Notices
Reply to Thread
Page 48 of 48 FirstFirst ... 38464748
Results 1,411 to 1,432 of 1432

Thread: The Cricket Thread

  1. #1411  
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    21,024
    Quote Originally Posted by ghyllred View Post
    get the heroes welcome ready at Heathrow and the gongs too. Theyve avoided a whitewash. What a team!
    They'll get their just desserts, don't you fret, new central contracts and wholesale changes disguised within a team that has the same old same old.


    Of the players who are more or less ever presents how many had a good series?

    Root - didn't go on to the big scores that win matches.

    Cook - one swallow doesn't make a summer (or a good girlfriend), and one score carrying his average doesn't make a good series.

    Ali - tried to hang around, but doesn't matter how he goes about it when he's in this kind of form. Appalling as a frontline spinner, now back above 40 bowling average which is bad considering how he can take 4+ wickets in an innings so really should be low 30s at worst.

    Bairstow - not particularly outstanding with bat, but did score a hundred and keeping wicket down under and expected to score runs must be a thankless task

    Anderson - couple of good bowling returns, steady enough but getting a bit more credit than perhaps deserved and no doubt because he was made to look so good (in some people's eyes) because of the poor show by the rest

    Broad - laughable he felt his decent return made up for an appalling series with the ball. Did make a fifty but anyone remotely capable with the bat should be able to make at least one score of 40+ on those pitches which perhaps exposes how bad the top order were in getting out so often for the kind of scores even the lower order could make........


    Have a wild guess how many of the above won't be picked for the next Test series........... (injuries not withstanding) On the flip side Vince, Stoneman, Crane, and a few of the others may well be axed, I think Ball can probably thank his lucky stars he didn't feature much and will probably linger even though he's not good enough and neither is Wood, whereas Roland-Jones may have been able to do something and didn't get picked having done nothing wrong.



    Anyone else share the view it might not be what you do but who you are....?
    People will believe what they want to believe
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  2. #1412  
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    5,182
    Quote Originally Posted by TheDarknessIsCalling View Post
    They'll get their just desserts, don't you fret, new central contracts and wholesale changes disguised within a team that has the same old same old.


    Of the players who are more or less ever presents how many had a good series?

    Root - didn't go on to the big scores that win matches.

    Cook - one swallow doesn't make a summer (or a good girlfriend), and one score carrying his average doesn't make a good series.

    Ali - tried to hang around, but doesn't matter how he goes about it when he's in this kind of form. Appalling as a frontline spinner, now back above 40 bowling average which is bad considering how he can take 4+ wickets in an innings so really should be low 30s at worst.

    Bairstow - not particularly outstanding with bat, but did score a hundred and keeping wicket down under and expected to score runs must be a thankless task

    Anderson - couple of good bowling returns, steady enough but getting a bit more credit than perhaps deserved and no doubt because he was made to look so good (in some people's eyes) because of the poor show by the rest

    Broad - laughable he felt his decent return made up for an appalling series with the ball. Did make a fifty but anyone remotely capable with the bat should be able to make at least one score of 40+ on those pitches which perhaps exposes how bad the top order were in getting out so often for the kind of scores even the lower order could make........


    Have a wild guess how many of the above won't be picked for the next Test series........... (injuries not withstanding) On the flip side Vince, Stoneman, Crane, and a few of the others may well be axed, I think Ball can probably thank his lucky stars he didn't feature much and will probably linger even though he's not good enough and neither is Wood, whereas Roland-Jones may have been able to do something and didn't get picked having done nothing wrong.



    Anyone else share the view it might not be what you do but who you are....?
    Wasnt Roland-Jones injured?.
    I think the problem is there isnt much to choose from as regards test players. Why concentrate on getting big scores and becoming a test player when you can just hoof a few sixes then get out?. After all, the money is in Twenty20 now.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  3. #1413  
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    21,024
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnnyZidane View Post
    Wasnt Roland-Jones injured?.
    Not sure. Thought there were discussions on forums which suggested he wasn't, but weren't some who toured only returning from injury recently....?

