Arthur Crabtree wrote:People forget in the DL debate is that both sides were behind the over rate. If they'd bowled their overs on time, the game could have been completed.
Arthur Crabtree wrote:The Waugh Twins wrote:Arthur Crabtree wrote:Or, playing attacking cricket got England to 300 off 45 instead of 290 off 50. While batting out the overs is obviously the aim of the innings, it's just an assumption that it will give you more runs than playing higher risk cricket over a shorter period. I've never been convinced by the iron rule of batting out the overs above all else.
NZ bowled well. If England had batted cautiously they still would have attempted to attack at the end of the innings, and could have collapsed from a lower run base, scoring fewer runs overall. England, or any team just can't play 'without fear' if they play with fear when things are against them. If they'd gone to plan B in Birmingham, they would have picked up 50 fewer runs there, as they were in precarious position when Rashid and Buttler came together. No one can guarantee success.
Yeah I think that's a fair comment although I will have to consult with Steve before I'm 100% committed. Wonder how it affects D/L?
England could have consolidated after losing early wickets, if they had, maybe they wouldn't have passed 300.

Arthur Crabtree wrote:No chance Rashid will play in Cardiff. Might make the squad.
Return to Live Cricket Matches
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests