IceAgeComing
Retired Administrator
- Joined
- May 26, 2013
- Location
- Brussels, Belgium
- Profile Flag
- Scotland
- Online Cricket Games Owned
- Don Bradman Cricket 14 - PS3
- Don Bradman Cricket 14 - Steam PC
Cook is now officially a better batsman than Tendulkar
4th Test: Australia v England at The MCG, 26-30 Dec
- Thread starter War
- Start date
Left_Hander
Chairman of Selectors
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Online Cricket Games Owned
Gripping match so far. Seeing how Australia go about the chase and how many they will have to chase will be interesting, as they've bowled last for three previous Tests.
scratch978
Club Captain
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2013
All over! England in tatters!
After bowling so well in the first innings, I feel they've let go of a great chance here. It wasn't only the fiery Mitchell Johnson, but also Nathan Lyon, that did them in.
With about 200 to win in 2 days, the Aussies have the upper hand, I'd reckon.
After all, this Test has all the ingredients of a thriller..
----------
He broke the 8000 run record only by a margin of 21 runs..
Long way to go for Cook, man..
After bowling so well in the first innings, I feel they've let go of a great chance here. It wasn't only the fiery Mitchell Johnson, but also Nathan Lyon, that did them in.
With about 200 to win in 2 days, the Aussies have the upper hand, I'd reckon.
After all, this Test has all the ingredients of a thriller..
----------
He broke the 8000 run record only by a margin of 21 runs..
Long way to go for Cook, man..
Well I'm not much one for token accolades like youngest, fastest, most etc, whether Cook is a "better batsman" than Tendulkar is subjective, but then of course many overhype Sachin regardless how good he actually was.
England finally managed to establish a lead after making hard work of the aussie last wicket, and then having got off to a good start collapsed like a deck of cards.
Can't say as I'm shocked Carberry did nothing, literally for a long period when scratching around. Did any of the England staff actually WATCH him bat or did they just 'hear good things' and get word of mouth about him, because he looks like what he is, a decent county batsman out of his depth against good bowling and doing nothing to suggest he is Test class.
He's now made double figures NINE times out of 10, that may sound good, but only THREE times has he even made it as far as 40. His current average is a modest 30.20 . It was almost embarrassing to see Cook make 51 of the first 61 runs while Carberry looked like he'd be out of his depth in a puddle.
Carberry opening partnerships and score at 100
vs BAN
72 and 100/1
65 and 100/2
vs AUS
28 and 100/8
1 and 100/3
9 and 100/3
1 and 100/2
85 and 100/2
0 and 100/3
0 and 100/2
65 and 100/4
Two half century opening partnerships against the weakest Test nation, and an average opening partnership vs Australia of 24 with the side 100/3 on average which is mainly to show that whether it is Cook or Carberry who gets out, England don't get off to a good start when those two open together.
The only time England haven't been two down by 100 with Carberry in the side was against Bangladesh, considering there was only one partnership in his first innings that wasn't a fifty or hundred partnership that isn't saying a lot.
The bottom line is basically if you lose the one opener capable of big scores and have a limited batsman at the other end who's lucky to break into the 40s, you're facing being at least one down by 100, more often 2-3 down, and that isn't good for building totals. Add to that middle order batsmen throwing their wickets away and a long tail, and you've got a disaster in progress.
And he's been out 10 times, only three of which have been catches and a worrying number of LBW and bowled. Watson is at best a quasi all-rounder, he's snaffled Carberry three times, surprised Johnson hasn't had him out more than once, or indeed the aussies haven't exploited his 'technique' more. Boycs was spot on analysing his weaknesses, just looks like a flat track basher who can't survive long enough in the middle in international cricket without going into a coma.
Carberry surely has to be displaced by someone younger ffs, put Root in as opener and ring the changes as should have been done after England went 0-3 down.
