The definitive rugby union forum. Talk to fans from around the world about your favourite team
https://forum.planetrugby.com/
He never shows any sign of being able to cope with decent bowling at a reasonable pace (never mind the high quality fast bowling that causes everyone problems). Yet another flat footed drive away from his body.etherman wrote:Keaton Jennings. All the resistance of wet bog roll. Out for 14. At least this time hes not top scorer.
Worst. Poach. Ever.etherman wrote:Keaton Jennings. All the resistance of wet bog roll. Out for 14. At least this time hes not top scorer.
He has never looked capable of being a consistent test player. His technique against pace bowling is just not good enough - almost no foot movement and he doesn't transfer his weight well either - he looks very wooden. For the life of me I can't see what the selectors see in him that they've persisted so long.A5D5E5 wrote:He never shows any sign of being able to cope with decent bowling at a reasonable pace (never mind the high quality fast bowling that causes everyone problems). Yet another flat footed drive away from his body.etherman wrote:Keaton Jennings. All the resistance of wet bog roll. Out for 14. At least this time hes not top scorer.
Also, if he is only scoring slowly, when the ball with his name on it comes (as it surely will), he is out cheaply even if he has survived 70 balls like today.
I just can't see a test batsmen there. As a first class average of 32 suggests he isn't.
"a bit of a gap" is being slightly kind !!ovalball wrote:He has never looked capable of being a consistent test player. His technique against pace bowling is just not good enough - almost no foot movement and he doesn't transfer his weight well either - he looks very wooden. For the life of me I can't see what the selectors see in him that they've persisted so long.A5D5E5 wrote:He never shows any sign of being able to cope with decent bowling at a reasonable pace (never mind the high quality fast bowling that causes everyone problems). Yet another flat footed drive away from his body.etherman wrote:Keaton Jennings. All the resistance of wet bog roll. Out for 14. At least this time hes not top scorer.
Also, if he is only scoring slowly, when the ball with his name on it comes (as it surely will), he is out cheaply even if he has survived 70 balls like today.
I just can't see a test batsmen there. As a first class average of 32 suggests he isn't.
And, on top of that, he must be mentally shot away by now.
Damn - Burns bowled in the token spin over before lunch - left a bit of a gap, not well played but a promising innings.
Need a truly massive partnership between Root and Bairstow.
Yep - being bowled through the gate by a ball spinning away from you, is a bit worrying. Looked like a bit of lapse of concentration.awfultyper wrote:"a bit of a gap" is being slightly kind !!ovalball wrote:He has never looked capable of being a consistent test player. His technique against pace bowling is just not good enough - almost no foot movement and he doesn't transfer his weight well either - he looks very wooden. For the life of me I can't see what the selectors see in him that they've persisted so long.A5D5E5 wrote:He never shows any sign of being able to cope with decent bowling at a reasonable pace (never mind the high quality fast bowling that causes everyone problems). Yet another flat footed drive away from his body.etherman wrote:Keaton Jennings. All the resistance of wet bog roll. Out for 14. At least this time hes not top scorer.
Also, if he is only scoring slowly, when the ball with his name on it comes (as it surely will), he is out cheaply even if he has survived 70 balls like today.
I just can't see a test batsmen there. As a first class average of 32 suggests he isn't.
And, on top of that, he must be mentally shot away by now.
Damn - Burns bowled in the token spin over before lunch - left a bit of a gap, not well played but a promising innings.
Need a truly massive partnership between Root and Bairstow.
Can't afford to loose anymore wickets before lunch tomorrow. We are screwedovalball wrote:Bairstow gone - strangled down the leg side. Get the feeling that this session is going to be a bad one for us. Needed to weather the hostile burst from Gabriel - Root had a fair bit of luck (caught of a no ball and looking very uncomfortable against the short ball).
That was an awful shot 2 balls before dinner. A bouncing balloon outside of offside that he’s limp wristed straight to second slip.etherman wrote:Ive been a Mo fan but fùxk me. A pair.
Flintoff, 41, averaged 31.77 with the bat and 32.78 with the ball in his 79-Test career, while Holder is currently averaging 33.86 with the bat and 28.21 with the ball in 36 matches.
