Official all purpose cricket thread

All things Rugby
User avatar
not_english
Posts: 2207
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: London

Official all purpose cricket thread

Post by not_english »

Might be a good idea to have one of these. India 78 all out.
User avatar
Anonymous 1
Posts: 43952
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Location: Planet Rock

Re: Official all purpose cricket thread

Post by Anonymous 1 »

England to follow on :(
User avatar
not_english
Posts: 2207
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: London

Re: Official all purpose cricket thread

Post by not_english »

I did think batting first at Headingly might be a bit of a mistake
User avatar
not_english
Posts: 2207
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: London

Re: Official all purpose cricket thread

Post by not_english »

England 21-0, I'm calling this as an England win already.
User avatar
Sefton
Posts: 17051
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Official all purpose cricket thread

Post by Sefton »

Pammy is the greatest English cricket player ever.
User avatar
not_english
Posts: 2207
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: London

Re: Official all purpose cricket thread

Post by not_english »

Sefton wrote: Wed Aug 25, 2021 8:23 pm Pammy is the greatest English cricket player ever.
Hmm Ian Botham, Len Hutton, jack Hobbs, WG grace....you might be right, can't think of anyone clearly better over a long period.
shereblue
Posts: 5449
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Official all purpose cricket thread

Post by shereblue »

not_english wrote: Thu Aug 26, 2021 7:05 am
Sefton wrote: Wed Aug 25, 2021 8:23 pm Pammy is the greatest English cricket player ever.
Hmm Ian Botham, Len Hutton, jack Hobbs, WG grace....you might be right, can't think of anyone clearly better over a long period.
India's own fault entirely.

However, judging greatness on the basis of a Headingley seamer is no more appropriate than doing so on the basis of a "Chennai beach".
User avatar
not_english
Posts: 2207
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: London

Re: Official all purpose cricket thread

Post by not_english »

To be fair I think we are judging greatness on the basis of a long career, and not just this one test match
User avatar
Anonymous 1
Posts: 43952
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Location: Planet Rock

Re: Official all purpose cricket thread

Post by Anonymous 1 »

not_english wrote: Thu Aug 26, 2021 7:05 am
Sefton wrote: Wed Aug 25, 2021 8:23 pm Pammy is the greatest English cricket player ever.
Hmm Ian Botham, Len Hutton, jack Hobbs, WG grace....you might be right, can't think of anyone clearly better over a long period.
He is very good but dont get blinded by longevity
User avatar
not_english
Posts: 2207
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: London

Re: Official all purpose cricket thread

Post by not_english »

Anonymous 1 wrote: Thu Aug 26, 2021 10:53 am
not_english wrote: Thu Aug 26, 2021 7:05 am
Sefton wrote: Wed Aug 25, 2021 8:23 pm Pammy is the greatest English cricket player ever.
Hmm Ian Botham, Len Hutton, jack Hobbs, WG grace....you might be right, can't think of anyone clearly better over a long period.
He is very good but dont get blinded by longevity
Well I agree with you, but can't think of anyone better for a long period of time.
Botham at his best was obviously much better, but that peak was only a few years, and also coincided with World Series Cricket and a few other such things.

I'd be interested to know how many weeks for instance he has been ranked as number one bowler in the world, but not sure it would be as many as some others
shereblue
Posts: 5449
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Official all purpose cricket thread

Post by shereblue »

not_english wrote: Thu Aug 26, 2021 10:59 am
Anonymous 1 wrote: Thu Aug 26, 2021 10:53 am
not_english wrote: Thu Aug 26, 2021 7:05 am
Sefton wrote: Wed Aug 25, 2021 8:23 pm Pammy is the greatest English cricket player ever.
Hmm Ian Botham, Len Hutton, jack Hobbs, WG grace....you might be right, can't think of anyone clearly better over a long period.
He is very good but dont get blinded by longevity
Well I agree with you, but can't think of anyone better for a long period of time.
Botham at his best was obviously much better, but that peak was only a few years, and also coincided with World Series Cricket and a few other such things.

I'd be interested to know how many weeks for instance he has been ranked as number one bowler in the world, but not sure it would be as many as some others
Not an answer to your question, but here's an indication that Jimi was arguably still bested by Glenn McGrath back in Sept 2019:

Image
User avatar
Short Man Syndrome
Posts: 7176
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Front and centre.

