Notices
Closed Thread
Page 93 of 100 FirstFirst ... 43839192939495 ... LastLast
Results 2,761 to 2,790 of 2977

Thread: The Cricket Thread

  1. #2761  
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    20,201
    Tri Series (IRE/BAN/NZL)

    1st game : BAN 157/4 vs IRE - no result
    2nd game : NZL 289/7 vs IRE 238 - New Zealand won by 51 runs

    If Ireland wish to promote themselves for promotion to Test status surely they have to win at least one game against each opponent. Not as if Bangladesh are that great a side, Ireland are at home, and being varying degrees of competitive but not winning many ODIs doesn't cut it forever
    People will believe what they want to believe
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  2. #2762  
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    25,626
    Quote Originally Posted by TheDarknessIsCalling View Post
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0531n95

    Don't agree with much Yawn says, but maybe he's not the complete village idiot after all. (Bairstow value)
    Found it interesting that Vaughan touched on Bairstow's popularity (or lack there of) within the squad.

    He always comes across quite well in interviews and the like.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  3. #2763  
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    25,626
    Quote Originally Posted by TheDarknessIsCalling View Post
    I read some of the figures the professionals would get paid under the new offer, seems greed vs greed to be frank. Was it 100k for the women and much more than that to the men, and an increase on what they were paid before.

    I think CA perhaps should stand their ground, ride a storm until those players that do hold out realise they can be replaced by someone not so greedy. It's hardly like it's a living wage situation, we're talking the kind of figures take most people 3-6 years to earn, and not for playing games but actual work.
    From what Adam Gilchrist said this morning on the radio and another Australian cricket 'expert', it seems that the ACA/players are holding all the cards.

    Also, who is going to replace the players? The international and contracted cricketers are backing the state/domestic cricketers and won't take to the field (after 30th of June) until this issue is resolved. Where are the other cricketers? Those in the youth teams won't go against their senior piers, Gilchrist said as much too.

    I actually commend what the international players are doing, as they'd be better off under CA's new proposal. Under this new model devised by CA, only international players would have the chance to share in any surplus revenue (16 Million to the international men and 4 Million to the international women).

    The current model, which expires on the 30th June, enables domestic state cricketers to take a share of the surplus revenue. And given the success of the Big Bash (TV rights deals) and increased sponsorship, it's understandable why the non-internationals/state cricketers want to continue with the old model, even with the healthy proposed pay increases.

    Australian women's cricket would benefit greatly from the new proposal too (in terms of wages), but they're showing solidarity with their male counterparts, which is commendable.

    Here's a paragraph taken from an article on the new proposal:

    The ACA are arguing that the proposal 'disrespects the value of domestic cricketers and the role they play in Australian cricket', and that it would create inequity within playing groups. The ACA also said that while CA's response for gender equity had largely been positive, this plan "denies female cricketers the opportunity to share in the game's revenue."

    I get your point on the increased wages that the state cricketers will make under the new proposal. It's a nice amount for sure! But still, its likely that they'll make even more under the old model.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  4. #2764  
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    20,201
    Quote Originally Posted by Bewdleyfan View Post
    Found it interesting that Vaughan touched on Bairstow's popularity (or lack there of) within the squad.

    He always comes across quite well in interviews and the like.
    If he's Yorkshire born and bred, they're always popular like now aren't they.............?

    Just musing over the number of Yorkies in the England set up, perhaps not as many as my initial thinking might have made be rethink.

    I think he will be cursed much the same way as Stewart, hard to put him in the side without giving him the gloves and as soon as he puts the gloves on his batting form is bound to take a bit of a dip and his keeping become the main focus. And the wishing to have a batsman keeper isn't lessened any by wanting to play six bowlers, I think that is an underestimated part of a lot of problems, trying to win matches of varying lengths with only 4 specialist batsmen.

    I'd open with him over Roy if I were England, could and maybe should have tried that against Ireland although that may have proved little given the strength (or otherwise) of opponent.
    People will believe what they want to believe
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  5. #2765  
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    20,201
    Quote Originally Posted by Bewdleyfan View Post
    From what Adam Gilchrist said this morning on the radio and another Australian cricket 'expert', it seems that the ACA/players are holding all the cards.

