BBC Blog Network

User Profile

Scorebox

Listed below are comments made by Scorebox between Friday, 23rd May 2008 and Thursday, 5th February 2009.

«Newer
Older»

KP makes headlines again 09:47am on 05 Feb 2009 Well done KP.

With others I am more focussed on why Cook still seems assured of his place, and why Bell, Collingwood and Panesar are in the team at all.

Is this the world of cosy 'club England'? Looks like it.

Which is why KP is such a valuable player. It really does matter to him.
Ask Bearders #185 10:25pm on 12 Jan 2009 #6 - the 'SS' you refer too is indeed 'scoring strokes'

#12 - probably Viv Richards, if not any number of players who've taken tons of Bangladesh's or Zimbabwe's pea-shooter attacks

#14 - wides should not be counted as a ball faced by a batsman as by definition he cannot reach it to hit. Gibbs definitely faced three legitimate balls, including the one to which he was (rather harshly I thought) adjudged out. No-balls do count as balls faced because they can be scored off.

#16 - don't know the exact answer although I remember Colin Croft being run out off a no-ball at Lords in 1980. Dean Jones was incorrectly given run out off a no-ball in the West Indies in the mid 1980's. He was bowled by a no-ball but did not hear the call and set off towards the pavilion (at extra cover). The fielder then broke the wicket again and Jones was given run out, despite the law stating that a player can only be run out from a no-ball if he is attempting a run!
Pietersen's gamble too far 8:31pm on 07 Jan 2009 Just a few observations to throw into the mix:

a) this mess is squarely at Geoff Miller's door, why doesn't HE resign? Remember his brainwave selection of Pattinson in the Headingley test last year and his opining that 'Darren remains in our minds and we'll be watching his progress closely' when he's been dropped as suddenly as he appeared.

b) Rob Key: decent enough player but as an international captain?? I sat open-mouthed in shock when he and R.Croft told Sky Sports viewers that Eng's bowling attack was better than Australia's - just before India knocked off 387 with ease to win the Test! Key didn't return to that theme in the post-match analysis...doesn't say much for the bloke's judgement.

c) the selectors and the team seem to believe they are a lot better than they actually are. Stanford was allowed to hijack the agenda with his cash, another move that has backfired and simply exposed again how ordinary England are as a cricketing unit.

d) those that have gone before underline all that's wrong with England's attitude. Nasser Hussain in particular talking about England shooting themselves in the foot "on the eve of an Ashes campaign". They are NOT on the eve of the Ashes - they have two series against W.Indies coming up and the focus on the Ashes strongly imples an assumption that we will sweep them aside before hammering the Aussies. West Indies will give England a stern challenge especially on their own pitches and Eng have got their work cut out to get anything from those games.

Will their ever be a return to realistic thinking and honest appraisals of the team's ability instead of all these soundbites and rubbish rhetoric about how great we were to beat the Aussies in 2005?
Wednesday's international football 10:22am on 21 Aug 2008 The old adage "it's better to leave when they're asking 'why' than to wait until they ask 'why not'" is well applied to fatty Barwick here.
Why in heaven's name was he not sacked years ago?
He made the single biggest contribution to England's laughing-stock status in international football with the almighty horlicks he made of the approach to Scholari before trying to brazen it out and insist that Steve Mclaren (!) was the man they wanted all along!
A disgraceful appointment in the first place, good riddance and don't ever come back to the game.
England bowling lacks menace 10:23pm on 20 Jul 2008 I agree with the posters esp. no's 1-4 who call for vaughan to be dropped.
His technique is so suspect these days and he really does seem to have mentally 'quit' since the heady days of 2005, which was 3 long years and too many series ago. The recent grim struggles against NZ - when Eng played some of the most negative and one-dimensional cricket they have ever played - was when he should have quit in actuality.
the cover drives are still nice to watch, but the footwork generally is not and he is simply taking up a place in the Eng line-up.
As Boycott said, he wouldn't get a place in the Yorks team if all Yorks batsmen were fit.
Those questioning his tactical nouse are also spot-on - and, being too proud to admit his problems with the one-day game, he chickened out by 'retiring' instead of going back to work on his game.
Then surprise surprise he wants to play 20-20!
Time for club England to wake up!
Panesar might test Hair's patience 12:05pm on 24 May 2008 reply to post 60, fluterg

Sir or madam - yes this is seriously right and that is indeed the situation.

