The England Cricket Thread
- Thread starter robfosters
- Start date
- Joined
- 1 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 53,752
- Location
- Welling, London
I honestly believe no team in the world could stand up to England’s attack under these conditions.
- Joined
- 1 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 53,752
- Location
- Welling, London
A 100 lead would do us I reckon.
- Joined
- 1 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 53,752
- Location
- Welling, London
A pair for Vijay and another for Jimmy. 0-1, great start.
- Joined
- 1 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 53,752
- Location
- Welling, London
A demolition job
- Joined
- 1 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 53,752
- Location
- Welling, London
Ben Stokes not guilty.
Unbelievable considering all the evidence, just shows what an expensive lawyer can do.
All the evidence being what exactly?
Even with this verdict of not guilty, how the hell can he continue to play in an England shirt? He's a talented cricketer, sure, but he's a role model and his behaviour has been disgusting. I don't care how much money he has, he shouldn't be allowed in an England shirt again after flicking a cigarette at someone and brawling in the street. This just sends a message that you can do whatever you like and you won't have to deal with any repercussions. Some people would lose their job if they were caught on video fighting others in a street brawl. What message does this give to young children that are growing up interested in cricket?
Since Strauss took over at the ECB, things have been a shambles over there. Especially given the fact that he swore on live TV by calling Kevin Pieterson the c word and he's now the director of cricket? I suppose that's why Stokes can come back and play for England. If the director can do what he wants and can get away with it, why can't the players as well?
Since Strauss took over at the ECB, things have been a shambles over there. Especially given the fact that he swore on live TV by calling Kevin Pieterson the c word and he's now the director of cricket? I suppose that's why Stokes can come back and play for England. If the director can do what he wants and can get away with it, why can't the players as well?
To be fair, Pietersen was a c word. Phenomenal player, but a c word. Slightly different from a bloke going out on the lash on a Sunday night and decking another guy.
Since Strauss was appointed director of cricket in 2015 he has largely been responsible for improving our white ball game. Have you see what this team has done in the large 3 years? How is that a shambles?
Whatever Pietersen was, he's a gifted cricketer and had no reason to be treated the way he was, especially after Strauss took over. And Strauss shouldn't have been allowed to take up the helm of English cricket when he's clearly someone that's happy to swear on public television about a fellow player, regardless of the situation. That's just not on.
The current culture of the team is a total lads culture, out on the lash, bar brawls, and then on the field the team still falls apart at the drop of a hat when batting. The test team only succeed if Cook and Root produce, and if they don't, then it's totally down to the two main bowlers, Anderson and Broad, to pull them out of the mire. Their last few tests have seen some improvement, but these conditions completely favour Anderson and Broad, and definitely don't favour India.
The Ashes tour in Australia recently was a sorry affair, with England literally being spanked out of the country, and their off-field antics weren't great there either, what with the Jonny Bairstow late-night drinking headbutting incident, numerous curfew breaches, and mired with Ben Stokes over here street fighting. Sure, the Bairstow incident was all smoke and mirrors, but the fact that they were out past curfew drinking and then this supposedly happened doesn't look good.
As for the white ball team, they're finding success because the attitude is "whatever happens happens, just go out there and hit and we'll see how the game develops". This has worked quite well for them recently, but when it goes wrong, it goes wrong pretty spectacularly. When it comes down to it, in this format most of the players don't play to the conditions when things start to fall apart. I've seen that so many times recently. It just so happens that the times that they have succeeded far outweigh the times where they haven't.
Maybe the new "Strauss-created 100-ball format" will be a turning point. NOT!
The current culture of the team is a total lads culture, out on the lash, bar brawls, and then on the field the team still falls apart at the drop of a hat when batting. The test team only succeed if Cook and Root produce, and if they don't, then it's totally down to the two main bowlers, Anderson and Broad, to pull them out of the mire. Their last few tests have seen some improvement, but these conditions completely favour Anderson and Broad, and definitely don't favour India.
The Ashes tour in Australia recently was a sorry affair, with England literally being spanked out of the country, and their off-field antics weren't great there either, what with the Jonny Bairstow late-night drinking headbutting incident, numerous curfew breaches, and mired with Ben Stokes over here street fighting. Sure, the Bairstow incident was all smoke and mirrors, but the fact that they were out past curfew drinking and then this supposedly happened doesn't look good.
As for the white ball team, they're finding success because the attitude is "whatever happens happens, just go out there and hit and we'll see how the game develops". This has worked quite well for them recently, but when it goes wrong, it goes wrong pretty spectacularly. When it comes down to it, in this format most of the players don't play to the conditions when things start to fall apart. I've seen that so many times recently. It just so happens that the times that they have succeeded far outweigh the times where they haven't.
Maybe the new "Strauss-created 100-ball format" will be a turning point. NOT!
Is this not simply the nature of white ball cricket? It's so batsman-friendly now that it's just a slogfest, and whichever team has the best sloggers (and a bit of luck) wins. It's barely worth watching any more.
On Stokes, I'm torn. On the one hand, one of the things I love about cricket is that it's a sport played by characters - it's already a shame to see sledging and a bit of needle going out of the game. In the past, players have largely been able to get away with doing what they want on their own time (provided it was not criminal) - sure, there was the Fredalo incident, but that was largely taken in good humour. Had this been a one-off for Stokes, I'd say that he's faced trial, not been found guilty, and that should be the end of it. However, Stokes has been a repeat offender, and deserves to be duly punished. I think he should receive a solid ban from international cricket and lose his central contract for a season.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 10,020
- Location
- Billericay, UK
I was in two minds on Stokes case that was until the prosecution shows the police footage of him talking to an officer with the prosecutor claiming he was drunk when clearly he wasn't.