Cricket

[Chris O'Connor]

I saw 2 chances missed,

The third was the easiest of the lot and very straightforward but he snatched at it rather than caressing it into his gloves and spilled it.

 

[Dannymini]

Made up with that.
I'll be honest, I thought we had noif only chance when our 2nd innings started. And less so when we went 5 down.
Archer and Bess out, KP and Swann in lol

Rory Burns was poorly adjudged to be lbw when it just looked too high to the naked eye - umpire's call rescued Kettleborough, and Buttler was lbw to one that just might possibly have just shaved the top of the stumps, it hit his front foot and he had a good stride in too (also umpire's call for distance down the pitch) Both given by Kettleborough who had a very poor game for me, and may even have allowed himself to be iinfluenced by the over enthusiastic appealing. Meanwhile Illingworth continued to shake his head at appeals hitting middle stump.

One of the three umpire's on duty is very good - Michael Gough, unfortunately the two clowns were united for this match. Watch the standard rise when we only have one clown and one good umpire in the next test.

Butler's was definitely missing the stumps, hawk gets it wrong a few times

 

[catcherintherye]

Yes I'm pretty much in line with most on the openers and don't see scoring quickly as a priority at this stage. Burns today proved he's a quick learner and wasn't the lbw candidate he was in the first innings, the fact he was out in that fashion had as much to do with Richard Kettleborough and he was very unfortunate.

Burns also showed in the last test he actually can shift gears but hasn't made runs this test. Even Sibley looked in concert with Root that he was getting on top of the bowling before he was tempted. He has to do something on the closed batting stance and grip he adopts which seriously limits his offside game, but crucial runs and seeing off the new ball today.

No point in answering as we have to agree to disagree on them, there's no way of changing views on them.

Thats fair, people can have different view. As a point of order though, Sibley was not keeping up with Root. Root was scoringat well over 1 run per over quicker, despite facing less balls.

On the 2nd point, ultimately I do think it's critical. There seems to have been this notion built up from England, started with Denly and then afterwards that eating up balls is whats needed, not runs. I don't undertand that thinking. It's runs that win matches.Forget being a top team, you won;t even be a decent team if your attitude is essentially to just bat time. You're just playing for draws at best.

I'm not saying you have to be David Warner, but you have to have different gears if you want to be uccesful in test match cricket. For Burns, and certainly Sibley he only seems to have 1 gear. Either he is approaching it mentally in a ridiculous way, or (as I suspect) he has a very limited number of shots. As video more video evidence is made available to teams he will just not be able to punish teams.

I can get on board with thjem currently being the best we have (I disagree I think Crawley is better) or that their numbers are currenrly good (though I think they are going one way). However lets be realistic anout our analysis, neither of them score quickly and that is an important part of test cricket too.

 

[arch stanton]

Butler's was definitely missing the stumps, hawk gets it wrong a few times

when I watched it live I didn't think it was out

 

[ToffeeTim]

when I watched it live I didn't think it was out

It was the leggy and it definitely turned after pitching but halk eye had it going straight on.

It was a borderline call, could have gone either way.

 

[Chris O'Connor]

Thats fair, people can have different view. As a point of order though, Sibley was not keeping up with Root. Root was scoringat well over 1 run per over quicker, despite facing less balls.

On the 2nd point, ultimately I do think it's critical. There seems to have been this notion built up from England, started with Denly and then afterwards that eating up balls is whats needed, not runs. I don't undertand that thinking. It's runs that win matches.Forget being a top team, you won;t even be a decent team if your attitude is essentially to just bat time. You're just playing for draws at best.

I'm not saying you have to be David Warner, but you have to have different gears if you want to be uccesful in test match cricket. For Burns, and certainly Sibley he only seems to have 1 gear. Either he is approaching it mentally in a ridiculous way, or (as I suspect) he has a very limited number of shots. As video more video evidence is made available to teams he will just not be able to punish teams.

I can get on board with thjem currently being the best we have (I disagree I think Crawley is better) or that their numbers are currenrly good (though I think they are going one way). However lets be realistic anout our analysis, neither of them score quickly and that is an important part of test cricket too.

Going round in circles really, my priority and what I see as their main role in the team is to see off the new ball and lay a foundation for the faster scorers to come in the middle order, and that's good enough for me at this stage, you seem to lay far more emphasis on scoring at a faster rate, even if at a later stage in their innings. I know it's an oversimpllfication but in essence that's it.

 

[Chris O'Connor]

How crucial were those 30 runs added yesterday morning? If it hadn't been for them England would have won a few minutes earlier.

 

[Walken]

The authority with which Buttler handled Yasir was a delight. Quality innings. He took the leggie from the beginning. As deserving of the Motm as Woakes.

Arguably under more pressure too, his temperament is one of the reasons captains and selectors like him, ice cool and only getting a fraction of the credit he deserves on here

 

[Walken]

We do seem to pull some remarkable victories off to say we are bang average.