LCCC, having the biggest membership of any county and consistently good patronage for all levels of cricket, were under pressure to explain themselves following the announcement of this loss of Test cricket, and Jim Coombes appeared on local BBC TV News programmes to explain what had happened.

I believe I am right in saying that the Welsh tourist board were as much behind the decision to outbid other grounds and try to make Cardiff a serious player in hosting international cricket. With an Ashes Test up for grabs there were no problems attracting other 'partners' to help raise the cash.

The problem, as Angus Fraser mentioned during a TMS stinit before lunch yesterday, is sustainability. Cardiff has gone for a high risk strategy to attain its dream but when less attractive international opponents are touring will the amount of money they have spent be justifiable or will it roll over and crush them?

For example, Durham started at the other end of the scale with hosting international cricket and made sure everything worked. The pitch was good, facilities and logistics have worked, and evn it was Eng vs Zimbabwe or a weak W.Indies, they have proved they can cope. Cardiff are starting at the other end of the scale - a brave and bold move, but incredibly risky for a game which, like I said, is entirely weather dependent.

Will the pitch behave? Will the transport and other infrastructure cope - or will they have a PR disaster like at the Rose Bowl when thousands were stranded after an international game? Will the game last longer than four days (given England's inconsistency, by no means assured)?

I have no problem with Cardiff hosting a Test ahead of Old Trafford but Coombes and co have, for my money, made a smart move. Lancs will continue to field a strong team and challenge in every domestic competition, thus generating more revenue; the excellent 20-20 spectator offers Lancs do (including a guaranteed 20,000 sell-out for the Yorks game) increase revenue further; international cricket will still be played there; and Lancs can still host pop concerts to add another 'revenue stream'.

Compare this to Cardiff's options with a poor Glamorgan side and the other major venues in Cardiff itself which will make a stronger case for investment than a cricket ground that will spend almost all of its time barely used, and generally poorly attended.

LCCC will develop OT and it will in time return to hosting Test cricket. The current money-motivated allocation of games I don't believe to be sustainable and I hope that Cardiff doesn't crash badly in future years and will still prove capable of hosting international cricket.

Yesterday on TMS Angus Fraser
Panesar might test Hair's patience 09:34am on 23 May 2008 Re: the debate about Old Trafford losing out on Test matches.

It is a matter of public record that Jim Coombes (LCCC Chief Exec) turned down the opportunity to bid for future Test matches bearing in mind the escalating costs the ECB are demanding for doing so. Cardiff have reputedly paid around £3 million for next years Ashes Test and Coombes refused to put the long term future of LCCC in jepoardy by paying out such outrageous sums for a game which is entirely weather-dependent.

I for one think he was quite right to do so. Cardiff has much wetter weather than Manchester and if you also take that into account that the game could easily be over well inside four days the club hosting the match stands to lose a massive and potentially very serious amount of cash.

Of course Old Trafford has its issues as a venue, like many other Test grounds, but its big plus is the hard fast pitch and quick outfield which virtually guarantees very watchable and enjoyable cricket. International cricket will continue to be played there in some form and quite rightly so.

In fact, of all the grounds in England, Lords scores the lowest in terms of spectator-freindliness (e.g. prices charged, ease of access, transport links, sightlines for players on the pitch) but there's no way it will ever lose a Test match, and of course every player wants to play there and it is a fabulous venue to watch a game at (once you're in).

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

Scorebox