Cricket-Match-Special ... A forum for discussion

KipperJohn wrote:A lot of talk praising Cook's captaincy - fair enough but England's seamers still had to bowl a consistently accurate line and length, with variations in delivery which, added to scoreboard pressure, won this game - Moeen and Root picked up wickets on the back of some great bowling.

England may have a youthful and refreshing look, but a lot will depend as well on how the 4 baggage handlers - Cook, Bell, Broad and Anderson - perform (and behave).

Didn't see Cook do ought exceptional with his captaincy. England bowled well, keeping things tight and applying constant pressure baring one or two moments. Cook just set bog standard fields and failed with the bat.

The Press are far to quick to try and support Cook, if he was as good as they try and make him out to be they needn't say anything. The lady doth protest too much.

Making_Splinters wrote:

KipperJohn wrote:A lot of talk praising Cook's captaincy - fair enough but England's seamers still had to bowl a consistently accurate line and length, with variations in delivery which, added to scoreboard pressure, won this game - Moeen and Root picked up wickets on the back of some great bowling.

England may have a youthful and refreshing look, but a lot will depend as well on how the 4 baggage handlers - Cook, Bell, Broad and Anderson - perform (and behave).

Didn't see Cook do ought exceptional with his captaincy. England bowled well, keeping things tight and applying constant pressure baring one or two moments. Cook just set bog standard fields and failed with the bat.

The Press are far to quick to try and support Cook, if he was as good as they try and make him out to be they needn't say anything. The lady doth protest too much.

Not far apart are we MS.

All the talk about 'aggression' in the batting department could hugely affect the way he bats as well, to its further detriment. The same could apply to a lesser extent to Bell who is much better when he plays his own natural rhythm.

I've been reluctant to say so, because of course I'd say this, but I didn't think Cook's captaincy was any different from usual. As a frequent Cook watcher, I spent an hour or so telling my guest what he'd do next, and which gap the ball would go in next. Until I stopped, aware that this was getting repetitive and irritating... He did his usually stuff of spreading his catchers too thin in crucial areas, and putting a man where the catch just went. He did a better job than normal of shouting and waving his arms around when things were going well though.

The hype of the experts toward the performance was astonishing (they've not remembered the NZ series and the response to the Lord's win). They all praised Cook for putting a spinner on the over before lunch, which is something they normally laugh at. Praising Steely's captaincy is a bit like being enchanted by a dog that walks on its hind legs; it's not doing it that well, but it's remarkable that it's doing it at all.

Unfortunately, this response may encourage him to see it on beyond the end of the summer.

KipperJohn wrote:England may have a youthful and refreshing look, but a lot will depend as well on how the 4 baggage handlers - Cook, Bell, Broad and Anderson - perform (and behave).

Maybe, I'm not sure. The newer players have shown they can do a lot of heavy lifting. Certainly, if a more experienced player isn't playing well, I don't feel they should be anxious about replacing them.

KipperJohn wrote:

Making_Splinters wrote:

KipperJohn wrote:A lot of talk praising Cook's captaincy - fair enough but England's seamers still had to bowl a consistently accurate line and length, with variations in delivery which, added to scoreboard pressure, won this game - Moeen and Root picked up wickets on the back of some great bowling.

England may have a youthful and refreshing look, but a lot will depend as well on how the 4 baggage handlers - Cook, Bell, Broad and Anderson - perform (and behave).

Didn't see Cook do ought exceptional with his captaincy. England bowled well, keeping things tight and applying constant pressure baring one or two moments. Cook just set bog standard fields and failed with the bat.

The Press are far to quick to try and support Cook, if he was as good as they try and make him out to be they needn't say anything. The lady doth protest too much.

Not far apart are we MS.

All the talk about 'aggression' in the batting department could hugely affect the way he bats as well, to its further detriment. The same could apply to a lesser extent to Bell who is much better when he plays his own natural rhythm.

Aye, Kipper. The incessant need for the Press to praise Cook irks me, they treat him like a precious child whose every finger painting needs to be rewarded as if it was a work of the modern masters.

Cook didn't do anything new compared to the draws with New Zealand and the West Indies in terms of his field placings and bowling changes, England just bowled a heck of a lot better. One thing that really struck me was Root moving fielders when he was bowling, when your part timer has a better understanding of what works to support his bowling than an international Captain with several years experiance it speaks volumes.

As for Cook's agression, he brought that on himself when he claimed credit for England's new approach in the recent ODI series and his comments about his dismissal as England ODI skipper. He needs to realise that his success was based on his ability to play as a traditional opener, exceptional patience and judgement. His attempts to try and hitch his wagon to the newer generation are, like all hubris, never going to end well.

