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

Don't mess with a fiery red head, hey Garlic!

seems to the common thread - that, and alcohol.

GarlicJam wrote:seems to the common thread - that, and alcohol.

And being northern

Dr Cricket wrote:Looks like bairstow is in trouble for headbutting an Aussie player outside a club 2 weeks ago.
Under investigation now by the ecb.

Turns out the so called "headbutt" was a rugby related ritual of bumping heads when Bairstow bought Bancroft a drink, nothing malicious whatsoever.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/cricke ... paign=1490

Players can't even enjoy a bit of frolic in a bar (like punters do) without the media types claiming there is a drink problem within cricket. Works christmas parties might as well carry social stigma whilst we're at it.

According to Aggers the ECB had already heard about the incident and that there was another side (presumably what was reported above), and were clear that there was nothing to see, move on. It's more than likely the Aussie press trying to get inside English heads again.

I can't see Ball staying in for Adelaide. They might bring in Overton, or possible (although probably not likely) Ballance, given that conditions are reportedly going to be favourable for bowlers. Still, if there's one thing I've learned from the last few years of watching cricket in Australia, it's that no-one (not even the ground staff) have a blinking clue about how a pitch will actually play until play starts. Captains and coaches look at it, make their selections, and often as not get it wrong.

You really do feel that if England had Stokes, TRJ or even Wood fit for this game they might have got something out of it. A 9 or 10 wicket loss looks horrible on paper, but the fact is they competed well for three, maybe three and a half days, and if a couple of key moments had gone their way, they could have won. I'm not sure whether to be encouraged by that or depressed, but the fact is this Australian team is beatable.

All this talk of the Moeen stumping is a big furphy IMO. It was out, end of. He shouldn't have been that far forward. England have much bigger problems to address before Adelaide than marginal line calls.

One thing I mentioned earlier and has now been picked up in the press is the amount of short pitched stuff directed at the England tail. I thought that the umpires should have stepped in and called it intimidatory bowling, and I maintain that. You can't fire in 5 shoulder/head level bouncers in a row at a number 10 batsman, it just isn't on.

Don't suppose there's a lot of rain around today.

It's the only thing that can save us.

bigfluffylemon wrote:All this talk of the Moeen stumping is a big furphy IMO. It was out, end of. He shouldn't have been that far forward. England have much bigger problems to address before Adelaide than marginal line calls.

Fully agree. and the line was there when he went out to bat, it is not like anyone moved it during his innings.

One thing I mentioned earlier and has now been picked up in the press is the amount of short pitched stuff directed at the England tail. I thought that the umpires should have stepped in and called it intimidatory bowling, and I maintain that. You can't fire in 5 shoulder/head level bouncers in a row at a number 10 batsman, it just isn't on

I thought the umps let Aus get away with too many short balls, full stop.

I don't mind too much the short pitched bowling at tail-enders. The days of not bowling bumpers at the lower order have long gone - with all sides, not just Aus. We don't get too many complete bunnies these days, and they are pretty well protected as well. But, as I say, Aus were allowed to bowl too many.

Suspect umpires thought the players are not under threat because of the protection.
if I was an umpire I would only really stop it if I feel the batsman are not picking the ball or at actually starting to play it without looking at it.
it is a tough one though for the umpires considering most times even the tail can play the short ball and if anything they get more runs from it or can survive from it although that is mostly because the speed is around 80-85 mph.
How many times have we seen england bowl short at the tail and the lower order adds 100-150 runs for the last 3 wickets.
other team sometimes overdo it with the short ball and concede runs or can't take wickets.
either botham or Holding bang on about why can't bowlers bowl it fuller and look for the edge or why does the slips have to come out when the tail are batting.

although it is another matter when bowlers are bowling 90+ and bowling short at the tail.
although it is pretty scary that england can't seem to play the short ball, Starc/Cummins etc were not destroying other international team tails so why are england so vulnerable to the short ball.
last time around in 2013/14 most of the team struggled with the ball and it carried on when Sri lanka and India bounced them out as well.

Data analysts Cricviz logged 75.6 per cent of Australia’s deliveries in this match to England’s batsmen from 8-11 as short pitched. It equates to 56 balls in total which brought four wickets at an average of 5.50 runs. England's last four wickets in each innings contributed a combined 62 runs, four fewer than Pat Cummins put on with Steve Smith.

that is a lot of short deliveries to the tail, not really a surprise they bowled it considering it averages 5.50 for a wicket for the tail.

Dr Cricket wrote:although it is another matter when bowlers are bowling 90+ and bowling short at the tail.
although it is pretty scary that england can't seem to play the short ball, Starc/Cummins etc were not destroying other international team tails so why are england so vulnerable to the short ball.
last time around in 2013/14 most of the team struggled with the ball and it carried on when Sri lanka and India bounced them out as well.

Law 42.8
The bowling of fast short pitched balls is unfair if, in the opinion of the Umpire at the Bowler's end, it constitutes an attempt to intimidate the Striker. See Note (d). Umpires shall consider intimidation to be the deliberate bowling of fast short pitched balls which by their length, height and direction are intended or likely to inflict physical injury on the Striker. The relative skill of the Striker shall also be taken into consideration.

It's a tough one. It's the umpire's opinion that counts, and you could argue that it wasn't a deliberate attempt to intimidate, just get them out. But watching Broad, Ball and Anderson's reactions to the short stuff, it was clear that they didn't have a clue where the ball was when it was coming at their heads that fast at 90mph. 75%+ short balls like that at the tail - I'd have called it.

Jake ball needs to learn how to bowl a bouncer

Bowled some appalling ones

Get them at the body not 10 foot over their head outside off

Rubbish stuff so far. England just going through the motions.

bigfluffylemon wrote:Rubbish stuff so far. England just going through the motions.

I assume that you were talking of today's play, Fluff?

After all, for the majority of the test, England were very competitive, and were making the running for the first 2-3 days.

Fell apart badly after that, and a 10 wicket loss is a bit of a hiding.

Better for England that it is Adelaide coming up, not Perth.

GarlicJam wrote:

bigfluffylemon wrote:Rubbish stuff so far. England just going through the motions.

I assume that you were talking of today's play, Fluff?

After all, for the majority of the test, England were very competitive, and were making the running for the first 2-3 days.

Fell apart badly after that, and a 10 wicket loss is a bit of a hiding.

Better for England that it is Adelaide coming up, not Perth.

Yes, today's play. Up until just before lunch yesterday, when Root got out, England were competitive. But it was those key moments that Australia won. I don't think England deserved a 10 wicket loss, and it has surprised me a bit, but after the batting performance heads dropped, and you could see the bowlers weren't up for it. Ball in particular should have taken the opportunity to fire some in with some venom and show his worth for the future, but instead he's probably bowled himself out of contention for Adelaide.

Anderson and Broad did well, especially in the first innings, but as has been the case for a few years now, England are too reliant on them, and if batsmen can see them off, they know they can score off the second string.

There is a lot of pressure on England to win in Adelaide. All the talk has been that the conditions will suit their bowling, but pre-match talk of conditions often doesn't match the reality, and besides, if the batting can't support the bowling, England won't win.