And before like it looks like the blame Carberry game, I'm highlighting someone I think is lucky to be in the Test side at all, those that should be should also be ashamed of some of their efforts and shots, while Pietersen looks like he is living the Swann comments of being up his own a***
Too few of the old hands are taking responsibility, the second something goes right for England you get ijuts like Anderson waxing lyrical about the performance. Shame the players couldn't put in consistent performances, this just reminds me of the Test Flintoff got slated for declaring in, England got a 1st innings lead and threw it away in the 2nd innings. Except here it is pretty much every innings :
1st Test : 136 & 179
2nd Test : 172 & 312
3rd Test : 251 & 353
4th Test : 255 & 179
Well the 1st innings are getting better, but the 2nd innings improvement plummeted. 4/8 innings under 200, only two over 300 and both when the game was up so fields more attacking, easier runs etc.
You won't win many Tests with a 1st innings series average of 204, 2nd innings slightly better at 256 and the overall average per innings of 230. You'd win a Test or two in the old Headingley days of 1991 etc, low scorers where an aggregate of 400+ would be competitive, but not down under and not even probably in England unless you were playing Zimbabwe, New Zealand, Bangladesh or possibly West Indies.
England are too wrapped up in their own hype. I'll part with a comment on the lack of posts in this thread, a reaction perhaps to comments I made on post counts in Ashes threads or maybe a disinterest in the dour one-sided series that was reputedly the biggest thing in cricket. Dead rubber, feint threat of England fight and resolve, England just haven't cobbled together enough good sessions to be competitive.
England finally managed to establish a lead after making hard work of the aussie last wicket, and then having got off to a good start collapsed like a deck of cards.
Can't say as I'm shocked Carberry did nothing, literally for a long period when scratching around. Did any of the England staff actually WATCH him bat or did they just 'hear good things' and get word of mouth about him, because he looks like what he is, a decent county batsman out of his depth against good bowling and doing nothing to suggest he is Test class.
He's now made double figures NINE times out of 10, that may sound good, but only THREE times has he even made it as far as 40. His current average is a modest 30.20 . It was almost embarrassing to see Cook make 51 of the first 61 runs while Carberry looked like he'd be out of his depth in a puddle.
Carberry opening partnerships and score at 100
vs BAN
72 and 100/1
65 and 100/2
vs AUS
28 and 100/8
1 and 100/3
9 and 100/3
1 and 100/2
85 and 100/2
0 and 100/3
0 and 100/2
65 and 100/4
Two half century opening partnerships against the weakest Test nation, and an average opening partnership vs Australia of 24 with the side 100/3 on average which is mainly to show that whether it is Cook or Carberry who gets out, England don't get off to a good start when those two open together.
The only time England haven't been two down by 100 with Carberry in the side was against Bangladesh, considering there was only one partnership in his first innings that wasn't a fifty or hundred partnership that isn't saying a lot.
The bottom line is basically if you lose the one opener capable of big scores and have a limited batsman at the other end who's lucky to break into the 40s, you're facing being at least one down by 100, more often 2-3 down, and that isn't good for building totals. Add to that middle order batsmen throwing their wickets away and a long tail, and you've got a disaster in progress.
And he's been out 10 times, only three of which have been catches and a worrying number of LBW and bowled. Watson is at best a quasi all-rounder, he's snaffled Carberry three times, surprised Johnson hasn't had him out more than once, or indeed the aussies haven't exploited his 'technique' more. Boycs was spot on analysing his weaknesses, just looks like a flat track basher who can't survive long enough in the middle in international cricket without going into a coma.
Carberry surely has to be displaced by someone younger ffs, put Root in as opener and ring the changes as should have been done after England went 0-3 down.
And before like it looks like the blame Carberry game, I'm highlighting someone I think is lucky to be in the Test side at all, those that should be should also be ashamed of some of their efforts and shots, while Pietersen looks like he is living the Swann comments of being up his own a***
Too few of the old hands are taking responsibility, the second something goes right for England you get ijuts like Anderson waxing lyrical about the performance. Shame the players couldn't put in consistent performances, this just reminds me of the Test Flintoff got slated for declaring in, England got a 1st innings lead and threw it away in the 2nd innings. Except here it is pretty much every innings :
1st Test : 136 & 179
2nd Test : 172 & 312
3rd Test : 251 & 353
4th Test : 255 & 179
Well the 1st innings are getting better, but the 2nd innings improvement plummeted. 4/8 innings under 200, only two over 300 and both when the game was up so fields more attacking, easier runs etc.