    Also, who is going to replace the players? The international and contracted cricketers are backing the state/domestic cricketers and won't take to the field (after 30th of June) until this issue is resolved. Where are the other cricketers? Those in the youth teams won't go against their senior piers, Gilchrist said as much too.

    I actually commend what the international players are doing, as they'd be better off under CA's new proposal. Under this new model devised by CA, only international players would have the chance to share in any surplus revenue (16 Million to the international men and 4 Million to the international women).

    The current model, which expires on the 30th June, enables domestic state cricketers to take a share of the surplus revenue. And given the success of the Big Bash (TV rights deals) and increased sponsorship, it's understandable why the non-internationals/state cricketers want to continue with the old model, even with the healthy proposed pay increases.

    Australian women's cricket would benefit greatly from the new proposal too (in terms of wages), but they're showing solidarity with their male counterparts, which is commendable.

    Here's a paragraph taken from an article on the new proposal:

    The ACA are arguing that the proposal 'disrespects the value of domestic cricketers and the role they play in Australian cricket', and that it would create inequity within playing groups. The ACA also said that while CA's response for gender equity had largely been positive, this plan "denies female cricketers the opportunity to share in the game's revenue."

    I get your point on the increased wages that the state cricketers will make under the new proposal. It's a nice amount for sure! But still, its likely that they'll make even more under the old model.
    You may be right about the criminal code of 'them and us', the lot of 'em sticking together. The others I was thinking of was players fringe and around the international set up, but I guess on further reflection aussie state cricket is limited to well six innit, not the abundance of 18 counties as in England.

    Still I'm not keen on greed, you expect it from those that already have the money and pull the strings, but the players turning down good offers cause they want more just annoys me.

    You say about making more under the old model, doesn't make it right but also one thing I don't like about the coverage is they'll cite bits but not the whole thing ie I've yet to see a comparison of "old vs new" 'earnings'.

    And furthermore so many say Test cricket is dead, apart from the Ashes (and maybe they could offer a bonus incentive for playing in said Ashes) aren't most Tests outside England played in front of 3 men and a dog....? (reputedly) If ACA hold the cards over the negotiations, and I'd argue they might not as much as one would think as I'm sure CA could postpone or fill in with a squad or find some resolution, wouldn't be the first time (for a Test nation eg windies), and why should they pay them more and more, or even current amount, if it were based on audience/attendance.....?

    Could they not take it to some court for arbitration, not like the aussies don't have a history in law courts CA could even just delay, delay and delay, improve the offer slightly at the 11th hour and test the resolve. I doubt they'll want to be held to ransom. There is always the possibility of course that the CA know something the cricketers don't, maybe the current model is unsustainable. There is a chance, but my feeling is that it's slim that CA are just greedy and want more $$$$ at the end of it, but I doubt they'd not reach a compromise quite quickly if that were the case - surely.........?
    People will believe what they want to believe
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  6. #2766  
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    20,201
    Tri Series (IRE/BAN/NZL)

    1st game : BAN 157/4 vs IRE - no result
    2nd game : NZL 289/7 vs IRE 238 - New Zealand won by 51 runs
    3rd game : in progress, BAN 96/2 vs NZL

    I think a quadrangular might have been a better warm up, definitely a bit of a mismatch so you have to wonder what kiwis hoped to gain other than some time in conditions similar to those they may find in June
    People will believe what they want to believe
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  7. #2767  
    TheRiedle is online now First team regular
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    35,908
    ICC champions trophy around the corner and the lovely weather we're getting here. Every game will be a washout.
    ?
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  8. #2768  
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    25,626
    Quote Originally Posted by TheDarknessIsCalling View Post
    You may be right about the criminal code of 'them and us', the lot of 'em sticking together. The others I was thinking of was players fringe and around the international set up, but I guess on further reflection aussie state cricket is limited to well six innit, not the abundance of 18 counties as in England.

    Still I'm not keen on greed, you expect it from those that already have the money and pull the strings, but the players turning down good offers cause they want more just annoys me.

    You say about making more under the old model, doesn't make it right but also one thing I don't like about the coverage is they'll cite bits but not the whole thing ie I've yet to see a comparison of "old vs new" 'earnings'.

