spinners pace give the batsman time to free himself up and have a swing. Much harder to do against express pace when you havent faced a ball... A ludicrous decision imoVery harsh that mind. Starc on strike having not faced, Rashid turns a couple and 10 off 6 becomes 10 off 4, then one missed big shot and it’s over. You can understand the thinking, but it wasn’t the best option available. Had to be wood. He’s earned one bad decision mind given what he’s given us over the years
I was saying to go Curran until Wood took that catch, for that exact reason.It was a ridiculous decision not to let Wood take the final over
Fair play to Maxwell and Carey
Woods catch would have won the game because he would have been all fired up for final over
Bringing him on on the 48th over was fair enough as it was shit or bust for a wicket.Fair enough. I’ve hardly been on here tonight so had not seen any comments
Yes. I could see the logic - tail-enders not being able to pick deliveries and so forth. But I could see Woody protecting those runs.Think Rashid has always been in Morgan's blind spot for England, gives him far more leeway than any other bowler.
I've seen him not even give Ali a bowl because Rashid got swatted around which is an odd outlook to have.
Bringing him on on the 48th over was fair enough as it was shit or bust for a wicket.
But the match was there in the 50th for any bowler who can make it difficult for a tail ender to score 10 runs.
I mean did he not just watch Archer go for 4 runs in the 49th ffs?
That was my point earlier but it didn't seem to go down so well. The theory wasn't incorrect, per se, just that in a percentage type decision, its easier to stand there and clear your front leg and heave at a spinner than it is to scramble 2 boundaries from a 95mph seamer bowling a good mix-up.Yes. I could see the logic - tail-enders not being able to pick deliveries and so forth. But I could see Woody protecting those runs.