You won't win many Tests with a 1st innings series average of 204, 2nd innings slightly better at 256 and the overall average per innings of 230. You'd win a Test or two in the old Headingley days of 1991 etc, low scorers where an aggregate of 400+ would be competitive, but not down under and not even probably in England unless you were playing Zimbabwe, New Zealand, Bangladesh or possibly West Indies.
England are too wrapped up in their own hype. I'll part with a comment on the lack of posts in this thread, a reaction perhaps to comments I made on post counts in Ashes threads or maybe a disinterest in the dour one-sided series that was reputedly the biggest thing in cricket. Dead rubber, feint threat of England fight and resolve, England just haven't cobbled together enough good sessions to be competitive.
So Aussies are chasing 231 which I think I'm right in saying is what Cook's scored in 8 innings so far. A bit depressing when you remember he scored 235 in one go last time round down under. Think he and KP did alright today compared to the rest anyway. 5 wickets for 6 runs and another 3 for 1 is astonishing even by our standards.
As bad an innings as I've ever seen from an opening batsman for a side boasting a first innings lead. Selectors need to swallow their fishing pride and get Compton on the plane to Sydney!! Carberry's so unconvincing it's unreal.
Easily. If I'm not wrong, he's yet to be dismissed in this series as well..
Easily. If I'm not wrong, he's yet to be dismissed in this series as well..
Compton would represent a step backwards in policy, an inch or two forward on Carberry and a complete waste of time.
While I am not all for Stokes' inclusion, at least he's the right kind of player England should be looking at in terms of age and rebuilding.
Alphabetically it might seem like moving from Carberry to Compton is one step more towards Cook, but therein lies the only sense of progression towards a Cook. If a 30+ year old isn't already established in the line up, and more than just currently selected like Carberry, then England shouldn't be looking at trying to make them into a regular.
I mean do you not realise how sad sending out an SOS to a 30 year old nomark to come to the rescue sounds?!?!?!?!? Especially one who was rightly discarded, mouthed off publically and has proven nothing. Might as well go all out and call gRamps out of retirement
What is it with England? Bell and Pietersen tossing their wickets away, Swann retiring so mr average Monty Panesar steps in as if he's even the here and now fix let alone a long term solution.
If England are going to call anyone in it should be Bopara or someone 25 or under. They put all their not so fresh eggs in one basket, stuck with the same base spine for quite a few years against top sides and rubbish alike instead of looking to the future.
England are in serious danger of going back to the dark old days of scratching around for players that saw the likes of Watkin, Watkinson, Lathwell, Blakey, Ed Smith, Afzaal, Hamilton, Benjamin, Clarke, Wright, Headley, Gallian, Yardy, Saggers, Rhodes, Reeve, Pattinson, Giddins, McGrath, Illot, Igglesden, Hegg, Irani, and yes, even Compton and Carberry could be included as a sign of the coming times.
While England may not be chop and change so much any more, doesn't mean their selection policy re replacements for retirements and injuries isn't as bad if not worse than before. I mean really, recall a player who never made it, was dropped etc, what would that achieve? Closure for all those who think paw ickle Nicky was hard done by, but a disaster pending and I trust the ECB have more sense than to swallow pride for someone who's done nada, zilch, zero, NOTHING to warrant such (relatively) drastic action.
There's a performance squad around somewhere, not the worst idea in the world but it is if not utilised properly with the right players of the right age and a willingness to tap that resource and not just pick a name out of a hat, or keep going back to past players that never made it.
In terms of this series, England need to shore or is it sure up the batting, Root to open as a batsman who can fill that role, has time on his side, and isn't a step backwards, then bring in a batsman for Stokes as the side doesn't need someone to bowl tidily with no real threat of tearing through a side or even making a hole in their batting, and whose batting average is 2/3 made up of a hundred in a losing cause with attacking fields and nothing left at stake.
