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

Ashes 2nd test thread - Lords

  • Thread starter Thread starter Icarebecauseyoudo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Aberdeen Angus said:
We arent making heavy weather of it though. We have had a very iffy start to an innings in a game that we are completely and utterly dominating.
Click to expand...

We're dominating on the back of the worst Australian innings I've ever seen. We're dominating in much the same way we would domiante against say WI or NZ. A good side wouldn't have been out for anywhere near as little.

If the roles were reversed and this was Australia England in say 2000 the Aussies would have posted at least another 150, got us out for about the same as we did got them out here and would be 80 without loss or so. That's how you dominate. This is the most polite instance of domination I've ever seen if this is dominace. A dominant side would have their batsmen averaging more than about 27.

It's good, perfectly decent, but I think too many people are ascribing us far too much quality here solely on the basis of beating Australia.
 

Randy Ostrich said:
Cook's technique? You bet. Gooch needs to teach him to move his feet. That's not the same as calling for players to be dropped after two poor innings. Consistently getting out playing poor shots implies a reckless, over-confident state of mind.

I was one of those who would've enforced the follow on. We may well win the game but it won't be thanks to us batting again.
Click to expand...

Im sorry like but I think most of that post could be deconstructed fairly easily particularly the points RE Cook. He has had a poor test match by his standards but "consistently getting out playing poor shots implies a reckless, over confident state of mind" isnt really an accurate description of Cook's approach to batting. 25 test hundreds (including some huge innings) and an average of above 48 suggests that his temperament is pretty sound.
 
A few points...

England won this day by a mile.
We probably already have enough runs, this innings is about time not runs.
You don't enforce the follow-on with 3+ days left.

This is basic stuff.
 
Aberdeen Angus said:
Im sorry like but I think most of that post could be deconstructed fairly easily particularly the points RE Cook. He has had a poor test match by his standards but "consistently getting out playing poor shots implies a reckless, over confident state of mind" isnt really an accurate description of Cook's approach to batting. 25 test hundreds (including some huge innings) and an average of above 48 suggests that his temperament is pretty sound.
Click to expand...

Technique was a reference to Cook, temperament to Pietersen.
 
sonson said:
We're dominating on the back of the worst Australian innings I've ever seen. We're dominating in much the same way we would domiante against say WI or NZ. A good side wouldn't have been out for anywhere near as little.

If the roles were reversed and this was Australia England in say 2000 the Aussies would have posted at least another 150, got us out for about the same as we did got them out here and would be 80 without loss or so. That's how you dominate. This is the most polite instance of domination I've ever seen if this is dominace. A dominant side would have their batsmen averaging more than about 27.

It's good, perfectly decent, but I think too many people are ascribing us far too much quality here solely on the basis of beating Australia.
Click to expand...

Australia in 2000 were arguably the greatest test team of all time. However, if we score 300 in this innings we will have a lead of 560. That is a position of complete dominance that would rival Australia's dominance over us in the period you referred to
 
Steak Pie said:
A few points...

England won this day by a mile.
We probably already have enough runs, this innings is about time not runs.
You don't enforce the follow-on with 3+ days left.

This is basic stuff.
Click to expand...

Without doubt, but three wickets down for thirty in the space of about an hour is never auspicious in either circusmtance.

But Australia put themselves out of the match today anyway.
 
Randy Ostrich said:
Cook's technique? You bet. Gooch needs to teach him to move his feet. That's not the same as calling for players to be dropped after two poor innings. Consistently getting out playing poor shots implies a reckless, over-confident state of mind.

I was one of those who would've enforced the follow on. We may well win the game but it won't be thanks to us batting again.
Click to expand...

Alastair Cook will break every single English batting record.
He got 50 in the last match.
And a century in the one before that.

Jesus wept man.
 
We could only score another 50 runs tomorrow and still probably have enough.
 
sonson said:
Without doubt, but three wickets down for thirty in the space of about an hour is never auspicious in either circusmtance.

But Australia put themselves out of the match today anyway.
Click to expand...

And we have proven in previous tests that we are capable of overturning such lacklustre starts and posting decent totals. If (and when IMO) we do that, we are in a position of complete dominance that doesnt give the Aussies a sniff
 
Steak Pie said:
Alastair Cook will break every single English batting record.
He got 50 in the last match.
And a century in the one before that.

Jesus wept man.
Click to expand...

I didn't say he should be dropped for goodness sake. Why does he get out caught behind so often? Because he plays away from his body without moving his feet. Why does a batsman play onto the stumps? Because he's playing away from his body and not moving his feet. Go back a year and he was waiting for the right balls to play his stock shots. He isn't playing like that now but certain problems could be ironed out with better foot movement.
 
Aberdeen Angus said:
Australia in 2000 were arguably the greatest test team of all time. However, if we score 300 in this innings we will have a lead of 560. That is a position of complete dominance that would rival Australia's dominance over us in the period you referred to
Click to expand...

Don't reckon we'll get to 250.

Academic either way, becuase I'm not really fussed about dominating poor teams. Thought Australia were better than this, and I think they are, but they have been a poor team so far this Test. I want England to compete with and beat good and great teams, and they're way off that with this batting line up and Australia being rubbish dosen't change that.
 
Randy Ostrich said:
I didn't say he should be dropped for goodness sake. Why does he get out caught behind so often? Because he plays away from his body without moving his feet. Why does a batsman play onto the stumps? Because he's playing away from his body and not moving his feet. Go back a year and he was waiting for the right balls to play his stock shots. He isn't playing like that now but certain problems could be ironed out with better foot movement.
Click to expand...

He gets caught out behind the stumps so often because his strength is also his weakness - like most batsmen. He's a back foot player and scores his runs in the arc between third man and cover point
 
Aberdeen Angus said:
And we have proven in previous tests that we are capable of overturning such lacklustre starts and posting decent totals. If (and when IMO) we do that, we are in a position of complete dominance that doesnt give the Aussies a sniff
Click to expand...

Yeah, no arguemtns here, but beating a poor Australia isn't going to count for anything when we play a team with a better attack and a better batting line up.

Against a good batting line up we need to compete with the bat ourselves, and to do that more than one batsman needs to post something decent. Until we're doing that again then beating a team like this will be about our level, and I'd like to see us do better than that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top