    Quote Originally Posted by JohnnyZidane View Post
    I think the problem is there isnt much to choose from as regards test players. Why concentrate on getting big scores and becoming a test player when you can just hoof a few sixes then get out?. After all, the money is in Twenty20 now.
    As I say, what do the current clique have to do to be dropped? Worse than this Ashes because I bet Broad, Cook and Ali will be in the XI next Test barring injury and what kind of message does that send out to the (potential and actual) newbs?

    On the flip side have the relatively recent newbs done enough to suggest they can do any better than regulars in ordinary form? Stoneman? Not really. Vince? No. Malan? To a degree. Ball? No. Wood? Not really? Roland-Jones? Done well. Ballance? To start with but went off the boil. Other openers? Varying degrees, some around 30 average but none solid. Crane? Hard to say. Rashid? Done as much as can be expected.

    Overall? More miss than hit, not helped by general selection policies, not giving players rests to give others chances in series against weaker opponents, and English conditions with England wanting to play a spinner as part of five bowlers so always going to lean towards someone who can bat.



    Maybe the policies need a rethink first. Always like the one dayers before the Tests in the old days, although more played both formats, in part because it gave players a chance to show their abilities against the best bowlers around and THAT for me is as important as specifics relating to one format vs the other ie being able to play a Steyn, Starc etc is more important than scoring rate etc. Unless someone lacks technique and can't play a straight bat defence, or can't bowl straight, there's no real reason they can't apply themselves to the Test arena.
    People will believe what they want to believe
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  4. #1414  
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    21,024
    They've announced the squad for two Tests in New Zealand.

    Ball and Ballance are dispensed with, obviously badly failed in the what, ONE Ashes Test they played between them, and Curran also whilst Stoneman and Vince are retained.

    (dead)Wood and Livingstone are called up, and Stokes has been included for whatever reason and the changes send out all kinds of wrong messages re performance and conduct, what gets rewarded and what doesn't.


    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/42626494


    Apparently Bayliss reckons Vince and Stoneman "deserve a bit more of a chance" "showed the potential they have" and "against one of the best attacks in the World". Vince and Stoneman scored 242 and 232 runs respectively, a third of Vince's came in his first knock and 159 in 8 thereafter (under 20 average for those runs) Paine scored 192 and Cummins 166 to put those in perspective, Bancroft was the only batsman on either side that played 3+ Tests and scored less runs.

    The selectors lack credibility, they simply don't apply any sense to their selections. No consistency, no planning, made me laugh the BBC piece where I think Root suggests they're planning for the next Ashes. How?!?! Several will retire by then, they'll have gone through 20-30 new players and maybe found 3-4 that are worth persisting with, and come the Ashes we'll have come round full circle. It's simply not something you can plan for so far ahead, certainly not a plan that has every chance of coming to fruition. It would be like trying to name the XI takes the field in the next Ashes Test down under.
    People will believe what they want to believe
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  5. #1415  
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    26,241
    Quote Originally Posted by TheDarknessIsCalling View Post
    They've announced the squad for two Tests in New Zealand.

    Ball and Ballance are dispensed with, obviously badly failed in the what, ONE Ashes Test they played between them, and Curran also whilst Stoneman and Vince are retained.

    (dead)Wood and Livingstone are called up, and Stokes has been included for whatever reason and the changes send out all kinds of wrong messages re performance and conduct, what gets rewarded and what doesn't.


    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/42626494


    Apparently Bayliss reckons Vince and Stoneman "deserve a bit more of a chance" "showed the potential they have" and "against one of the best attacks in the World". Vince and Stoneman scored 242 and 232 runs respectively, a third of Vince's came in his first knock and 159 in 8 thereafter (under 20 average for those runs) Paine scored 192 and Cummins 166 to put those in perspective, Bancroft was the only batsman on either side that played 3+ Tests and scored less runs.

