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

England v New Zealand (1st test)


rentaghost said:
It isn't but this was a classic example where it was. I game with next to no chance of winning and a decent chance of defeat if we had lost early wickets. Sibley's innings has but no extra pressure on anyone as they have been happy, rightly to see the game out and secure the draw.
Click to expand...
I mentioned it earlier in the thread but when Pujara does it for India in Australia he gets praised for it, Sibley does it for us and it’s horrendous apparently
 
rentaghost said:
It isn't but this was a classic example where it was. I game with next to no chance of winning and a decent chance of defeat if we had lost early wickets. Sibley's innings has but no extra pressure on anyone as they have been happy, rightly to see the game out and secure the draw.
Click to expand...

And this is where to comes down to opinion and cricketing mindset. A day four pitch under bright blue skies chasing 270 at 3.5 runs an over was far from impossible.

Had we got to 90-2 from 30 overs then the game looks alive and a decision can be made within the next 10. We made no attempt to even get into a position to decide the approach. And Sibley taking his position in this team at the top of the order means that we are always unlikely to ever be in a position to decide. He has absolutely no gears to go through and no virtually no shots.
 
Jack Torrance said:
I mentioned it earlier in the thread but when Pujara does it for India in Australia he gets praised for it, Sibley does it for us and it’s horrendous apparently
Click to expand...

Pujara has a strike rate in tests of 44/100 with a very good average. That’s perfectly fine. Sibley’s is 35 and has a very mediocre average.

Edit: two full tosses from a spinner not put away. That goes with the fifteen half volleys he’s either elected not to hit or is unable to. It’s not good enough at this level
 
Last edited:
chunkylover53 said:
Pujara strikes at 10 runs per hundred faster than Sibley
Click to expand...
I was referring to the last 2 tests in Australia when he just came out to block. He’s a world class batsmen so will have more scoring shots especially against the spinner but the point stands that he got praised for blocking in a chase. He was striking at 26 when they won the 4th test
 
It's shit like this that turns people off of Test cricket, and makes shit like the H*****d look like a good idea. Grim
 
Sea to Shining Sea said:
And this is where to comes down to opinion and cricketing mindset. A day four pitch under bright blue skies chasing 270 at 3.5 runs an over was far from impossible.

Had we got to 90-2 from 30 overs then the game looks alive and a decision can be made within the next 10. We made no attempt to even get into a position to decide the approach. And Sibley taking his position in this team at the top of the order means that we are always unlikely to ever be in a position to decide. He has absolutely no gears to go through and no virtually no shots.
Click to expand...

With the team he had there was no chance of chasing that down and we needed to secure the draw. There was a lot of inconsistent bounce and a fair bit of swing with the new ball. NZ were always in control even if we had scored a bit more quickly early on. Short balls, wide either side of the wicket, fielders out and an inexperienced and fragile England batting line up. All your approach would have done was increase the chances of an NZ win.
 
TheRey said:
It's shit like this that turns people off of Test cricket, and makes shit like the H*****d look like a good idea. Grim
Click to expand...
Or alternatively it's fans that cant appreciate that sometimes there are situations like this in test cricket should f**k off and watch the H*****d ;)
 
England had 33 scoring shots in the first 42 overs. They ended up needing 140 off the final 20. It wouldn't have taken much more initiative and accumulatory intent to give them a manageable target in the final hour.

Puts it into perspective. Awful mentality. Like the early years of Cook. Though I don't think even he was this bad
 
rentaghost said:
With the team he had there was no chance of chasing that down and we needed to secure the draw. There was a lot of inconsistent bounce and a fair bit of swing with the new ball. NZ were always in control even if we had scored a bit more quickly early on. Short balls, wide either side of the wicket, fielders out and an inexperienced and fragile England batting line up. All your approach would have done was increase the chances of an NZ win.
Click to expand...

None of that excuses not hitting half volleys and being pro-active with running between the wickets. ‘My approach’ is just wanting to see intent.
 
rentaghost said:
Or alternatively it's fans that cant appreciate that sometimes there are situations like this in test cricket should f**k off and watch the H*****d ;)
Click to expand...
Again mate, there is a massive area between hitting everything out the ground (or trying to), and blocking every single ball.

Pushing for singles, turning them into twos, hitting bad balls along the ground for four. It's been ridiculously passive
 
chunkylover53 said:
It is now. It wasn’t for quite a long time

Root was 4 off 38 balls. Sibley was striking at 20
Click to expand...

No, that's the run rate over the entire innings.

Do you think Kane Williamson is some sort of mug who would dangle an achievable declaration total in front of our experimental team? I have no doubt Bayliss would have had us chasing that and all out for 110.
 
smoker said:
No, that's the run rate over the entire innings.

Do you think Kane Williamson is some sort of mug who would dangle an achievable declaration total in front of our experimental team? I have no doubt Bayliss would have had us chasing that and all out for 110.
Click to expand...
They’ve sped up. If they’d started with a bit more intent , and then sped up….well

you’re taking what I’m saying wrong. I’m not asking them to go mental and start hitting. It’s about setting up a chance with some smart cricket. And if you lose a couple of wickets, fine you block.
 
TheRey said:
Again mate, there is a massive area between hitting everything out the ground (or trying to), and blocking every single ball.

Pushing for singles, turning them into twos, hitting bad balls along the ground for four. It's been ridiculously passive
Click to expand...

That's how Sibley plays, he's an old school defensive opener. Who, in Stokes and Buttler's absence, has the ability to score fast runs without surrendering their wicket in this format. Some airfixes online tonight.
 
smoker said:
That's how Sibley plays, he's an old school defensive opener. Who, in Stokes and Buttler's absence, has the ability to score fast runs without surrendering their wicket in this format. Some airfixes online tonight.
Click to expand...
What the fuck do you mean by an airfix? 🤨
 
Easy to see you lose a couple of wickets then you block. The reality is the next 2 batsmen in are both on a pair and then you have the bowlers. I think New Zealand would have fancied their chances
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top