Yup, especially stupid since 95% of Test matches are over before Day 5 these days.etherman wrote:The ICC need a kick in the hoop. Holder banned for the last test match due to slow over rate. How the frig does that make any sense? Ridiculous punishment. If slow overs are a problem put the team on the clock and add runs to extras. Banning a star player is stupid and just harms the game. Slow over rates are an issue but deal with it properly rather than this nonsense.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/47110267
They really are doing their best to shaft test cricket, the game finished 2 days early ffs, but hey lets get rid of all the marquee players, that'll bring the crowds inetherman wrote:The ICC need a kick in the hoop. Holder banned for the last test match due to slow over rate. How the frig does that make any sense? Ridiculous punishment. If slow overs are a problem put the team on the clock and add runs to extras. Banning a star player is stupid and just harms the game. Slow over rates are an issue but deal with it properly rather than this nonsense.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/47110267
JM2K6 wrote:Slow over rates screw everyone, especially the fans - they should be tougher with the bans.
It shouldn't be one rule for one and another for someone else. Even if one team wins big.A5D5E5 wrote:JM2K6 wrote:Slow over rates screw everyone, especially the fans - they should be tougher with the bans.
I doubt the WI fans consider themselves to have been screwed!
I'm not saying it should be. And I agree that slow over rates are a blight on the game. But I'm not convinced suspending players is for the long term good of the game. They should look at more immediate penalties within the game.JM2K6 wrote:It shouldn't be one rule for one and another for someone else. Even if one team wins big.A5D5E5 wrote:JM2K6 wrote:Slow over rates screw everyone, especially the fans - they should be tougher with the bans.
I doubt the WI fans consider themselves to have been screwed!
Slow over rates are indeed a blight on the game, and they need to do something about it. They've been banning captains for a while in an attempt to fix it, because no other punishment they've considered is fair or effective.A5D5E5 wrote:I'm not saying it should be. And I agree that slow over rates are a blight on the game. But I'm not convinced suspending players is for the long term good of the game. They should look at more immediate penalties within the game.JM2K6 wrote:It shouldn't be one rule for one and another for someone else. Even if one team wins big.A5D5E5 wrote:JM2K6 wrote:Slow over rates screw everyone, especially the fans - they should be tougher with the bans.
I doubt the WI fans consider themselves to have been screwed!
Having said that, given how frequently england were losing wickets, they were pretty much adding two minutes to every over to allow for a new batsman to walk out.
12 runs per over penalties, suspend a bowler for a number of overs during the game, fielding restrictions, forced to use an England batsman to open the batting - lots of possibilities that could be trialled.JM2K6 wrote:Slow over rates are indeed a blight on the game, and they need to do something about it. They've been banning captains for a while in an attempt to fix it, because no other punishment they've considered is fair or effective.A5D5E5 wrote:I'm not saying it should be. And I agree that slow over rates are a blight on the game. But I'm not convinced suspending players is for the long term good of the game. They should look at more immediate penalties within the game.JM2K6 wrote:It shouldn't be one rule for one and another for someone else. Even if one team wins big.A5D5E5 wrote:JM2K6 wrote:Slow over rates screw everyone, especially the fans - they should be tougher with the bans.
I doubt the WI fans consider themselves to have been screwed!
Having said that, given how frequently england were losing wickets, they were pretty much adding two minutes to every over to allow for a new batsman to walk out.
I'm all for a better solution but what would you suggest? Any financial penalty is a piece of piss for the big sides and nasty for the little ones.
A5D5E5 wrote:12 runs per over penalties, suspend a bowler for a number of overs during the game, fielding restrictions, forced to use an England batsman to open the battingJM2K6 wrote:Slow over rates are indeed a blight on the game, and they need to do something about it. They've been banning captains for a while in an attempt to fix it, because no other punishment they've considered is fair or effective.A5D5E5 wrote:I'm not saying it should be. And I agree that slow over rates are a blight on the game. But I'm not convinced suspending players is for the long term good of the game. They should look at more immediate penalties within the game.JM2K6 wrote:It shouldn't be one rule for one and another for someone else. Even if one team wins big.A5D5E5 wrote: I doubt the WI fans consider themselves to have been screwed!
Having said that, given how frequently england were losing wickets, they were pretty much adding two minutes to every over to allow for a new batsman to walk out.