    The selectors lack credibility, they simply don't apply any sense to their selections. No consistency, no planning, made me laugh the BBC piece where I think Root suggests they're planning for the next Ashes. How?!?! Several will retire by then, they'll have gone through 20-30 new players and maybe found 3-4 that are worth persisting with, and come the Ashes we'll have come round full circle. It's simply not something you can plan for so far ahead, certainly not a plan that has every chance of coming to fruition. It would be like trying to name the XI takes the field in the next Ashes Test down under.
    Glad to see Livingstone called up. He could become a fixture in the middle order for the foreseeable, in my opinion.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  6. #1416  
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    26,241
    The first ODI between Australia and England kicks off at 3.20am (UK time).

    Looking forward to it.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  7. #1417  
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    21,024
    Quote Originally Posted by Bewdleyfan View Post
    Glad to see Livingstone called up. He could become a fixture in the middle order for the foreseeable, in my opinion.
    I'd rather debuts were given at home than overseas though, get them a bit of experience and hopefully rid of some nerves before playing on foreign (to them) pitches.

    That said I hope they don't play Vince again, although England never do like to admit there are anything other than teething problems so may well mostly ignore the issues from the Ashes, put it down to something other than a fairly abysmal effort from the batsmen and toothlessness of most bowlers.
    People will believe what they want to believe
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  8. #1418  
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    21,024
    Quote Originally Posted by Bewdleyfan View Post
    The first ODI between Australia and England kicks off at 3.20am (UK time).

    Looking forward to it.
    aussies posted 304/8, looks good from their early predicament of 78/3 after 14 overs, but I think the key wickets of Finch and Marsh falling fairly quickly after each other around 200 helped keep the score down as I reckon they may have got 330-350 if those two, or even just one of them, had stuck around much longer.

    England shot out of the blocks at one heck of a rate, but two early wickets seemed to have brought them down to earth a bit with 60/2 after 5.5 overs quick scoring, and it continued to be quick for a while, but you can't lose lots of early wickets if you want to win.

    Bit more of a controlled 155/2 after 25 overs now, halfway to the total and half the overs gone, but usually being halfway to the total after 30 overs gives you a good chance so England looking set fair to win this one. If Roy can convert his first hundred since his 24th ODI (in his 49th here) and maybe make it quite a big one I reckon there's only one winner.

    Root has settled back a bit into more of an anchor role which is sensible, no point opening one end up and if Roy gets out then he can take over the main role. Not sure what Stoinis brings to the aussies, had a look at his record and he averages like 60 with the ball in ODIs (albeit less than 10 so far) Not sure this aussie attack has the teeth to beat England, if Starc and Cummins are going to be expensive and only pick up one wicket apiece in bowling half their overs, and the rest tidy but wicketless, England only have to keep their heads and it should be in the bag.

    Wickets were key in the aussie innings, helped keep the target attainable, and will be here. Not sure the aussies have enough about this attack to take enough though, think they'd need to bowl England out or take 8-9 and slow the chase right down and can't see either happening with that quintet. Don't be surprised to see them use a part-timer
    People will believe what they want to believe
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  9. #1419  
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    17,734
    England are a completely different proposition as a one day side. Incredible how they can have two completely different sides, two completely different situations, one day side is one of the very best, test side one of the very worst of the major nations.

    Do we need to start treating them differently right through set up ?
    Thereís already different teams and different captains, why not have different coaches and split them completely ?
    The two forms of the game are so different that I donít see why they need to have the same leadership etc.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  10. #1420  
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    21,024
    Quote Originally Posted by Eddes View Post
    England are a completely different proposition as a one day side. Incredible how they can have two completely different sides, two completely different situations, one day side is one of the very best, test side one of the very worst of the major nations.