    And furthermore so many say Test cricket is dead, apart from the Ashes (and maybe they could offer a bonus incentive for playing in said Ashes) aren't most Tests outside England played in front of 3 men and a dog....? (reputedly) If ACA hold the cards over the negotiations, and I'd argue they might not as much as one would think as I'm sure CA could postpone or fill in with a squad or find some resolution, wouldn't be the first time (for a Test nation eg windies), and why should they pay them more and more, or even current amount, if it were based on audience/attendance.....?

    Could they not take it to some court for arbitration, not like the aussies don't have a history in law courts CA could even just delay, delay and delay, improve the offer slightly at the 11th hour and test the resolve. I doubt they'll want to be held to ransom. There is always the possibility of course that the CA know something the cricketers don't, maybe the current model is unsustainable. There is a chance, but my feeling is that it's slim that CA are just greedy and want more $$$$ at the end of it, but I doubt they'd not reach a compromise quite quickly if that were the case - surely.........?
    Yeah, I think you make some valid points.

    I don't know enough about the situation to be honest, just getting bits of information here and there from radio/articles.

    I can see this one rumbling on though, there will have to be a compromise on both sides I guess.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  9. #2769  
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    25,626
    Quote Originally Posted by TheDarknessIsCalling View Post
    If he's Yorkshire born and bred, they're always popular like now aren't they.............?

    Just musing over the number of Yorkies in the England set up, perhaps not as many as my initial thinking might have made be rethink.

    I think he will be cursed much the same way as Stewart, hard to put him in the side without giving him the gloves and as soon as he puts the gloves on his batting form is bound to take a bit of a dip and his keeping become the main focus. And the wishing to have a batsman keeper isn't lessened any by wanting to play six bowlers, I think that is an underestimated part of a lot of problems, trying to win matches of varying lengths with only 4 specialist batsmen.

    I'd open with him over Roy if I were England, could and maybe should have tried that against Ireland although that may have proved little given the strength (or otherwise) of opponent.
    Yeah, I really like Bairstow. He's been so consistent over the past 18 months.

    I agree on your last sentence too. I'd like to see Jonny given an opportunity to open the batting, if Roy struggles to continue for form.
    Last edited by Bewdleyfan; 18-5-17 at 23:09.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  10. #2770  
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    20,201
    Tri Series (IRE/BAN/NZL)

    1st game : BAN 157/4 vs IRE - no result
    2nd game : NZL 289/7 vs IRE 238 - New Zealand won by 51 runs
    3rd game : BAN 257 vs NZL 258/6 - New Zealand won by 4 wickets
    4th game : IRE 181 vs BAN 182/2 - Bangladesh won by 8 wickets

    So since my last update, the kiwis did a fairly good job of bowling out Bangladesh from 96/2 to 257 all out and knocked off the runs fairly comfortably with some overs to spare. Interesting to note Bangladesh scored more fifties (3-2) and boasted the two top scores albeit only 61 and 55.

    kiwis did hit more sixes (4-1) but less boundaries off the bat (24-25, includes sixes) Scores were close at the fall of the 2nd, 3rd and 4th wickets, to within 15 runs max, but Bangladesh fell from 242/5 to 257 all out in batting out all their overs.



    Ireland did further damage to their Test bid, not sure exactly what BBC and anyone else expected though as they were hardly brilliant before the absurd proposal and their last significant win was over windies in February 2015, managed a tie vs Pakistan in May 2013 (4 years to the day this coming Tuesday) and their biggest and 'landmark' victory which was over England was waaaaayyy back in March 2011 so over six years ago.

    And maybe part of it is that win was as rare a one as they manage these days against decent teams, with mostly the same names (Porterfield, Stirling, Joyce, N O'Brien, K O'Brien, Wilson, and Dockrell) all playing that game and in this series/summer if not all) Unless those players progressed in the six years, or equal or better infill players came in, how did anyone expect them to improve on what they were managing then?

    And it is only ODIs not Tests, world of difference competing in a shorter format where a few weaknesses in batting or bowling can be hidden, but when a side loses to top sides quite regularly then clearly there are too many in one or more likely both.

