• The forums will be unavailable for a few hours on Saturday 6th June, when they do return they will initially be in a degraded state with some features missing, but normal posting/reading will be possible. The main website will not be affected by these updates.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.
    Some other features of the forum are also currently disabled.

England vs India.

Status
Not open for further replies.
essex boy said:
Rentaghost was the first person to make the not watching it comment. It was funny first time but cringeowrthy when others have to use it to win a debate

Hvae you no material of your own
Click to expand...
But the way you post it makes you sound like you don't watch the games; something which I, and others (admittedly) noticed during the Ashes threads.

I'm not trying to be funny but it's quite hard to have a debate with someone who doesn't actually watch the game. Yeah, Jimmy was poor today but did he really deserve the figures 1-91? No in my opinon, especially after the torrid time he gave Sehwag early on.
 

Andy.SAFC said:
The Sehwag which Anderson beat all ends up twice in the first 3 balls of the game?



Refusing to comment on whether you actually saw England bowl then?
Click to expand...

Watched a bit of the game, but not every single ball.

Tournament dont start until the next round.

I cant believe an opening bowler would beat a batsman with a new ball, who would have believed that
 
Thought Swann bowled Ok just a couple of overs where Tendulkar got after him which TBF could happen to anyone, Yardy also did well on what was the best batting pitch around. Bresnan for me is improving all the time and looks a very capable cricketer hopefully he can keep up his form and with Broad back to support him should give us some much needed stability.

The commentators went on how we were going to win even though for me we still were behind the rate a tad the batting power play was always going to be hard just a shame Bells leg went as for two overs after that we really dropped off. I think along with the injury to Bell and the fact we had slowed the rate abit he took the power play. The biggest disapointment for me was Prior and Collingwood who were seen as the finishers and looked anything but composed. Great stuff from Bresnan, Swann and Shazad to get us to the draw.

Overall a fair result we got lucky with the Bell decision and maybe with the lack of appeals to Strauss on a couple of caught behinds. The funny thing is if we had played the extra batsman we probably would have won the game.
 
Dexter said:
But the way you post it makes you sound like you don't watch the games; something which I, and others (admittedly) noticed during the Ashes threads.

I'm not trying to be funny but it's quite hard to have a debate with someone who doesn't actually watch the game. Yeah, Jimmy was poor today but did he really deserve the figures 1-91? No in my opinon, especially after the torrid time he gave Sehwag early on.
Click to expand...

My comment was referring to the fact that a batsman can score a 100 and be dropped 5 times. When you look in the scorebook 5 years later, you will see a 100 , not a 100 (but he was dropped 5 times)
 
essex boy said:
Well for starters its based on performances on the pitch. The more wickets you get the more points you get. We play more tests per calender year than any other country. We also bowl on the most bowler friendly wickets in the world along with NZ
Click to expand...

How many NZ bowlers are in the top 20? And how high are they ranked? Nowt unfriendly, just curious.
 
eddyfinn said:
Thought Swann bowled Ok just a couple of overs where Tendulkar got after him which TBF could happen to anyone, Yardy also did well on what was the best batting pitch around. Bresnan for me is improving all the time and looks a very capable cricketer hopefully he can keep up his form and with Broad back to support him should give us some much needed stability.

The commentators went on how we were going to win even though for me we still were behind the rate a tad the batting power play was always going to be hard just a shame Bells leg went as for two overs after that we really dropped off. I think along with the injury to Bell and the fact we had slowed the rate abit he took the power play. The biggest disapointment for me was Prior and Collingwood who were seen as the finishers and looked anything but composed. Great stuff from Bresnan, Swann and Shazad to get us to the draw.

Overall a fair result we got lucky with the Bell decision and maybe with the lack of appeals to Strauss on a couple of caught behinds. The funny thing is if we had played the extra batsman we probably would have won the game.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. Had we played an extra batsman it probably would have been Yardy who would have missed out and he was probably our most consistent bowler.
 
Paddy O'Dors said:
How many NZ bowlers are in the top 20? And how high are they ranked? Nowt unfriendly, just curious.
Click to expand...

