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

Dobell likely to write an article on Baylis so press might be turning on him soon.
Under him England lost 8 of the last 13 test I think and have gone backwards.

Is it bayliss? None of the players coming through are to standard, there's none left to stand out, and this was a problem that clearly came pre bayliss, or even moores. I'd they want to crucify bayliss then fine, bit that's only burying a fraction of the reason why England can't find any player ready for test cricket.

I'm not buying this approach nonsense either. I don't need to tell Ben Stokes that charging a pace bowler at 100-7 and trying to slog him like a club trundler is rubbish. I don't need to tell bairstow suicidal hacks are not the way. The message is aggressive, that doesn't mean slog. It means exactly that, take some risks, throw some punches. Just because bayliss says he wants aggressive team ethic, doesn't mean he condones that unbelievable rubbish.

And like rich, to a certain extent I agree with budget, I as a fan often find frustration in losing by tiny margins and wish you'd been beat heavily instead, but giving up like we did today speaks volumes about the attitude of some of these players. Bairstow, ali and Stokes should be ashamed, they played like they didn't give a toss.

And that means a lot in the long run. If we want to bounce back and be a consistent great side, we need to show a consistently good attitude.

Even getting bowled out for 130 on double the overs would feel a billion times better. It's not the score or the failures, it's the fact no one seemed to try. They accepted defeat on day 2

Bayliss saying he thinks we lost alot of wickets from being too tentative and not positive enough

Test cricket seems to be following a pattern like this test a lot now. Seems a lot of games are won in day 1-2, where a team takes the upper hand and there is not a lot of desire or concentration pulling teams out, they just go t20 on it. It's entirely likely we smash SA next test as at lords. Seems the way now days

i get what he is saying in a way that when you play a defensive shot you need to commit to it in the same way as you commit to an attacking shot

but just dont think the way he phrased that sounds very good after what we have just seen

being devil's advocate as well i think there is an element of expecting instant success from young players

Duckett comes in off the back of a great season, struggles in a couple of games and bang he's gone

we did the same with Robson, with Lyth and others

we keep hearing about how big the step up is from county cricket to tests but expect people to make that jump immediately and if they dont discard them and you end up with a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy that players have seen all their predecessors discarded if they aren't immediately successful and end up putting extra pressure on themselves to succeed straight away

Maybe ecb need to start having better lions set up no good just having overseas nets or playing against Sri Lanka or pak all the time.

bhaveshgor wrote:Maybe ecb need to start having better lions set up no good just having overseas nets or playing against Sri Lanka or pak all the time.

Or just a better man heading it.

Rich,

Lyth was a walking wreck, as was vince. It was hard to give faith to these guys. Compton and Robson needed more time though. Sam deserves another go

sussexpob wrote:Rich,

Lyth was a walking wreck, as was vince. It was hard to give faith to these guys. Compton and Robson needed more time though. Sam deserves another go

ok maybe Lyth doesn't apply but i think the point still stands about how much pressure there is on new caps to perform immediately

sussexpob wrote:

bhaveshgor wrote:Maybe ecb need to start having better lions set up no good just having overseas nets or playing against Sri Lanka or pak all the time.

Or just a better man heading it.

Yeah that as well, they generally pick players on attitude than ability on the lions set up.

Yes, I was thinking the Lions set up seems to have lost its potential for producing the next players in waiting. The Rod Marsh era did a lot to help create the second Fletcher side. There seems to be plenty of theory and nets-analysis, but not the same emphasis on giving players experience in the middle in variety of conditions.

rich1uk wrote:being devil's advocate as well i think there is an element of expecting instant success from young players

Duckett comes in off the back of a great season, struggles in a couple of games and bang he's gone

we did the same with Robson, with Lyth and others

we keep hearing about how big the step up is from county cricket to tests but expect people to make that jump immediately and if they dont discard them and you end up with a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy that players have seen all their predecessors discarded if they aren't immediately successful and end up putting extra pressure on themselves to succeed straight away

Moeen is a good example. If he was in the side as a batter, he would have been dropped within a year. But his bowling kept him in the side, and so given the time that bought him, his batting actually improved a great deal. Though credit to him for not just accepting that his batting was a useful add on.

There will be good players around (as I often mention, who knew Swann was going to be so good when he was given his chance?) but England aren't usefully getting to them and working out what will and won't work. And they are too easily impressed by a brief run of form (fair enough, so are we armchair selectors).

Been busy at work all day and unable to follow the score until now.

Now I'm glad I didn't. What a pathetic display.