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

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

Charles Colville on the Verdict is smug to the point of irony. And I guess the rubbishing of the Australian team (or whichever opposition) isn't necessarily rude, because I suppose the overseas guest is warned what to expect and that it isn't entirely earnest. But it doesn't make the programme any more dignified.

Making_Splinters wrote: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.

There were three points in the match where England's captaincy was noticeable.

To his determent.

1. The strange inclination to have 1st/2nd and 4th slip with a gap at three. Two edges went into the gap, the first was Steve Smith's first ball, and I cant remember any catches or drops in the Gully/4th slip area, or any edges that went that square on this pitch. I think two (maybe three if you count Cook's ricochet to Lyth from gully back to the slip) dismissals went to third slip. Clarke's slower ball was the only one that went aerial behind square to backward point. Didnt make a jot of sense at all.

2. With the ball doing everything for the seamers, and the Aussie Batsman looking like walking wickets, Cook turned for first change to Ali and released the pressure completely, costing a near 100 partnership that could have really damaged England's 4th innings defence.

To his credit.

1. The fielding positions on the drive in front of square contributed to dismissals and were a good call on a pitch where the two pace nature meant a lot of batsman popped shots in the air in these areas.

To be fair to Paul Allott, I actually listened to the Podcast of last weeks show last night and the Australian guest on video link confidently predicted that "England would not win a single test and would need rain to avoid a 5-0". In the context of what had gone before, that was somewhat hilarious.

Well, that was supposed to be funny, in a Colville way. She got her umbrella out. Whereas Allott's is supposed to be a serious chat programme.

sussexpob wrote:
1. The strange inclination to have 1st/2nd and 4th slip with a gap at three. Two edges went into the gap, the first was Steve Smith's first ball, and I cant remember any catches or drops in the Gully/4th slip area, or any edges that went that square on this pitch. I think two (maybe three if you count Cook's ricochet to Lyth from gully back to the slip) dismissals went to third slip. Clarke's slower ball was the only one that went aerial behind square to backward point. Didnt make a jot of sense at all.

2. With the ball doing everything for the seamers, and the Aussie Batsman looking like walking wickets, Cook turned for first change to Ali and released the pressure completely, costing a near 100 partnership that could have really damaged England's 4th innings defence.

To his credit.

1. The fielding positions on the drive in front of square contributed to dismissals and were a good call on a pitch where the two pace nature meant a lot of batsman popped shots in the air in these areas.

He didn't attack enough to Rogers, Warner and Smith early on when the bowlers were excellent, and the batters were looking to survive, not even get off strike. But, at least Cook didn't do his bit where he stands at second slip on his own. That drives me crazy.

Arthur Crabtree wrote:

sussexpob wrote:
1. The strange inclination to have 1st/2nd and 4th slip with a gap at three. Two edges went into the gap, the first was Steve Smith's first ball, and I cant remember any catches or drops in the Gully/4th slip area, or any edges that went that square on this pitch. I think two (maybe three if you count Cook's ricochet to Lyth from gully back to the slip) dismissals went to third slip. Clarke's slower ball was the only one that went aerial behind square to backward point. Didnt make a jot of sense at all.

2. With the ball doing everything for the seamers, and the Aussie Batsman looking like walking wickets, Cook turned for first change to Ali and released the pressure completely, costing a near 100 partnership that could have really damaged England's 4th innings defence.

To his credit.

1. The fielding positions on the drive in front of square contributed to dismissals and were a good call on a pitch where the two pace nature meant a lot of batsman popped shots in the air in these areas.

He didn't attack enough to Rogers, Warner and Smith early on when the bowlers were excellent, and the batters were looking to survive, not even get off strike. But, at least Cook didn't do his bit where he stands at second slip on his own. That drives me crazy.

If you wanted to be very critical, you could also fault the slip cordons depth positioning. England didnt seem to notice the pitch had quickened, and 2nd and 3rd slip were miles in front of the first slip and keeper. Joe Root dropped a very catchable ball, but was standing so close, he made it more difficult. He moved back after the drop and caught Rogers an over or two later very low though, so it maybe a mute point.

Doesn't the keeper have the say on where the slips are positioned?

They always say the slips take their position from where the keeper stands. But I've never took that to mean that the keeper actually tells them where to stand.

Gingerfinch wrote:Doesn't the keeper have the say on where the slips are positioned?

well the slips should see where the keeper is standing and arrange according to his judgement on the carry, but you wouldnt expect a third slip to be as far forward as the conventional gully would be.

Arthur Crabtree wrote:They always say the slips take their position from where the keeper stands. But I've never took that to mean that the keeper actually tells them where to stand.

Yes, their rough position is taken from where the keeper is. Whether one stands forward or back is down to them, I take it.

This sounds like something Bhaves would have a view on, but the Guardian says that fewer than half a million watched the Saturday of the Ashes.

Pretty dreadful, and surely enough for the ECB to review the way it promotes the game.

It says that as many people watched a repeat of a 1974 episode of Columbo on itv3.

Though Columbo is pretty good.

sussexpob wrote:

Arthur Crabtree wrote:

sussexpob wrote:
1. The strange inclination to have 1st/2nd and 4th slip with a gap at three. Two edges went into the gap, the first was Steve Smith's first ball, and I cant remember any catches or drops in the Gully/4th slip area, or any edges that went that square on this pitch. I think two (maybe three if you count Cook's ricochet to Lyth from gully back to the slip) dismissals went to third slip. Clarke's slower ball was the only one that went aerial behind square to backward point. Didnt make a jot of sense at all.

2. With the ball doing everything for the seamers, and the Aussie Batsman looking like walking wickets, Cook turned for first change to Ali and released the pressure completely, costing a near 100 partnership that could have really damaged England's 4th innings defence.

To his credit.

1. The fielding positions on the drive in front of square contributed to dismissals and were a good call on a pitch where the two pace nature meant a lot of batsman popped shots in the air in these areas.

He didn't attack enough to Rogers, Warner and Smith early on when the bowlers were excellent, and the batters were looking to survive, not even get off strike. But, at least Cook didn't do his bit where he stands at second slip on his own. That drives me crazy.

If you wanted to be very critical, you could also fault the slip cordons depth positioning. England didnt seem to notice the pitch had quickened, and 2nd and 3rd slip were miles in front of the first slip and keeper. Joe Root dropped a very catchable ball, but was standing so close, he made it more difficult. He moved back after the drop and caught Rogers an over or two later very low though, so it maybe a mute point.

I noticed that. After lunch you could definitely see they were standing further back.

Arthur Crabtree wrote:This sounds like something Bhaves would have a view on, but the Guardian says that fewer than half a million watched the Saturday of the Ashes.

Pretty dreadful, and surely enough for the ECB to review the way it promotes the game.

Three ashes series in 2 years has taken a bit of the gloss of it for me.

True. Probably not the right thread for a discussion.... but it seems these numbers are low even for Sky.