    Do we need to start treating them differently right through set up ?
    Thereís already different teams and different captains, why not have different coaches and split them completely ?
    The two forms of the game are so different that I donít see why they need to have the same leadership etc.
    I think England's thinking is too similar in both formats, especially with the number of bowlers 'needed', and differences like fielding restrictions, overs limited per bowler etc, make it easier for the batsmen to perform. Having 5-6 bowlers in ODIs is almost a given, most times you win a Test you only need four. England can also play with a bit more freedom no matter where the ODI is being played, Tests they need to rein themselves in a bit and adjust. Plus taking wickets is important in ODIs, but toothlessness with economy is not much use in Tests, especially if several bowlers aren't taking wickets, whereas in ODIs you can get away with it more (often)


    Overall though they may be better as a one day side, but still not near a side that will regularly even compete for trophies like the World Cup. Have England won a trophy with all the major sides in it like the Champions Trophy (no) and World Cup (no)....? Two losing finals in the Champions Trophy, THREE in the World Cup and not even a semi in the World Cup since reaching the last of those finals in 1992 :


    England in the World Cup since 1992

    1996 - quarter final. First signs England were not very competent in this format any more showed here, could only beat UAE and Netherlands then lost quite emphatically to Sri Lanka (champions) in the quarter-final. The total posted was wholly inadequate, as I recall DeFreitas bowled spin as a desperation measure having been the top scorer with 67 - England 94/4 at one stage, 173/7 when DeFreitas was out.

    1999 - group stage. Despite hosting and beating Sri Lanka in the opening game, England couldn't get out of the group stage. Lost heavily to South Africa (122 runs) and lost to India (63 runs) whilst Zimbabwe (and India) went through on a better run rate. As I understand run rates England perhaps should have batted first against Kenya and probably Zimbabwe, piled on big totals instead of chasing small ones down for 1 and 3 wickets down respectively.

    2003 - group stage. Forfeited the game against Zimbabwe in Zimbabwe over safety concerns so they finished above England. Just couldn't win enough of the rest of the games, lost a close game to the aussies (2 wkts) that could well have seen England through - that or playing Zimbabwe.

    2007 - super eight. Beat Canada and Netherlands to come out of the group stage, could only beat Bangladesh, Ireland and West Indies (1 wkt) though so only finished above those and one place shy of reaching the semis

    2011 - quarter-final. Lost by TEN wickets to Sri Lanka after posting 229/6 batting first. Did manage to beat some decent sides albeit by 6 runs (South Africa) and 18 runs (West Indies), but lost to Bangladesh (2 wkts) and Ireland (3 wkts)

    2015 - group stage. Could only beat Scotland and Afghanistan, lost to Australia (111 runs), New Zealand (8 wkts), Sri Lanka (9 wkts) and Bangladesh (15 runs)




    Even the more recent World Cup(s) have been weak efforts by England, those aren't even small margins against the bigger guns last time out. England may feel they are better prepared this time, but winning one or two games handsomely isn't going to win a World Cup, you need not only to be on your game to progress from the groups, but CANNOT lose a knockout game and that's where England have shown little backbone having not won a knockout game in a World Cup since 1992......... and even then that was down to the RRR (ridiculous rain rule) leaving South Africa needing something like 23 runs off one ball.

    Series are a very different kettle of fish, you can lose 1-2 and still win the series and that doesn't quite sit the same way mentally as the players know they can afford to lose so no real pressure.



    Well done to Roy for his English ODI record score, let's see you break lots of records next World Cup though and England get it right. No doubt England will feel they've cracked it, are among favourites for the World Cup or something like that, and ignore any subsequent failures or failings (within the team) ONE ODI is not going to test the team to the full, the middle and lower order weren't called upon, the expensiveness of Woakes, Plunkett and Rashid albeit with 1-3 wickets each wasn't costly, and England have got away with it a little as they may win a few where the opposition haven't been bowled out, and scored around 300, but this aussie attack isn't that impressive.

    Oh and I was right, Marsh was the "part-timer" (may be a little harsh on him) to bowl which showed how weak their bowling attack was. Some of it Roy and England, but Zoinis averages over 60, Zampa a modest 31 and this was Tye's first outing in a format other than T20Is (played 7 of those)
    People will believe what they want to believe
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  11. #1421  
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    21,024
    Quote Originally Posted by Eddes View Post
    The two forms of the game are so different that I donít see why they need to have the same leadership etc.
    If you mean among that having two XIs with no common players, can't see England ever doing that. Players like Root, Bairstow, Ali and Stokes are seen as too valuable in both formats, the latter two as all-rounders to whatever level you consider them at, and the first two capable of scoring quickly and big.