I'm all for a better solution but what would you suggest? Any financial penalty is a piece of piss for the big sides and nasty for the little ones.- lots of possibilities that could be trialled.
So does removing marquee players, i thought they were trying to encourage people to watch test cricket. They need to come up with a better solution, there are plenty of other options.JM2K6 wrote:Slow over rates screw everyone, especially the fans - they should be tougher with the bans.
The Captain knows the rules and is responsible for his team - Holder also has form, it ain't his 1st offence. Slow over rates give the bowling team an unfair advantage - they can keep their pace bowlers fresher and lessen the need to play other bowlers - it also mean the batsmen have to bat for far longer to make a big score. 12 overs an hour is totally unacceptable. I'd make the sanctions even tougher.jambanja wrote:So does removing marquee players, i thought they were trying to encourage people to watch test cricket. They need to come up with a better solution, there are plenty of other options.JM2K6 wrote:Slow over rates screw everyone, especially the fans - they should be tougher with the bans.
etherman wrote:Couldnt find a match thread. Good to see Wood taking wickets. He seems to be back to a longer run up, I dont know how recent this is. Last time a saw him he had a skippy short run up and had lost his pace. Wonder if thats some shitty tinkering from bad coaches or he was protecting himself from injury.
He and Woakes need to get themselves in good fitness/nick. Branderson have not really done the business this series.
From memory when Wood first came on the Test scene he had a longer run up, then changed to the short chopy one, which seemed to me to be ripe for causing all kinds of injuries and reduced his pace. Glad to see he's reverted, but that a big chunk of prime bowling career. Also been a shame Woakes has been crocked on this tour. He's not lightning but could have been seriously useful.ovalball wrote:etherman wrote:Couldnt find a match thread. Good to see Wood taking wickets. He seems to be back to a longer run up, I dont know how recent this is. Last time a saw him he had a skippy short run up and had lost his pace. Wonder if thats some shitty tinkering from bad coaches or he was protecting himself from injury.
He and Woakes need to get themselves in good fitness/nick. Branderson have not really done the business this series.
The new run up is very recent - designed to take some of the stress out of his action. He was always and 'effort' bowler - the new run up means he doesn't have to do it all in the last stride or two.
Pitches haven't really suited Jimmy/Broad - albeit they've both been a bit unlucky and haven't done badly - it's not as if the Windies have piled on huge scores except for that one partnership in the 1st test (no Broad in that game !!). However, they can't go on forever, so we should be planning for life after them, especially away from home. It'll be interesting to see what the selectors do with Archer. If Wood's latest incarnation isn't just a flash in the pan, he and Archer would give us two 90mph + bowlers.
Ali bowled very well again.
I always wonder when bowlers change their action whether there has been a good reason for it or just a coach trying to have an input.ovalball wrote:etherman wrote:Couldnt find a match thread. Good to see Wood taking wickets. He seems to be back to a longer run up, I dont know how recent this is. Last time a saw him he had a skippy short run up and had lost his pace. Wonder if thats some shitty tinkering from bad coaches or he was protecting himself from injury.
He and Woakes need to get themselves in good fitness/nick. Branderson have not really done the business this series.
The new run up is very recent - designed to take some of the stress out of his action. He was always and 'effort' bowler - the new run up means he doesn't have to do it all in the last stride or two.
Pitches haven't really suited Jimmy/Broad - albeit they've both been a bit unlucky and haven't done badly - it's not as if the Windies have piled on huge scores except for that one partnership in the 1st test (no Broad in that game !!). However, they can't go on forever, so we should be planning for life after them, especially away from home. It'll be interesting to see what the selectors do with Archer. If Wood's latest incarnation isn't just a flash in the pan, he and Archer would give us two 90mph + bowlers.
Ali bowled very well again.
etherman wrote:From memory when Wood first came on the Test scene he had a longer run up, then changed to the short chopy one, which seemed to me to be ripe for causing all kinds of injuries and reduced his pace. Glad to see he's reverted, but that a big chunk of prime bowling career. Also been a shame Woakes has been crocked on this tour. He's not lightning but could have been seriously useful.ovalball wrote:etherman wrote:Couldnt find a match thread. Good to see Wood taking wickets. He seems to be back to a longer run up, I dont know how recent this is. Last time a saw him he had a skippy short run up and had lost his pace. Wonder if thats some shitty tinkering from bad coaches or he was protecting himself from injury.