    Anyway Ireland got themselves out and to post under 200 is not great in ODIs these days, 238 and 181 on pitches their opponents posted 289/7 and chased down 182/2 with 22.5 overs to spare is far from clever. Not that England haven't been as badly embarrassed at times, losing by 10 wickets in a QF as I recall and probably a few others.
    People will believe what they want to believe
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  11. #2771  
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    20,201
    Quote Originally Posted by Bewdleyfan View Post
    Yeah, I think you make some valid points.

    I don't know enough about the situation to be honest, just getting bits of information here and there from radio/articles.

    I can see this one rumbling on though, there will have to be a compromise on both sides I guess.
    The CA may back down a little, perhaps compromise, but can you see them caving completely? Imagine they want a 10% increase say on pay and retain a say 0.5% revenue share (made up figures), can you see that happening?

    Frankly I think the most likely outcome if it gets pushed is for the CA to offer zero increase, I'd be tempted to do that and say if you insist on retaining the 'bonus' then you can't have a pay increase. I've known increases in recent years of as little as 1% (where I work), sadly too many people I work with scoff at the union and perhaps don't understand that they play a fair part in negotiations and if more pulled their head's out of their own ar ses maybe they could vote on their own pay instead of having to take what they get, like it or lump it.
    People will believe what they want to believe
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  12. #2772  
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    20,201
    Tri Series (IRE/BAN/NZL) in Ireland

    1st game : BAN 157/4 vs IRE - no result
    2nd game : NZL 289/7 vs IRE 238 - New Zealand won by 51 runs
    3rd game : BAN 257 vs NZL 258/6 - New Zealand won by 4 wickets
    4th game : IRE 181 vs BAN 182/2 - Bangladesh won by 8 wickets
    5th game : NZL 344/6 vs IRE 154 - New Zealand won by 190 runs
    6th game : BAN vs NZL (Wed 24th May 10:45)

    Not sure it will help their bid for Test status much, but surely the only result that can would be a shock. If nothing else you'd think they need to either impress a little with bat or ball - or both. So far they've barely shown worthy of ODI status, throwing wickets away against Bangladesh is hardly the mettle for building totals in 90 overs a day Tests.

    Keep the kiwis under 270 might be a start, or even force any win chasing to be by 3-4 wickets to suggest a close contest. Was just looking at their ODI record for glimpses of Test quality, HS is 331/8 vs Zimbabwe which isn't bad but you might have expected a score of 350+ playing mostly the minnows and non-Test nations. An average RR of 4.81 isn't great either, nor being skittled for under 100 (lowest 77 vs Sri Lanka in Grenada during the World Cup 2007)

    Just had a look at their scorecard where Stirling managed 177 vs Canada, the team made a disappointing 325 with next highest score 30 and three canucks made more than that although they fell nearly hundred short of their target. Looked a very merc canuck team, a lot of Patel, Kumar, Gunasekera, Rao, Desai type surnames and not one that might be considered your Wilson, Johnson, Thompson type.
    Last edited by TheDarknessIsCalling; 21-5-17 at 19:21.
    People will believe what they want to believe
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  13. #2773  
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    20,201
    Oh dear, New Zealand 205/2 off 35 overs leaving plenty of scope for Latham (99no off 107 balls) and Taylor (23no off 31 balls) to cut loose and take them past maybe even 350 which I typed before seeing their score of 175/2 at 30 overs - so by my rough estimate and applying the double it rule of thumb you get 350

    Be interesting to see how right or wrong I and the rule of thumb prove! If De Villiers, Sehwag or some big hitter were at the crease you might wonder if they'd maybe make 400+ off this attack. Certainly the crumble under pressure factor is as much a possibility as the kiwis floundering a little. I'd be surprised to see the kiwis lose from here.

    EDIT : won't make it five posts in a row, although disappointing so few in here to discuss

    Latham got out for 104, Taylor for 57 and neither quite hitting 100+ SR. A few wickets have held the kiwis in check, 309/5 with 13 balls left so barring a few lusty blows it looks like the kiwis will blow it (the quest for 350) but I think the game is more or less over and was when they got to the upper 200s and into 300

    Still there is a feint possibility the Irish will make light work of the kiwi bowlers and chase it down, reckon that ranks in the 1% to 2% BUT if they want to show Test credentials then they've already blown their chance to show their bowling is much cop :

    NZL 309/5 off 47.5 overs (RR 6.45) (ended 344/6)
    BAN 182/2 off 27.1 overs (RR 6.70)
    NZL 289/7 off 50.0 overs (RR 5.78)
    BAN 157/4 off 31.1 overs (RR 5.04)

    Obviously not quite finished the innings but 937/18 off 156.1 overs is not too clever, just as well they did relatively well in the non result against Bangladesh as that's 937 off 937 which is a run a ball. Of course that would have likely gotten worse in terms of runs as it entered the latter 3rd, shows little or no real cutting edge to their bowling with 8-10 wickets usually what you need if you hope to win many games.