    To find alternatives and as good would take some doing in a pretty limited set of candidates even if ENGLAND may feel they have a solid set up with plenty of back-ups.



    Roy out for 180, funnily enough I nearly suggested earlier on another forum it would be funny if he could score a big hundred that added up to more than he'd scored against Australia before combined, but didn't because I didn't seriously think there were enough runs for him to do so and the rest were also scoring quickly at the time.

    To have done it he would have had to have scored 206 so he wasn't far off, but there were still runs enough needed he could have scored that many. It is nearly 3 times his previous HS, takes his average against them from 34.17 to 55.00!
    People will believe what they want to believe
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  12. #1422  
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    21,024
    LMFAO, England race to the finishing line then fall across it with a mere 7 balls to spare.......

    281/2 chasing 305 to win, end 308/5



    Also nearly said earlier, but didn't because I couldn't remember what his HS was, that it would be funny as **** if Root made a higher score in this match than in the whole of the Ashes, but he did (91no vs 83) Maybe they should play the ODI series first............. (long thought that, guessing it is to do with D/N and weather, audiences etc)
    People will believe what they want to believe
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  13. #1423  
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    28,719
    Quote Originally Posted by TheDarknessIsCalling View Post
    LMFAO, England race to the finishing line then fall across it with a mere 7 balls to spare.......

    281/2 chasing 305 to win, end 308/5



    Also nearly said earlier, but didn't because I couldn't remember what his HS was, that it would be funny as **** if Root made a higher score in this match than in the whole of the Ashes, but he did (91no vs 83) Maybe they should play the ODI series first............. (long thought that, guessing it is to do with D/N and weather, audiences etc)
    Think this game highlights the issues for England

    You can't play test cricket like its ODI cricket
    Just coz you can play ODI doesn't mean you can play the test game...
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  14. #1424  
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    21,024
    Quote Originally Posted by Mysteron View Post
    Think this game highlights the issues for England

    You can't play test cricket like its ODI cricket
    Sadly sometimes you can play Test cricket like it's ODI cricket, on condusive tracks, but still need to play with some sense and application. I think the problem is England can play a little more cavalier at home, not too far apart from ODI approach, and get away with it because the bowlers often make most of home conditions - not always, they aren't unbeatable at home but I think I heard a stat saying England had only lost like one series in ages *scoots off to check for an accurate stat or two*

    Not nearly as impressive as I was expecting to find so maybe my surprise at hearing it was justified because it's not nearly as good as it should be when you look closer.

    - England are unbeaten in a home Test series since losing to Sri Lanka in 2014 = P7 W5 D2 L0 (Tests P26 W16 D2 L8) In spite of that it should be pointed out wins included against West Indies and Sri Lanka who are no great shakes, and disappointing draws against New Zealand and Pakistan.

    - since the Ashes win in 2005 England have lost just four Test series - to India 1-0, South Africa 2-1 and 2-0, and Sri Lanka 1-0.

    - a more impressive stat might be England winning SEVEN home Test series in a row between 2009 and 2012, losing only two Tests out of 23

    - one of my favourite stats of recent time is how often England win a Test only to lose the next one, this has happened TEN times in 42 tests since the drawn Test against West Indies in April 2015. Granted one or two will be cross series like beating West Indies last Test of the 2017 series and losing the first of the Ashes in 17/18, but still is a lot of times to go from winning to losing in not a lot of overall matches.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mysteron View Post
    Just coz you can play ODI doesn't mean you can play the test game...
    They tried Hales in the longer format, limited success, yet some are calling out to give Roy a go in Tests! Still he'd be hard pressed to do much worse than Stoneman and the plethora of failed openers went before him.
    People will believe what they want to believe
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  15. #1425  
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    31,677
    In more important cricket news, South Africa have won the first two in a three match Test series against India, thereby winning the series and being declared the 'best side ever to compete in ye olde English game of cricket', mostly by Saffers and a few disillusioned English expats living in Pretoria. Would be nice to win the last Test as well and therefore end in a 3-0 series whitewash.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  16. #1426  
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    26,241
    Quote Originally Posted by grenny158 View Post
    In more important cricket news, South Africa have won the first two in a three match Test series against India, thereby winning the series and being declared the 'best side ever to compete in ye olde English game of cricket', mostly by Saffers and a few disillusioned English expats living in Pretoria. Would be nice to win the last Test as well and therefore end in a 3-0 series whitewash.
    Good to see that both matches were in the balance going into the last innings. India have had a chance to win both matches, but seem to have capitulated at the final hurdle.