NZ are a poor test side at the minute. Shane Bond there one world class bowler retired from test cricket. I would hazard a guess Vettori is lurking around the top of the rankings.

NZ also have a population of 4 million people, thus have far less players to pick from and unlike Australia, who have a similar population, Rugby is New Zelands national sport not cricket
 
essex boy said:
My comment was referring to the fact that a batsman can score a 100 and be dropped 5 times. When you look in the scorebook 5 years later, you will see a 100 , not a 100 (but he was dropped 5 times)
Click to expand...
Ah, fair enough. I see where you're coming from but a performance shouldn't solely be judged by what the scorebook says.

Although I do agree he was poor in general (for the second game running) and if Broad is fit for the next game he's going to be lucky to keep his place. I presume it's between him and Shahzad for the last bowling spot.
 
Dexter said:
Ah, fair enough. I see where you're coming from but a performance shouldn't solely be judged by what the scorebook says.

Although I do agree he was poor in general (for the second game running) and if Broad is fit for the next game he's going to be lucky to keep his place. I presume it's between him and Shahzad for the last bowling spot.
Click to expand...

I have repeatedly said Broad is a far better bowler than Jimmy. He has more variety and can think on his feet. Jimmy bowls a certain way and when batsman go after him he hasnt got a plan B
 
essex boy said:
NZ are a poor test side at the minute. Shane Bond there one world class bowler retired from test cricket. I would hazard a guess Vettori is lurking around the top of the rankings.

NZ also have a population of 4 million people, thus have far less players to pick from and unlike Australia, who have a similar population, Rugby is New Zelands national sport not cricket
Click to expand...

Cricket is the 2nd sport in NZ just like it is over here behind football. And the 4 million population has not stopped them producing one of the best rugby teams in the world.

The fact is friendly conditions dont make average bowlers look good otherwise NZ would win a lot more home games.
 
essex boy said:
NZ are a poor test side at the minute. Shane Bond there one world class bowler retired from test cricket. I would hazard a guess Vettori is lurking around the top of the rankings.

NZ also have a population of 4 million people, thus have far less players to pick from and unlike Australia, who have a similar population, Rugby is New Zelands national sport not cricket
Click to expand...

Cricket's not our national sport. Probably behind both rugby codes in terms of people who watch it. Australia have a much bigger population mind.
 
essex boy said:
I have repeatedly said Broad is a far better bowler than Jimmy. He has more variety and can think on his feet. Jimmy bowls a certain way and when batsman go after him he hasnt got a plan B
Click to expand...
In one day cricket he is certainly a more effective bowler. Anderson just doesn't seem to know how to mix it up; and to be honest I don't think he should be trying that anyway because he isn't particularly great at bowling slower balls or putting 6 balls in the exact same area.

He's good to have with the new ball but after that he seems to become a liability. Just needs to shove it in the blockhole more often rather than serving up buffet balls pitching it on a length.
 
Dexter said:
In one day cricket he is certainly a more effective bowler. Anderson just doesn't seem to know how to mix it up; and to be honest I don't think he should be trying that anyway because he isn't particularly great at bowling slower balls or putting 6 balls in the exact same area.

He's good to have with the new ball but after that he seems to become a liability. Just needs to shove it in the blockhole more often rather than serving up buffet balls pitching it on a length.
Click to expand...

Have you seen his attempts at that though? They tend to be in the blockhole for the wicket keeper.
 
tynevalleyblackcat said:
The world cup format is still too long for me, 6 games each to get rid of less than half the teams in the competition and almost everyone could probably name 5 of the eliminated teams here and now. Ireland, Netherlands, Zimbabwe, Canada and Kenya. Its almost as if the first 6 games are a warm up for the last three.
Click to expand...

Agree with that. I believe the next World Cup will only have 10 countries taking part. I imagine it will be 2 groups of 5 with each team playing the other 4 teams in their group once and the top 2 from each going through to the semi finals.

This would result in virtually all matches being competitive and meaningful and the tournament would be no longer than 4 weeks rather than the current 6 weeks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top