Re: Official all purpose cricket thread

Post by Short Man Syndrome »

Glenn McGrath? Nah... he’d never get a thread made about him.
User avatar
not_english
Posts: 2207
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: London

Re: Official all purpose cricket thread

Post by not_english »

I don't think many would argue that Glen McGrath was not better than Jimmy Anderson.
In fact, there are other more recent bowlers clearly better than Jimmy. Steyn for instance, number 1 in the world rankings for 7 years.

Not so much in terms of English players though.
User avatar
not_english
Posts: 2207
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: London

Re: Official all purpose cricket thread

Post by not_english »

Good to see Hameed do well by the way. I'd often wondered what had happened to him, after he looked so decent in his first series.
User avatar
Frodder
Posts: 12788
Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 1:25 pm
Location: Leafy Cheshire (West)

Re: Official all purpose cricket thread

Post by Frodder »

My all time England XI based on how far I can remember (mid 70s)

Gooch
Cook
Gower
Root
Pietersen
Botham
Freddie
Knott
Broad
Andersen
Willis

Root's spin means we can leave out Underwood. The tail looks a little long but the 1st 8 means we'll be ok.

Stewart missing out due to Knott's ability with the gloves
User avatar
not_english
Posts: 2207
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: London

Re: Official all purpose cricket thread

Post by not_english »

Frodder wrote: Thu Aug 26, 2021 2:15 pm My all time England XI based on how far I can remember (mid 70s)

Gooch
Cook
Gower
Root
Pietersen
Botham
Freddie
Knott
Broad
Andersen
Willis

Root's spin means we can leave out Underwood. The tail looks a little long but the 1st 8 means we'll be ok.

Stewart missing out due to Knott's ability with the gloves
My only quibble is Flintoff and Botham. Should only have 1, and that is 1978 era Botham for me.
Would maybe prefer a proper spinner. Swann?
User avatar
Glaston
Posts: 3285
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Official all purpose cricket thread

Post by Glaston »

Thread needs a








ROOOOOOT

Test runs in a year


Sachin who?





Edit:
OOOOPS
User avatar
Anonymous 1
Posts: 43952
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Location: Planet Rock

Re: Official all purpose cricket thread

Post by Anonymous 1 »

India taking lots of wickets. Think it would have been better for them if England had batted two sessions tomorrow
Mick Mannock
Posts: 27773
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Official all purpose cricket thread

Post by Mick Mannock »

not_english wrote: Thu Aug 26, 2021 2:25 pm
Frodder wrote: Thu Aug 26, 2021 2:15 pm My all time England XI based on how far I can remember (mid 70s)

Gooch
Cook
Gower
Root
Pietersen
Botham
Freddie
Knott
Broad
Andersen
Willis

Root's spin means we can leave out Underwood. The tail looks a little long but the 1st 8 means we'll be ok.

Stewart missing out due to Knott's ability with the gloves
My only quibble is Flintoff and Botham. Should only have 1, and that is 1978 era Botham for me.
Would maybe prefer a proper spinner. Swann?
If you are going to consider Swann, might as well have Underwood instead

Snow was a better bowler than Willis
bimboman
Posts: 75546
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Official all purpose cricket thread

Post by bimboman »

Truman probably better than Snow.
Mick Mannock
Posts: 27773
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Official all purpose cricket thread

Post by Mick Mannock »

bimboman wrote: Thu Aug 26, 2021 7:38 pm Truman probably better than Snow.
Probably better than Jimmy.

Peak Truman was very fast, and great.

Later Truman was slower, but still great
User avatar
Frodder
Posts: 12788
Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 1:25 pm
Location: Leafy Cheshire (West)

Re: Official all purpose cricket thread

Post by Frodder »

Mick Mannock wrote: Thu Aug 26, 2021 7:35 pm
not_english wrote: Thu Aug 26, 2021 2:25 pm
Frodder wrote: Thu Aug 26, 2021 2:15 pm My all time England XI based on how far I can remember (mid 70s)

Gooch
Cook
Gower
Root
Pietersen
Botham
Freddie
Knott
Broad
Andersen
Willis

Root's spin means we can leave out Underwood. The tail looks a little long but the 1st 8 means we'll be ok.

Stewart missing out due to Knott's ability with the gloves
My only quibble is Flintoff and Botham. Should only have 1, and that is 1978 era Botham for me.
Would maybe prefer a proper spinner. Swann?
If you are going to consider Swann, might as well have Underwood instead

Snow was a better bowler than Willis
Agreed on Swann but Underwood there would make too long a tail I.e. Deadly Derek. The restriction was mid 70s onwards so Truman is a no.
User avatar
terryfinch
Posts: 5917
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Official all purpose cricket thread

Post by terryfinch »

Frodder wrote: Thu Aug 26, 2021 8:14 pm
Mick Mannock wrote: Thu Aug 26, 2021 7:35 pm
not_english wrote: Thu Aug 26, 2021 2:25 pm
Frodder wrote: Thu Aug 26, 2021 2:15 pm My all time England XI based on how far I can remember (mid 70s)

Gooch
Cook
Gower
Root
Pietersen
Botham
Freddie
Knott
Broad
Andersen
Willis

Root's spin means we can leave out Underwood. The tail looks a little long but the 1st 8 means we'll be ok.

Stewart missing out due to Knott's ability with the gloves
My only quibble is Flintoff and Botham. Should only have 1, and that is 1978 era Botham for me.
Would maybe prefer a proper spinner. Swann?
If you are going to consider Swann, might as well have Underwood instead

Snow was a better bowler than Willis
Agreed on Swann but Underwood there would make too long a tail I.e. Deadly Derek. The restriction was mid 70s onwards so Truman is a no.
Stokes has to be there somewhere. Force of nature at his best.
User avatar
Frodder
Posts: 12788
Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 1:25 pm
Location: Leafy Cheshire (West)

Re: Official all purpose cricket thread

Post by Frodder »

terryfinch wrote: Thu Aug 26, 2021 9:01 pm
Frodder wrote: Thu Aug 26, 2021 8:14 pm
Mick Mannock wrote: Thu Aug 26, 2021 7:35 pm
not_english wrote: Thu Aug 26, 2021 2:25 pm
Frodder wrote: Thu Aug 26, 2021 2:15 pm My all time England XI based on how far I can remember (mid 70s)

Gooch
Cook
Gower
Root
Pietersen
Botham
Freddie
Knott
Broad
Andersen
Willis

Root's spin means we can leave out Underwood. The tail looks a little long but the 1st 8 means we'll be ok.

Stewart missing out due to Knott's ability with the gloves
My only quibble is Flintoff and Botham. Should only have 1, and that is 1978 era Botham for me.
Would maybe prefer a proper spinner. Swann?
If you are going to consider Swann, might as well have Underwood instead

Snow was a better bowler than Willis
Agreed on Swann but Underwood there would make too long a tail I.e. Deadly Derek. The restriction was mid 70s onwards so Truman is a no.
Stokes has to be there somewhere. Force of nature at his best.

Oh bollocks, I forgot about him
User avatar
not_english
Posts: 2207
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: London

Re: Official all purpose cricket thread

Post by not_english »

So Joe Root, a few months back we were writing him off as past it, and not really part of the big 4 anymore, and now looks set to score the most runs in a calendar year by anyone ever.
:thumbup:
User avatar
Frodder
Posts: 12788
Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 1:25 pm
Location: Leafy Cheshire (West)

Re: Official all purpose cricket thread

Post by Frodder »

not_english wrote: Fri Aug 27, 2021 9:54 am So Joe Root, a few months back we were writing him off as past it, and not really part of the big 4 anymore, and now looks set to score the most runs in a calendar year by anyone ever.
:thumbup:
He's got 50 average back as well :thumbup:
User avatar
not_english
Posts: 2207
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: London

Re: Official all purpose cricket thread

Post by not_english »

Generally in these situations, the team batting 3rd facing a 300+ run deficit will quietly collapse and lose by an innings, but just occasionally they pull it together and get a decent score.
It will be a good game if India get 550 and are all out end of tomorrow. Can't see it happening though.

NZ got a draw against India a few years back having been 250 runs behind and then 87-4 in their innings, eventually declaring at 680-8 with Mccullum scoring a triple century.
User avatar
not_english
Posts: 2207
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: London

Re: Official all purpose cricket thread

Post by not_english »

And India pass their first innings score. Surely Kohli is due to score some runs at some point?
User avatar
Anonymous 1
Posts: 43952
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Location: Planet Rock

Re: Official all purpose cricket thread

Post by Anonymous 1 »

not_english wrote: Fri Aug 27, 2021 2:56 pm And India pass their first innings score. Surely Kohli is due to score some runs at some point?
He needs a big score and at a decent pace
User avatar
not_english
Posts: 2207
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: London

Re: Official all purpose cricket thread

Post by not_english »

Well, he has his chance now
User avatar
Demilich
Posts: 3849
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Official all purpose cricket thread

Post by Demilich »

A genuine all-rounder spinner/batsman really has to be the Holy Grail for team balance these days. One that can be considered being picked as either a top 6 batsman or as the sole spinner in the team.

Just gives so much flexibility. Can have 6 genuine batsmen and a batting keeper and then a horses-for-courses combination of 3 or 4 seamers, a pace all rounder or additional spinner.
User avatar
Anonymous 1
Posts: 43952
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Location: Planet Rock

Re: Official all purpose cricket thread

Post by Anonymous 1 »

After all that grind yesterday India get blown away in the morning
C69
Posts: 42502
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 1:44 pm
Location: For Wales the Welsh and aproppriate pronouns

Re: Official all purpose cricket thread

Post by C69 »

Isa Guha is my ideal woman.


That is all
Mick Mannock
Posts: 27773
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Official all purpose cricket thread

Post by Mick Mannock »

C69 wrote: Sat Aug 28, 2021 8:17 pm Isa Guha is my ideal woman.


That is all
Why is that then?

Image
C69
Posts: 42502
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 1:44 pm
Location: For Wales the Welsh and aproppriate pronouns

Re: Official all purpose cricket thread

Post by C69 »

Mick Mannock wrote: Sat Aug 28, 2021 8:22 pm
C69 wrote: Sat Aug 28, 2021 8:17 pm Isa Guha is my ideal woman.


That is all
Why is that then?

Image
Because I was watching the cricket and the beautiful, effervesent ex player Isa was a pundit.
She is quite excellent as a pundit and.... Hammmer of Thor etc
You can call me Bill
Posts: 730
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2021 12:10 pm

Re: Official all purpose cricket thread

Post by You can call me Bill »

Mick Mannock wrote: Sat Aug 28, 2021 8:22 pm
C69 wrote: Sat Aug 28, 2021 8:17 pm Isa Guha is my ideal woman.


That is all
Why is that then?

Image
Isha Guha for me is one of those women who deserve to be, or would merit being, more physically attractive than they are. She seems like an absolutely 'top bird' and top person but from a pure physical attractiveness stand point, can't be much more than a 5.5.

She'd make far better use of supermodel good looks than many women with supermodel good looks do. In my opinion.
You can call me Bill
Posts: 730
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2021 12:10 pm

Re: Official all purpose cricket thread

Post by You can call me Bill »

not_english wrote: Thu Aug 26, 2021 1:44 pm Good to see Hameed do well by the way. I'd often wondered what had happened to him, after he looked so decent in his first series.
Looked solid once he had his head sorted out opening, but concerning that the square cut seems to be his only scoring shot. Needs to add to his scoring options or bowlers will just bowl straighter (like they did on day 2 of his knock), and he'll make Dom Sibley look like Liam Livingstone.
You can call me Bill
Posts: 730
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2021 12:10 pm

Re: Official all purpose cricket thread

Post by You can call me Bill »

Frodder wrote: Thu Aug 26, 2021 2:15 pm My all time England XI based on how far I can remember (mid 70s)

Gooch
Cook
Gower
Root
Pietersen
Botham
Freddie
Knott
Broad
Andersen
Willis

Root's spin means we can leave out Underwood. The tail looks a little long but the 1st 8 means we'll be ok.

Stewart missing out due to Knott's ability with the gloves
Depends on the surface/conditions/opposition, but generally something like the following:

Cook
90s Gooch*
Root
Pietersen
Thorpe
80s Botham**
Knott
Swann
Gough
Pre-hip injury Fraser***
Anderson

* If not allowed to pick 90s Gooch, then Vaughan.
** If not allowed to pick 80s Botham, then Stokes.
*** if not allowed to pick pre-hip injury Fraser, then probably Broad.
User avatar
not_english
Posts: 2207
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: London

Re: Official all purpose cricket thread

Post by not_english »

So England win the toss and bowl at the Oval. I'm not sure that is such a good idea, but they did take 3 wickets for not much before lunch.
It won't look so good if Kohli finally gets some runs.
User avatar
Frodder
Posts: 12788
Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 1:25 pm
Location: Leafy Cheshire (West)

Re: Official all purpose cricket thread

Post by Frodder »

83-4 now
Post Reply