He and Woakes need to get themselves in good fitness/nick. Branderson have not really done the business this series.
The new run up is very recent - designed to take some of the stress out of his action. He was always and 'effort' bowler - the new run up means he doesn't have to do it all in the last stride or two.
Pitches haven't really suited Jimmy/Broad - albeit they've both been a bit unlucky and haven't done badly - it's not as if the Windies have piled on huge scores except for that one partnership in the 1st test (no Broad in that game !!). However, they can't go on forever, so we should be planning for life after them, especially away from home. It'll be interesting to see what the selectors do with Archer. If Wood's latest incarnation isn't just a flash in the pan, he and Archer would give us two 90mph + bowlers.
Ali bowled very well again.
These never copy in a very readable format but series stats below.
Yeah, neither Broad or Anderson have bowled badly, Broad averaging in the 20's Anderson just over 30. But 7 wickets in two and a half games is a poor return by Anderson standards. I'm sure back in English conditions he'll be back to his best for one last tilt at the aussies.
Haven;t seen much of Archer, certainly not in red ball. Is he rapid?
Batting stats are a horror.
England batting averages
Player Mat Inns NO Runs HS Ave BF SR 100 50 0 4s 6s
RJ Burns 3* 6 1 145 84 29.00 342 42.39 0 1 0 19 0
BA Stokes 3* 5 0 138 79 27.60 321 42.99 0 1 1 14 1
JC Buttler 3* 5 0 122 67 24.40 233 52.36 0 1 0 19 0
JM Bairstow 3* 5 0 110 52 22.00 184 59.78 0 1 0 18 1
SM Curran 2 4 1 50 17 16.66 75 66.66 0 0 0 9 0
KK Jennings 2* 4 1 47 17 15.66 201 23.38 0 0 0 5 0
MM Ali 3* 5 0 77 60 15.40 142 54.22 0 1 2 9 1
JL Denly 2* 3 0 43 20 14.33 135 31.85 0 0 0 4 0
BT Foakes 2 4 0 55 35 13.75 125 44.00 0 0 0 8 0
JE Root 3* 5 0 55 22 11.00 137 40.14 0 0 0 8 0
AU Rashid 1 2 0 13 12 6.50 24 54.16 0 0 0 3 0
MA Wood 1* 1 0 6 6 6.00 4 150.00 0 0 0 0 0
JM Anderson 3* 5 2 5 4* 1.66 35 14.28 0 0 2 1 0
SCJ Broad 2* 3 2 0 0* 0.00 7 0.00 0 0 1 0 0
England bowling averages
Player Mat Inns Overs Mdns Runs Wkts BBI BBM Ave Econ SR 5 10 Ct St
MA Wood 1* 1 8.2 2 41 5 5/41 5/41 8.20 4.92 10.0 1 0 0 0
MM Ali 3* 4 72.0 12 235 11 4/36 4/36 21.36 3.26 39.2 0 0 0 0
BA Stokes 3* 3 77.3 13 198 8 4/59 6/140 24.75 2.55 58.1 0 0 3 0
SCJ Broad 2* 3 52.0 20 101 4 3/53 3/59 25.25 1.94 78.0 0 0 1 0
JM Anderson 3* 5 87.1 25 218 7 5/46 5/104 31.14 2.50 74.7 1 0 3 0
SM Curran 2 3 42.0 4 161 1 1/69 1/123 161.00 3.83 252.0 0 0 0 0
JL Denly 2* 1 1.0 0 1 0 - - - 1.00 - 0 0 0 0
KK Jennings 2* 1 4.1 0 29 0 - - - 6.96 - 0 0 2 0
JE Root 3* 2 15.0 0 47 0 - - - 3.13 - 0 0 5 0
AU Rashid 1 2 26.0 1 117 0 - - - 4.50 - 0 0 0 0
He was down a yard in pace, compared to the first innings - still clocked 89mph - but not quite the sustained express speed of the 1st innings.Petros wrote:No 4 to Wood, 33-4
At the time you wrote this, they were just ticking over. Now they are actually shifting. 80 runs in 4 overs. Buttler going from 50 to 100 in about 20 balls.Gazzamonster wrote:Feckin' heck - England going at some clip in the 4th ODI.
