BBC Home

Explore the BBC

95 comments

user rating: 3 star

Moores must go

England
by walks_a (U996063) 21 December 2008
comment on the article

Sending in a nightwatchman. Ridiculous. We need to take 10 Indian wickets in the next 3 sessions or we lose the series.

EDITED:

Sorry really should have gone on to explain the above a bit better. There are six sessions left in the game - probably 160 overs given the light and slow over rates by both side. England were never liklely to achieve a lead, so needed to get as many quick runs as possible in order to get India back in and pick up the 10 Indian wickets needed to have any chance of winning the game. The nightwatchman stategy and taking the light have handicapped that position.

If England bat on anything after an hour tomorrow, then the best that they can hope for is a draw - as they will have taken too much time out of the game.

Had I been Moores, I would have said to KP at tea - knock off the runs to get us passed the follow on and then cut loose. I'd have sent everyone in in twenty20 mode. If it failed, we'd have had a bowl at then last night (and hopefully made in roads). had it come off we could have been 50-100 runs short (or better)and declared. We must WIN this game to square the series. That can only be done by bowling the Indians out again - even if we didn't lose wickets and played authodox cricket we'd have had to bat until lunch tomorrow to have had a lead of 100-150. Something that surely Moores should realise is not going to happen.

We'll probably scratch another 100 out in a session and a half, still be 80 runs behind meaning that if the Indians bat for 3 sessions there'll be out of sight. Not because they will have too many runs, but because they have too many runs for the number of overs left

Latest 10 comments

Read members' comments or add your own

posted Dec 21, 2008

Any side that bats in a Test likes it's a T20 loses... and fast!
-----------

too busy gazing at stars while Sehwag was batting last week?

add comment | complain about this comment

comment by Sam (U13726178)

posted Dec 21, 2008

The comments were completely uncalled for from Pietersen. The present English team are arguably one of the most well behaved teams to have toured India in the recent past. Their popularity with the Indian fans was growing, irrespective of the results.
Pietrsen's scintillating century and his out of this world switch hitting wud have won him millions of admirers in India. Will still do for that matter.
But his comments dilute the goodwill generated.
Specially since Yuvraj was the one to be at the receiving end in the last test.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Dec 21, 2008

I should add that England also faced a run-saving one-day field, where the only interest was to slow the scoring rather than to take wickets and STILL were going at better than 4 an over.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Dec 22, 2008

Fairandbalancedfan,

I can understand that India's recent run of success may well have consigned the memories of preceding results to less illuminated mental recesses.

Painful though these may be to plumb, it is perhaps a little excessive for them to erase completely full recollection of the limited number of test playing nations and indeed one's own neighbours.

I refer, of course, to Sri Lanka.





add comment | complain about this comment

posted Dec 22, 2008

comment by fairandbalancedfan (U13654179)
posted 8 Hours Ago

The general consensus among Australian and British cricketers is Yuvraj is not a Test Player - Next time Britain sends its East India company to colonize India we may listen to KP and drop Yuvraj
...............................................

We're on it.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Dec 22, 2008

It seems to me that all the on field talk to Yuvraj does him more good than harm. Poor tactics - Pietersen and Flintoff should shut their mouths and play

add comment | complain about this comment

comment by Garmez (U1726877)

posted Dec 22, 2008

I dont rate Moores, but you cant hold him responsible for the way Englands innings petered out(predictably)in yesterdays final session and this mornings play. We seem to have developed an unerring knack of handing back the initiative whenever we assume a promising position.

The bare facts - 22 runs for 6 wickets, at a point where the commentators were remarking on how the helpful conditions for bowling had passed, is woeful.

But what convinced Peitersen and Freddie that the best course of action when the Indians tossed the bowl up outside leg stump was to kick the ball away? With the rate in excess of 4 an over, the runs then began to steadily dry up and, true to form, the innings disintegrated. Surely, with the Indians being so defensive, this would have been the time for the charge, the result could not have been any worse than 302 all out.

I'm afraid this team seems to be in a permanent state of mental decline.

add comment | complain about this comment

comment by walks_a (U996063)

posted Dec 22, 2008

Garmez,

Agree with everything that you said, with the exception that Moores can't be blamed. Yes he can, his job is to get the most out of the players - to get them playing with a winning mentality. Moores must have been complicit in the decision to send in Anderson. Moores must be involved in setting the tactics for the team. Had we had a thrash at the end of day three the worst that could have happened was that we would have been all out a bit sooner. As things stand that would have benefitted us, as we one day left India only need bat til lunch (with or without fog delay) to put the game and the series safe.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Dec 22, 2008

I have been at a loss to understand England's batting tactics throughout the Indian tour, not only in test matches. We were pitiful in the Stanford event and the return there was the fault of all the batters, and in a number of ODIs our batting ground to a halt. My memory is not as good as yours maybe but in one ODI with Collingwood at the crease we called for the powerplay and 4 overs yielded 11 runs.
Our second innings, last test, was dreadful, any hopes we had of buiding a substantial lead evaporated in 3 hours after lunch - talk about snailspace!
I am not going to condemn individuals in this post, I would just like to have opinions about the perceived plan that must be agreed by KP and moores, these dreadful periods of stagnation did not occur on the spur of the moment, surely?

add comment | complain about this comment

comment by Garmez (U1726877)

posted Jan 2, 2009

Walks_a

Believe me, I hold the same opinion as you regarding Moores. My point was that it must have been KP and Freddie (as surely they do not take instructions on an ad-hoc basis during an innings) to decide to play negatively during the period we dicussed.

KP and FF must know the impact of taking the game to the opposition when they they are beginning to waiver, Ashes 2005 should spring to mind unless they have short memories.

add comment | complain about this comment

Comment on this article

Sorry, you can only contribute to 606 during opening hours. These are 0900-2300 UK time, seven days a week, but may vary to accommodate sporting events and UK public holidays.

RATE THIS ARTICLE

Rate Breakdown

  • 5 33.33%
    3 votes
  • 4 11.11%
    1 votes
  • 3
    0 votes
  • 2
    0 votes
  • 1 55.56%
    5 votes

average rating:
2.67 from 9 votes