    So very nearly 350, 344/6 in the end. Shows my eye judgement and the rule of thumb aren't too bad I thought Taylor might cut loose a bit more, didn't really accelerate enough and it's only really been Santner, Munro and Milne showing much intent (to launch into the bowling) since Ronchi was first wicket down.

    Now Ireland have conceded 972 runs off 955 balls and taken just the 19 wickets. Granted they were denied 18.5 overs to take some wickets, but even in the completed innings they took only 6 and 7 which would be in no small part down to the kiwis wanting a big score so vulnerable to losing wickets. I'd consider only taking 5-6 wickets fairly mediocre performance, 7-8 a fairly ordinary but not terrible day at the office and 9-10 has to be the aim for most games if you want to win them. Even England have only managed 9-10 wickets in 113 of their last 240 ODIs that have not been rain affected, and in their last 301 ODIs TWO HUNDRED AND THIRTY EIGHT have been won by the side that took the most wickets regardless of opponent, weather etc with only TWELVE going against the grain and 26 where the wickets to fall were even.


    Be interesting to see how the Irish bat, stirling effort perhaps or just fall over when the pressure is on which will be from the off.
    Last edited by TheDarknessIsCalling; 21-5-17 at 14:31.
    People will believe what they want to believe
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  14. #2774  
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    9,761
    Mumbai win the IPL
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  15. #2775  
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    20,201
    Ireland pretty much fell apart, but for some late resistance the margin may have been even more embarrassing - 190 runs as it is doesn't exactly give their Test prospects a boost. Quite surprising they put themselves in for such a potential humiliation, playing two sides who they'd struggle to beat except on a good day and with potential to hammer them

    Short of bringing in tiers I don't see the ICC giving anyone else Test status, probably smarting somewhat from their last two 'elevations' (Bangladesh only just becoming competitive around 16 years on, Zimbabwe disappeared off the map, I don't include the saffers as they were simply excluded)
    People will believe what they want to believe
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  16. #2776  
    TheRiedle is online now First team regular
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    35,908
    Oh my word what a final. Mumbai Indians win by 1 run.
    ?
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  17. #2777  
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    31,245
    Come on South Africa.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  18. #2778  
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    25,626
    Quote Originally Posted by grenny158 View Post
    Come on South Africa.
    Really looking forward to this series!

    Just had a look at the SA squad, bloomin' hell it looks strong! Great to see our mate Behardien in there, though!

    Will this be the starting XI?:

    Amla, De Kock, De Villiers, du Plessis, Duminy, Miller, Pretorius, Morris, Rabada, Morkel, Tahir
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  19. #2779  
    TheRiedle is online now First team regular
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    35,908
    Quote Originally Posted by grenny158 View Post
    Come on South Africa.
    South Africa vs Bangladesh coming up after ICC trophy Grenny.
    ?
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  20. #2780  
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    31,245
    Quote Originally Posted by Bewdleyfan View Post
    Really looking forward to this series!

    Just had a look at the SA squad, bloomin' hell it looks strong! Great to see our mate Behardien in there, though!

    Will this be the starting XI?:

    Amla, De Kock, De Villiers, du Plessis, Duminy, Miller, Pretorius, Morris, Rabada, Morkel, Tahir
    Me too, Bewdley!

    Yep, this is one of the strongest SA ODI squads since readmission in 1992 without a shadow of doubt. Seriously strong in all aspects of the game.

    I think our good friend Behardien will be in for Miller (although Miller is by far the better player) for 'appearance' sake and to comply with the quota system.

    I predict a 2-0 win to SA in the series (of course one game will be lost to the weather).
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  21. #2781  
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    31,245
    Quote Originally Posted by TheMelwoodMole View Post
    South Africa vs Bangladesh coming up after ICC trophy Grenny.