Out of the four innings Stokes could have batted, he's made 14 runs @ 14.00 1st innings, 19 runs @ 9.50 2nd innings, 18 runs @ 19.00 3rd innings and 148 runs @ 74.00 last up with England holding feint hopes of saving two Tests. Ever time he's had a chance to make a telling contribution when the Test is being decided, he's made 1, 18, 14 and 19 - woohoo! Just what a number six should be scoring - NOT!
And decent enough bowling, for a part-timer perhaps. His average in the mid-40s makes him look a way better all-rounder than Root whose bowling average is 53.67 - and that is lacking any sincerity, Root is cheaper, maybe not posing quite the same level of wicket threat, but considering the relative roles and Stokes getting to bowl more, I'd say there's not enough in it to carry Stokes as a batsman let alone a would be all-rounder. They'll be picking Wright next, he offers a little with bat, a little with ball, not a lot overall.
And while Bairstow has made just 31 runs in this match, wtf is he not above Stokes in the batting order? In fact I'd suggest all having them performing two roles does is exhaust them enough that neither offers sufficient with the bat, all Stokes did was pick up one wicket (SR 90) whilst conceding 1/4 of the runs give or take while the other seamers took nine wickets at an SR of 37.
I can see completely now the point in picking an ineffectual bowler come all-rounder, when you're taking wickets it lulls the opposition into a false sense of security and they give their wickets away to the rest of the bowlers. All it actually does is ease pressure, would be better just to give Pietersen and Root a spell if the bowlers need a rest.
While I am not all for Stokes' inclusion, at least he's the right kind of player England should be looking at in terms of age and rebuilding.
Alphabetically it might seem like moving from Carberry to Compton is one step more towards Cook, but therein lies the only sense of progression towards a Cook. If a 30+ year old isn't already established in the line up, and more than just currently selected like Carberry, then England shouldn't be looking at trying to make them into a regular.
I mean do you not realise how sad sending out an SOS to a 30 year old nomark to come to the rescue sounds?!?!?!?!? Especially one who was rightly discarded, mouthed off publically and has proven nothing. Might as well go all out and call gRamps out of retirement
What is it with England? Bell and Pietersen tossing their wickets away, Swann retiring so mr average Monty Panesar steps in as if he's even the here and now fix let alone a long term solution.
If England are going to call anyone in it should be Bopara or someone 25 or under. They put all their not so fresh eggs in one basket, stuck with the same base spine for quite a few years against top sides and rubbish alike instead of looking to the future.
England are in serious danger of going back to the dark old days of scratching around for players that saw the likes of Watkin, Watkinson, Lathwell, Blakey, Ed Smith, Afzaal, Hamilton, Benjamin, Clarke, Wright, Headley, Gallian, Yardy, Saggers, Rhodes, Reeve, Pattinson, Giddins, McGrath, Illot, Igglesden, Hegg, Irani, and yes, even Compton and Carberry could be included as a sign of the coming times.
While England may not be chop and change so much any more, doesn't mean their selection policy re replacements for retirements and injuries isn't as bad if not worse than before. I mean really, recall a player who never made it, was dropped etc, what would that achieve? Closure for all those who think paw ickle Nicky was hard done by, but a disaster pending and I trust the ECB have more sense than to swallow pride for someone who's done nada, zilch, zero, NOTHING to warrant such (relatively) drastic action.
There's a performance squad around somewhere, not the worst idea in the world but it is if not utilised properly with the right players of the right age and a willingness to tap that resource and not just pick a name out of a hat, or keep going back to past players that never made it.
In terms of this series, England need to shore or is it sure up the batting, Root to open as a batsman who can fill that role, has time on his side, and isn't a step backwards, then bring in a batsman for Stokes as the side doesn't need someone to bowl tidily with no real threat of tearing through a side or even making a hole in their batting, and whose batting average is 2/3 made up of a hundred in a losing cause with attacking fields and nothing left at stake.
Out of the four innings Stokes could have batted, he's made 14 runs @ 14.00 1st innings, 19 runs @ 9.50 2nd innings, 18 runs @ 19.00 3rd innings and 148 runs @ 74.00 last up with England holding feint hopes of saving two Tests. Ever time he's had a chance to make a telling contribution when the Test is being decided, he's made 1, 18, 14 and 19 - woohoo! Just what a number six should be scoring - NOT!