Some of the press have praised the bowlers for making Cook's captaincy look better. As for his batting, I hope he goes back to Old Cook. Sedate and quiet accumulation.

It was a great day yesterday, the way everything was handled by the stewards was of the highest order. I found a stall selling many different Australian products and bought a packet of caramel Tim Tams, which were very nice.

Fantastic cricket and great sportsmanship shown by all Aussie fans at the end. Marvelous.

Cook's captaincy was neither great nor bad but pretty good and his fielding and catching was of the highest order.The big test of his captaincy will come when Australia have a big partnership going, the fear is he will return to old ways. However he really has to go back to batting as a test opener rather than auditioning for a return to opening for England in ODI games.

Arthur Crabtree wrote:I've been reluctant to say so, because of course I'd say this, but I didn't think Cook's captaincy was any different from usual. As a frequent Cook watcher, I spent an hour or so telling my guest what he'd do next, and which gap the ball would go in next. Until I stopped, aware that this was getting repetitive and irritating... He did his usually stuff of spreading his catchers too thin in crucial areas, and putting a man where the catch just went. He did a better job than normal of shouting and waving his arms around when things were going well though.

The hype of the experts toward the performance was astonishing (they've not remembered the NZ series and the response to the Lord's win). They all praised Cook for putting a spinner on the over before lunch, which is something they normally laugh at. Praising Steely's captaincy is a bit like being enchanted by a dog that walks on its hind legs; it's not doing it that well, but it's remarkable that it's doing it at all.

Unfortunately, this response may encourage him to see it on beyond the end of the summer.

Arthur : the day you have anything good to say about Cook's captaincy will have me wondering if I've dropped into an Alternate Universe

Not suggesting he's ever going to be a genius in the art ; but I reckon his handling of his team has improved out of sight over the last year or so ; and in this game he got it right to a notable extent. If he continues like this I have absolutely no problem with him seeing it on a bit longer - Root won't lose anything by getting to concentrate on his all round skills for a bit longer without the pressure of carrying the armband.

Won't push the point because I realize I'm in a small minority on here when it comes to this issue. But I think you and maybe a couple of other posters have a bit of a personal dislike of the man which colours your views a little.

Which doesn't necessarily make them wrong , of course. But I feel I should register my disagreement before retreating to the safety of my tent...

We'll see how the pundits reply if Australia put up a better showing in the second Test.

It's infuriating that England's success is written up as Cook doing a good job rather than the bowlers being significantly better and Cook doing the same old thing.

alfie wrote: But I think you and maybe a couple of other posters have a bit of a personal dislike of the man which colours your views a little.

Well of course! I can't deny that.

Anyone else think Allott was acting a little smug on CWOTV? We're one up with four to go.

hopeforthebest wrote:Cook's captaincy was neither great nor bad but pretty good and his fielding and catching was of the highest order.The big test of his captaincy will come when Australia have a big partnership going, the fear is he will return to old ways. However he really has to go back to batting as a test opener rather than auditioning for a return to opening for England in ODI games.

Fair enough. Can't argue with this.

I think his batting has improved (and I think he was batting badly for longer than he was waiting for a ton). I also think that his on field captaincy could quite easily improve without Flower or Moores in the background. I think they got very little out of him as a onfield leader; he just parroted their cautious approach.

There was a view of a poster on the Guardian site that I thought was insightful, that England will get more out of him, and enough out of him, once they stop trying to make him what he isn't suited to be. Those things being among others: brand leader; spokesman for the team; ODI opener and tactician; steely maker of tough off field decisions; dressing room guru; and now, the batting symbol of the new English elan.

Gingerfinch wrote:Anyone else think Allott was acting a little smug on CWOTV? We're one up with four to go.

I recorded it but I'm wary of watching it. He was bad enough when England went one nil up to NZ. His questioning is extremely leading. Sort of along the lines of: Surely no one can deny that Blank has answered his critics, Mike?; or, How good, given the quality we saw yesterday, could Blank be, Paul? The guests are just coralled into cheerleading.

alfie wrote: but the big question for Australia may be which MJ turns up next week...

I've heard loads of commentators praising the Tash for the way he ran in all day

That's fair enough, I suppose, giving credit where credit is due, but Johnno isn't there to run in all day.... that's Hazlewood/Siddle's job. Johnno's job is to put in short bursts of exceptionally fast, hostile bowling and terrorise the England batsmen into giving their wickets away, He clearly didn't do that in Cardiff.