    Yep, TMM, looking forward to this tour as well, although I am somewhat peeved that they have chosen to play all the games at lesser venues. No Wanderers, no Newlands, no St.George's, no Centurion .. almost like they are not treating this series with the respect it deserves, which ****es me off.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  22. #2782  
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    31,245
    Bring forth the first ODI, and a jolly good thrashing for England's best, please.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  23. #2783  
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    25,626
    Quote Originally Posted by grenny158 View Post
    Me too, Bewdley!

    Yep, this is one of the strongest SA ODI squads since readmission in 1992 without a shadow of doubt. Seriously strong in all aspects of the game.

    I think our good friend Behardien will be in for Miller (although Miller is by far the better player) for 'appearance' sake and to comply with the quota system.

    I predict a 2-0 win to SA in the series (of course one game will be lost to the weather).
    I always forget about the quota system!

    I'm interested to see the England line up. Moeen was left out of the side against Ireland, but the pundits think he'll come back in today.

    I think it could be this: Roy, Hales, Root, Morgan, Stokes, Buttler, Ali, Woakes, Rashid, Willey, Wood

    With Bairstow, Billings, Plunkett and Ball missing out.

    Personally, is like to see Bairstow in there, in place of Ali.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  24. #2784  
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    31,245
    Quote Originally Posted by Bewdleyfan View Post
    I always forget about the quota system!

    I'm interested to see the England line up. Moeen was left out of the side against Ireland, but the pundits think he'll come back in today.

    I think it could be this: Roy, Hales, Root, Morgan, Stokes, Buttler, Ali, Woakes, Rashid, Willey, Wood

    With Bairstow, Billings, Plunkett and Ball missing out.

    Personally, is like to see Bairstow in there, in place of Ali.
    How does the Headingley wicket play, Bewdley? Does it favour spin or quicks?
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  25. #2785  
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    25,626
    Quote Originally Posted by grenny158 View Post
    How does the Headingley wicket play, Bewdley? Does it favour spin or quicks?
    I had to check, to be honest.

    From what I've just read, the wicket tends to favour the seamers. It is described as 'variable' too, though.

    This is another reason to play Bairstow in place of Ali, in my opinion. It is Bairstow and Rashid's home ground, and if we do need a second spin option for a couple of overs, give the ball to Joe Root (Headingly is his home ground, too).
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  26. #2786  
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    31,245
    Quote Originally Posted by Bewdleyfan View Post
    I had to check, to be honest.

    From what I've just read, the wicket tends to favour the seamers. It is described as 'variable' too, though.

    This is another reason to play Bairstow in place of Ali, in my opinion. It is Bairstow and Rashid's home ground, and if we do need a second spin option for a couple of overs, give the ball to Joe Root (Headingly is his home ground, too).
    Yep, based on what you have said there, I would agree. Also glad it favours the seamers as, besides Tahir, we do not have much in terms of quality spin bowling. If there is a weakness in our team / squad, that would be it.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  27. #2787  
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    31,245
    SA win the toss and will have a bowl. Lots of runs expected if ESPN is to believed so, if SA restrict England to under 300, I would expect them to win. Anything over 300 and it starts to get really interesting.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  28. #2788  
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    25,626
    England: Hales, Roy, Root, Morgan, Stokes, Buttler, Ali, Woakes, Rashid, Plunkett, Wood

    SA: Amla, De Kock, du Plessis, de Villiers, Duminy, Miller, Morris, Parnell, Phehlukwayo, Rabada, Tahir
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  29. #2789  
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    31,245
    Nicely poised, this game is .. England 126/3 after 23 overs. Heading for a score of about 300 - 320 assuming England have a couple of good partnerships and don't lose a few quick wickets. Still would fancy SA to chase down a score of under 350 though.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  30. #2790  
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    25,626
    England reach 339/6 off their 50 overs.

    Morgan top scored with 107 off 93 balls. That was his third century in his last eight ODI innings, having not scored one in his previous 24 matches.

    I might have been wrong wanting Bairstow in instead of Ali, as Moeen finished unbeaten on 77 off 51 balls.

    Hales hit a nice half century, too.

    Evenly poised this game. SA have the players to chase down that total, but we have the bowlers to cause them some problems too.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   



Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •