0 to them easily. He would have got hammered for that, which may just end up the reality?
 
I used to be a press officer. Admittedly this was in politics, so the press were generally more hostile - and managing them was seen as more day to day business.

However, visiting Australia as part of an England team is about as close to that kind of hostility as you can get in cricket, if not sport full stop. The Andy Flower tour had bases like this fully covered. Stoneman would have had an hour long briefing before being put up on a non test day (it's not like they've hoyed him off the field - there is no 'doorstepping excuse' here. Sure, it's his opinion - and it's a ludicrous one. And your certainly right that he had to maintain a bit of positivity, otherwise that would be hammered too. But the support staff really should be making sure that he is properly briefed so that potentially damaging headlines like this do not emerge. It really isn't that hard to give bland, inoffensive, non-starter generating copy to journalists. In this case, he could have just said - "yeah, they have played better than us so far and we're disappointed but we believe we can put it right in Melbourne". Boring as fuck - but in this environment: job done.

Maybe he personally thrives on pressure and discarded any advice he received. That would be selfish, given how stuff like this can be used against his teammates too. Maybe, it's a conscious decision by the team to put pressure on themselves - that, at least from the outside, would seem to be ill-advised. Maybe people will say I'm making too much of it - and I am in a way. But, as we've seen, that is exactly how the Australian media gets on top of us over there: they make mountains from molehills. I guess, my point is this: the little things matter over there and this, for me, just shows again how poorly prepared we are for this series. I mean, today I read that there was no seam or spin bowling coaches present in Perth. This, when we know how Moeen in particular performs better when Saqlain is with the squad. It beggars belief - is it really a coincidence we ended taking one wicket in an entire f***ing day?!
 
,Asked if it felt as if England were playing against a better side Stoneman, who has played six Tests, said: "In all honesty no, we're two sides of fairly balanced bowling attacks.

"They have maybe had us covered at times in the pace department but when we've had the ball moving we've shown we're able to put their batsmen under a lot of pressure and at times with the bat as well we've been putting runs on the board, but just not enough"

If you read the full statement I can't say there's much wrong with it. Typically though the 1st sentence is used as the headline and taken out of context.
 
Comeback_Kenwyne said:
You must be logged on to see external links


Wrong and embarrassingly, laughably so. Goes on to say "we are two sides of fairly balanced bowling attacks" which is even more inaccurate.

This is a particularly lamentable comment because it effectively gives Steve Smith his teamtalk before Melbourne. A teamtalk which, when you think about it, might have been more difficult for him because its always tricky to guard against demotivation when you've already achieved your objective.

On the positive side, however, we may now learn whether Stoneman is flattering to deceive or the real deal. He has heaped pressure upon himself - those three quicks are going to look at these comments and try to ram them down his throat. Literally: his throat is exactly where the ball is headed as far as he is concerned.

Punters hate it when cricketers speak blandly, using media training to ensure nothing like this gets picked up. This is a reminder why its often essential - especially in Australia. Another, small insight into just how unprofessionally we have been prepared on this debacle of a tour.
Click to expand...
What is he supposed to say? I suppose he could have said that in home conditions, where the ball doesn't deviate (often) and therefore your technique doesn't have to be particularly tight then it's natural that Australia will be stronger, however fast forward to 2019 and a overcast day at Trent Bridge and Smith will be a close to Bradman as I am.

2 average sides who can exploit the conditions in their home country but are poor away from home. Much like India, Sri Lanka and South Africa.
 
Comeback_Kenwyne said:
You must be logged on to see external links


Wrong and embarrassingly, laughably so. Goes on to say "we are two sides of fairly balanced bowling attacks" which is even more inaccurate.

This is a particularly lamentable comment because it effectively gives Steve Smith his teamtalk before Melbourne. A teamtalk which, when you think about it, might have been more difficult for him because its always tricky to guard against demotivation when you've already achieved your objective.

On the positive side, however, we may now learn whether Stoneman is flattering to deceive or the real deal. He has heaped pressure upon himself - those three quicks are going to look at these comments and try to ram them down his throat. Literally: his throat is exactly where the ball is headed as far as he is concerned.