    That Markram bloke looks pretty handy. What are your thoughts on Philander batting at 7?
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  17. #1427  
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    26,241
    Has anybody seen much of Jofra Archer? Want an absolute talent this kid looks. He's a 22 year old Barbadian who has chosen to play for England. But he will be unable to until 2022 unfortunately!

    He has an effortless delivery and action and a short run up, but regularly bowls in the early 90s and late 80s (MPH of course). He averages 26.07 in First Class cricket, 29.81 in One Day cricket and 23.60 in T20s. At the moment Archer is impressing in the BBL and is the 2nd leading wicket taker behind Andrew Tye.

    Another string to Archer's bow is his batting. He averages 37.87 in First Class cricket and has six 50's to his name in that format.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  18. #1428  
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    4,038
    Quote Originally Posted by grenny158 View Post
    In more important cricket news, South Africa have won the first two in a three match Test series against India, thereby winning the series and being declared the 'best side ever to compete in ye olde English game of cricket', mostly by Saffers and a few disillusioned English expats living in Pretoria. Would be nice to win the last Test as well and therefore end in a 3-0 series whitewash.
    So good seeing more even test matches. India did better than I expected.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  19. #1429  
    LordJamieOfCarragher is online now LFC Forums Moderator
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    89,246
    Ben Stokes called up to the T20 squad.

    The ECB have made a complete mess of this from start to finish.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  20. #1430  
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    31,677
    Quote Originally Posted by Bewdleyfan View Post
    Good to see that both matches were in the balance going into the last innings. India have had a chance to win both matches, but seem to have capitulated at the final hurdle.

    That Markram bloke looks pretty handy. What are your thoughts on Philander batting at 7?
    Yep .. despite our two wins, it has been quite a close series, although India's batting has been relatively poor overall.

    Markram is an excellent prospect - he has done very well in the 8 innings he has played so far and has scored 2 fifties and 2 hundreds (and both the 50's he was out in the 90's .. averaging 64 at the moment, and he is only 23 so has a long way to develop still.

    As to Philander batting 7, I think it is the logical position for him at the moment .. he is certainly more of an allrounder then any of the bowlers who follow him in the batting order. Has has 7 fifties to his name and is handy with the bat, for sure, and is currently No.5 on the global allrounders list.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  21. #1431  
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    31,677
    Quote Originally Posted by Bewdleyfan View Post
    Has anybody seen much of Jofra Archer? Want an absolute talent this kid looks. He's a 22 year old Barbadian who has chosen to play for England. But he will be unable to until 2022 unfortunately!

    He has an effortless delivery and action and a short run up, but regularly bowls in the early 90s and late 80s (MPH of course). He averages 26.07 in First Class cricket, 29.81 in One Day cricket and 23.60 in T20s. At the moment Archer is impressing in the BBL and is the 2nd leading wicket taker behind Andrew Tye.

    Another string to Archer's bow is his batting. He averages 37.87 in First Class cricket and has six 50's to his name in that format.
    Why is that, Bewdley? Home affairs issues or something else?
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  22. #1432  
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    31,677
    Quote Originally Posted by DantesShadow View Post
    So good seeing more even test matches. India did better than I expected.
    They are a top quality side .. more so at home then away I guess (most teams are, to be fair) but they have probably one of the best pace attacks I have seen India bring on tour here. Absolutely love watching Kohli bat as well, for me the best batsman in the world - if it wasn't for his batting in India's first innings, this Test would not have made Day 5.
    Reply With Quote   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
  •