Incredible really

I don't think it's a shock that the lads who have chased well have been fixtures in the ODI side, Morgan worked hard on getting his side comfortable with chasing and you can see that calmness with the ODI lads

 

[Walken]

Going round in circles really, my priority and what I see as their main role in the team is to see off the new ball and lay a foundation for the faster scorers to come in the middle order, and that's good enough for me at this stage, you seem to lay far more emphasis on scoring at a faster rate, even if at a later stage in their innings. I know it's an oversimpllfication but in essence that's it.

Yep, if the openers get to 40-50 without loss around half the time then that is them doing their job for me

 

[Bruce Wayne]

We're playing the 7th best team in the world, on home soil, having had three competitive warm up games (versus none for Pakistan). It's always pleasing to pull off an unexpected run chase, but lets not get carried away. This was a game England should have expected to win nine times out of ten. That it even required such a run chase obviously provides spectators with some excitement, but you'd hope those in charge would not have been happy that it was needed in the first place.

 

[Chris O'Connor]

It was the leggy and it definitely turned after pitching but halk eye had it going straight on.

It was a borderline call, could have gone either way.

Must admit on the slow motion before it hit the pad it did look to be turning sliding by off stump, Hawkeye didn't seem to take that into account at all but can only notice what it's been programmed to do. I actually think it looked a clear error with the technology, but even ignoring this it was just shaving the bails and umpire's call on distance down the wicket too.

Kettleborough who made several dubious calls throughout the game - notably Rory Burns dismissal, was yet again saved by umpire's call on two accounts and really should have better judgement and only when certain give it out. He couldn't possibly be certain here or if he thought it was it's a poor decision.

Any umpire may be saved by umpire's call but it shows poor umpiring if you're giving them out in the first place, you should be absolutely sure, not think it might - knowing you have umpire's call as a get out of jail card.

Illingworth is a very poor umpire full stop, but Kettleborough hasn't covered himself in glory in these matches either. The admirable Michael Gough is a level or nine better than either of them, while not being absolutely perfect by any means, he rarely makes a mistake or is so heavily reliant on umpire's call to save him. The other two, especially Illingworth but now Kettleborough too, are constantly having their decisions saved by marginal calls reliant on the software being absolutely infallible, which it isn't.

 

[Chris O'Connor]

We're playing the 7th best team in the world, on home soil, having had three competitive warm up games (versus none for Pakistan). It's always pleasing to pull off an unexpected run chase, but lets not get carried away. This was a game England should have expected to win nine times out of ten. That it even required such a run chase obviously provides spectators with some excitement, but you'd hope those in charge would not have been happy that it was needed in the first place.

Rankings are historic in nature covering form over the last five years (home and away or just away in Pakistan's case) and are rarely reflective of current playing strength so let's not be too reliant on what they say at a particular moment in time. This Pakistan team has the capabilities and all bases covered. At the moment it's too reliant on Babar as a batsman, and he failed in the second innings here, and that is their Achilles heel. Bring another batsman in instead of the barely used second leg spinner and they'll be even more formidable. This is a young and potentially impressive team - it has all the ingredients to become a real force in years to come and is a level or two tougher opposition than the Windies.

Pakistan haven't played once at home in the last five years having to play in the UAE, but this isn't the Pakistani side of two, three or five years ago - it's a side who are strong now and will only improve further.

England will be delighted to have won under the severe handicap of being a batsman short in the line up and having their talisman Ben Stokes unable to bowl for most of the match and barely contributing with the bat. It's a win batting second after losing a good toss and conceding a large total in these conditions. The conditions were almost tailor made for the Pakistani attack being hard bouncy and plenty of carry, swing and seam almost like playing in Lahore or Rawalpindi, add to that the prodigious turn and bounce for both leg spinners and bowling in the fourth innings, it was a huge achievement - we need to put it in perspective

 

[catcherintherye]

Going round in circles really, my priority and what I see as their main role in the team is to see off the new ball and lay a foundation for the faster scorers to come in the middle order, and that's good enough for me at this stage, you seem to lay far more emphasis on scoring at a faster rate, even if at a later stage in their innings. I know it's an oversimpllfication but in essence that's it.

I think it's an interesting discussion, and wasnt necessarily going round in circles.

I made a couple of points of order, that Sibley didnt score as quickly as Root.

I'd contextualize the discussion more as, while I understand it's their job to see off the new ball, on doing that you have to be able to capitalize when you get in (as opening the batting will often mean low scores to great balls). You're view is more that this isnt important as long as they chew up balls.

I grant you it's not easy, it England have had 5 or 6 openers who could do what I asked in the last 15 years. It's a reasonable aspiration.

But yes, I agree, if you want a couple of lads to just chew up balls, I do concede they can probably do that, as can Joe Denly.

 

[davids]

Shah's action?