Punters hate it when cricketers speak blandly, using media training to ensure nothing like this gets picked up. This is a reminder why its often essential - especially in Australia. Another, small insight into just how unprofessionally we have been prepared on this debacle of a tour.
Click to expand...

You really do write some insightful stuff at times but if you think Mark Stoneman responding to a question on the relative merits of the two sides is going to make one iota of a difference to the Aussie outlook on the next test you are miles off the mark. I don't agree with his views (they are obviously better) however I would expect a professional cricketer going into the next test to believe they are very bit as good as the opposition. Absolutely nothing to see here!
 
Are people getting their knickers in a twist over the use of the term 'balanced'?

In my view, he's not comparing the bowling attacks and declaring them equal - he's simply stating that both teams have what is regarded as the pro forma bowling line-up. Three quicks/seamers, one all-rounder, one spinner.

The simple fact is that their's have performed better in their home conditions than ours have. Much the same way that ours perform better in England than theirs do.
 
Comeback_Kenwyne said:
I used to be a press officer. Admittedly this was in politics, so the press were generally more hostile - and managing them was seen as more day to day business.

However, visiting Australia as part of an England team is about as close to that kind of hostility as you can get in cricket, if not sport full stop. The Andy Flower tour had bases like this fully covered. Stoneman would have had an hour long briefing before being put up on a non test day (it's not like they've hoyed him off the field - there is no 'doorstepping excuse' here. Sure, it's his opinion - and it's a ludicrous one. And your certainly right that he had to maintain a bit of positivity, otherwise that would be hammered too. But the support staff really should be making sure that he is properly briefed so that potentially damaging headlines like this do not emerge. It really isn't that hard to give bland, inoffensive, non-starter generating copy to journalists. In this case, he could have just said - "yeah, they have played better than us so far and we're disappointed but we believe we can put it right in Melbourne". Boring as fuck - but in this environment: job done.

Maybe he personally thrives on pressure and discarded any advice he received. That would be selfish, given how stuff like this can be used against his teammates too. Maybe, it's a conscious decision by the team to put pressure on themselves - that, at least from the outside, would seem to be ill-advised. Maybe people will say I'm making too much of it - and I am in a way. But, as we've seen, that is exactly how the Australian media gets on top of us over there: they make mountains from molehills. I guess, my point is this: the little things matter over there and this, for me, just shows again how poorly prepared we are for this series. I mean, today I read that there was no seam or spin bowling coaches present in Perth. This, when we know how Moeen in particular performs better when Saqlain is with the squad. It beggars belief - is it really a coincidence we ended taking one wicket in an entire f***ing day?!
Click to expand...

If that bit about Saqi is true. Then that's f***ing minging that. How small time is it from the ECB to not hire him full time? Moeen has always been a batter 1st and maybe needs more molly coddling regarding his bowling. We have seen the effects of having Saqlain in the set up in regards to Rash's and Mo's firm. Why not spend 100-150k a year to ensure we are always at full cylinders?
 
ProfessionalMackem said:
If that bit about Saqi is true. Then that's f***ing minging that. How small time is it from the ECB to not hire him full time? Moeen has always been a batter 1st and maybe needs more molly coddling regarding his bowling. We have seen the effects of having Saqlain in the set up in regards to Rash's and Mo's firm. Why not spend 100-150k a year to ensure we are always at full cylinders?
Click to expand...

They hired him in March as a "consultant". This means he's only contracted for 100 days a year. Details here:
You must be logged on to see external links


Now, he may prefer that arrangement, we don't know the ins and outs of the negotiations. Oh, but here he is in The Sun in Autumn 2016 saying it is very important England has a full-time spin bowling coach:
You must be logged on to see external links


They haven't hired a proper full-time seam bowling coach either, they keep going for this consultant type arrangement. It's f***ing bollocks - and someone needs to ask Strauss some very tough questions.

I mean, what is our biggest long-term and historic weakness as a test outfit? Some may say batting, but that's cyclical. Historically, it's always been spin-bowling - before Swann you have to go a fair way back to find someone adaquete at this level.

We have a very well respected figure in the game, someone who has experience of spinning in country cricket and England generally, who wants the job and the senior players like him. He could be tasked with developing a strategy for producing good young spinners in England. And yet...
 
Last edited:
Comeback_Kenwyne said:
They hired him in March as a "consultant". This means he's only contracted for 100 days a year. Details here:
You must be logged on to see external links


Now, he may prefer that arrangement, we don't know the ins and outs of the negotiations. Oh, but here he is in The Sun in Autumn 2016 saying it is very important England has a full-time spin bowling coach:
You must be logged on to see external links


They haven't hired a proper full-time seam bowling coach either, they keep going for this consultant type arrangement. It's f***ing bollocks - and someone needs to ask Strauss some very tough questions.

I mean, what is our biggest long-term and historic weakness as a test outfit? Some may say batting, but that's cyclical. Historically, it's always been spin-bowling - before Swann you have to go a fair way back to find someone adaquete at this level.

We have a very well respected figure in the game, someone who has experience of spinning in country cricket and England generally, who wants the job and the senior players like him. He could be tasked with developing a strategy for producing good young spinners in England. And yet...
Click to expand...

Money. Gotta be the reason. If they're that bothered get him schooling the kids when not with the England set up. It's a no brainer for me like.
 
brandon said:
What a f***ing muppet. Bowling attack is an absolute joke.
Click to expand...
Seriously what should he say :lol: 'our quicks are medium pace cannon fodder over here and will get slapped all over again in the next 2 tests'. We all know they are miles ahead in conditions over there but I don't think our own players should be thinking that way, and certainly not admitting it to the press.
 
cooky said:
Seriously what should he say :lol: 'our quicks are medium pace cannon fodder over here and will get slapped all over again in the next 2 tests'. We all know they are miles ahead in conditions over there but I don't think our own players should be thinking that way, and certainly not admitting it to the press.
Click to expand...

As I said above, its incredibly easy to say bland, inoffensive things that do not set hares running with journalists. The correct answer to the question asked would have been "they've played better so far - and we're disappointed with that. But its been close at times and we can put it right in Melbourne".

It seems a small thing, but I just don't think this tour is well prepared at all. I think Andy Flower would have - and did - have them briefed in how to handle the Australian media. Especially on non-match days, where we're actively putting people up to field questions, rather than reactively taking them on the days play just as they get off the pitch.

ProfessionalMackem said:
Money. Gotta be the reason. If they're that bothered get him schooling the kids when not with the England set up. It's a no brainer for me like.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Saqlain may have been angling for a job but he was correct when he said there should be a full-time coach overseeing spin-bowling in England. Finding enough work to justify the expense is not hard - theres all sorts he could be doing, as you say. He's the sort of personality that lives for cricket too, so his work ethic would not be in doubt for a second.

Two things, I reckon. One: money. Two: he might not viewed as the type of character to get out of the tracksuit and into the blazer with the ECB impresarios. That's a compliment in my opinion - you get the sense he'd much rather be doing all day nets than presenting a powerpoint on how our spin-bowling strategy helps deliver the ECB's corporate social responsibility objectives for 2017-2022. But there we are...
 
Last edited:
Comeback_Kenwyne said:
Exactly. Saqlain may have been angling for a job but he was correct when he said there should be a full-time coach overseeing spin-bowling in England. Finding enough work to justify the expense is not hard - theres all sorts he could be doing, as you say. He's the sort of personality that lives for cricket too, so his work ethic would not be in doubt for a second

Two things, I reckon. One: money. Two: he might not viewed as the type of character to get out of the tracksuit and into the blazer with the ECB impresarios. That's a compliment in my opinion - you get the sense he'd much rather be doing all day nets than presenting a powerpoint on how our spin-bowling strategy helps deliver the ECB's corporate social responsibility objectives for 2017-2022. But there we are...
Click to expand...

Could be right there like.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top