And decent enough bowling, for a part-timer perhaps. His average in the mid-40s makes him look a way better all-rounder than Root whose bowling average is 53.67 - and that is lacking any sincerity, Root is cheaper, maybe not posing quite the same level of wicket threat, but considering the relative roles and Stokes getting to bowl more, I'd say there's not enough in it to carry Stokes as a batsman let alone a would be all-rounder. They'll be picking Wright next, he offers a little with bat, a little with ball, not a lot overall.
And while Bairstow has made just 31 runs in this match, wtf is he not above Stokes in the batting order? In fact I'd suggest all having them performing two roles does is exhaust them enough that neither offers sufficient with the bat, all Stokes did was pick up one wicket (SR 90) whilst conceding 1/4 of the runs give or take while the other seamers took nine wickets at an SR of 37.
I can see completely now the point in picking an ineffectual bowler come all-rounder, when you're taking wickets it lulls the opposition into a false sense of security and they give their wickets away to the rest of the bowlers. All it actually does is ease pressure, would be better just to give Pietersen and Root a spell if the bowlers need a rest.
StinkyBoHoon
National Board President
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2009
- Location
- Glasgow, Scotland
imo selections needs to reward effort to get into the squad in order to make players value it. Cycling round every half talented 22 year old because he made a 100 in his last match will just breed complacency. Players need to work for and value their spot or else they'll just come and go. They should have an eye on the future and the make up of the team age wise of course, but you've got to make them knock on the door a bit before answering to see how committed they can be.
this is the best way, players have earned a run in the side before they've even played, giving them some time to settle. picking people just for showing promise leads to situations like Rashid, where he comes in, is smacked around for a few matches and then it's decided he's not good enough. England has always been too dependent on the "great debut series" theory of its long term selections.
so i'd be willing to think about compton again, as he's clearly one of the guys that's prepared to go to the ends of the earth to get selected. plus being 30 isn't awful, swann was 29 and trott was 28 when they made their debut and did well, it would be better to make the call now instead of waiting until he's 32-33 and really is pointless to bring into the fold.
this is the best way, players have earned a run in the side before they've even played, giving them some time to settle. picking people just for showing promise leads to situations like Rashid, where he comes in, is smacked around for a few matches and then it's decided he's not good enough. England has always been too dependent on the "great debut series" theory of its long term selections.
so i'd be willing to think about compton again, as he's clearly one of the guys that's prepared to go to the ends of the earth to get selected. plus being 30 isn't awful, swann was 29 and trott was 28 when they made their debut and did well, it would be better to make the call now instead of waiting until he's 32-33 and really is pointless to bring into the fold.
ste_mc_efc
Chairman of Selectors
I think you're being a tad harsh on the england selectors.
Bopara, Morgan and even Bairstow all had at least ten tests as batsmen invested into them. None of them really did anything. It's probably too much of a stretch to add in Patel's 5 tests to that especially with the weight issues and him having a reasonably amount of bowling.
All of them are in the 25-30 age bracket so that they will have a good few years left in them, but should have the experience to not need that many tests to adjust.
If one of those had shown more, then Root could open, one of them could come in. But obviously they aren't trusted, they haven't performed. bairstow is in the side now art 7, considered a lesser batsman than Stokes at 6.
Of course I think the selectors have made mistakes, but I think the underlying issue is a lack of talent on the fringe.
And Stokes is century is the only england century on tour. He has had four innings and scored a century. Cook, Bell, KP, Root are the safe, established batsmen with secure places and have all had 8 each innings. Best score from those 32 innings is 87. I get that it's not the most brilliant century ever due to the match conditions, but to be so dismissive of it is obviously unfair, and something you are probably only doing it because you don't want him in the team. It's not entirely his fault he is coming in with the match lost. It's clearly unfair and puts him in a position where he cannot win. If he got out cheaply it's another poor innings, if he scores big the runs don't count.
I'm not enamoured with the selection of Stokes myself, i'd much rather give Balance a shot and play a better bowler than Bresnan and have the 6+4 split. Maybe even drop Anderson, too. But he has done quite well, considering. His bowling hasn't been great but I think it has shown some potential. It's tough to speculate how good he will be but it's seem possible he could could develop into a good all rounder. If Bairstow was good enough to bat at 6 like had been tried previously, then Stokes at 7 with 5 bowlers would be perfectly fine as is, I think.
Bopara, Morgan and even Bairstow all had at least ten tests as batsmen invested into them. None of them really did anything. It's probably too much of a stretch to add in Patel's 5 tests to that especially with the weight issues and him having a reasonably amount of bowling.
All of them are in the 25-30 age bracket so that they will have a good few years left in them, but should have the experience to not need that many tests to adjust.
If one of those had shown more, then Root could open, one of them could come in. But obviously they aren't trusted, they haven't performed. bairstow is in the side now art 7, considered a lesser batsman than Stokes at 6.
Of course I think the selectors have made mistakes, but I think the underlying issue is a lack of talent on the fringe.
And Stokes is century is the only england century on tour. He has had four innings and scored a century. Cook, Bell, KP, Root are the safe, established batsmen with secure places and have all had 8 each innings. Best score from those 32 innings is 87. I get that it's not the most brilliant century ever due to the match conditions, but to be so dismissive of it is obviously unfair, and something you are probably only doing it because you don't want him in the team. It's not entirely his fault he is coming in with the match lost. It's clearly unfair and puts him in a position where he cannot win. If he got out cheaply it's another poor innings, if he scores big the runs don't count.
I'm not enamoured with the selection of Stokes myself, i'd much rather give Balance a shot and play a better bowler than Bresnan and have the 6+4 split. Maybe even drop Anderson, too. But he has done quite well, considering. His bowling hasn't been great but I think it has shown some potential. It's tough to speculate how good he will be but it's seem possible he could could develop into a good all rounder. If Bairstow was good enough to bat at 6 like had been tried previously, then Stokes at 7 with 5 bowlers would be perfectly fine as is, I think.
Last edited:
I feel sorry for Root. Looked good when he batted at 6, yet the selectors have ruined him by pushing him up the order to either open or at 3. If he had still been at 6 last summer, it would have been quite easy to move Bell to 3, KP to 4 and Root to 5 and have a strong, established middle order. Yet England have moved him about and he looks nowhere near the player he was last winter. Poor decisions from the selectors really and it's part of the reason for the mess we now find ourselves in.
PackenHols
School Cricketer
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2013
- Online Cricket Games Owned
What has really disappointed me is how Pietersen got himself into a good position and then three it away. Now, I'm not criticising his aggressive nature, that's how he plays, but he seems to lack thought when it comes to taking these risks. Several times on this tour he has risked his innings at the wrong point which after his wicket has fallen, the team follows suit.
You're really criticising KP? Really/
I was already getting annoyed by all the over-the-top press coverage yesterday after we finally had one good day (with the ball at any rate) and there was a certain inevitability about the 3rd innings collapse (called it on my twitter feed
)
I think Aus will chase this 4 or 5 down at most and then finish the job in Sydney. Desperately disappointing cricket from England.
I was already getting annoyed by all the over-the-top press coverage yesterday after we finally had one good day (with the ball at any rate) and there was a certain inevitability about the 3rd innings collapse (called it on my twitter feed
)I think Aus will chase this 4 or 5 down at most and then finish the job in Sydney. Desperately disappointing cricket from England.
MasterBlaster76
ICC Chairman
England just cannot bat at the moment; what is going on??
cricket_online
ICC Board Member
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2009
- Online Cricket Games Owned
- Don Bradman Cricket 14 - PS3
- Don Bradman Cricket 14 - PS4
So you want KP to hold one end up when the English lower order & tail can't even manage 10 runs. The last 5 English wkts this series have hardly done anything of note and if KP had remained unbeaten something tells me you would have been on his back calling him out as not being a "team player". Damn he does, damn he doesn't.
----------
They are not very good.
MasterBlaster76
ICC Chairman
Come off it - we were ten times better in the summer, with a very similar squad.
Similar threads
