First | < Previous 1
2
3
4
5
6
Next > | Last
|
| |
|
Message 1 - posted by Nicolas Fils de Jeffer
(U1733979)
, Nov 16, 2005
Today's abysmal batting performance and defeat was entirely predictable and has been on the cards for a while. Many times over the past year England have had a chance to kill a team off while in a strong position such as 250-2 but each time have lacked the conviction and intelligence to put 500 on the board and close the game. We got away with it, just, against the Aussies, but Pakistan punished us for not shutting them out of the game on day three.
Another facet of this has been the wreckless approach of our batting, especially our middle order. We had the whole day to get 170 runs, thats about two an over, so what the hell were the likes Pietersen and Flintoff doing?? If they had shown a bit more application and intelligence then we could have comfortably go home. Again there is previous form here, we had over 4 sessions to get 129 at Trent Bridge yet panick set in and we had batsmen throwing away their wickets.
The problem lies in both the composition of the batting line-up and its approach. The lack of a middle order accumulator has been glaringly obvious for ages to counter the wrecklessness of others. Someone such as Thorpe or Key would have come in at 250-2 and consolidated a position of strength. In addition they would have kept a cool head and adopted the correct approach in a situation such as today. See Key's magnificent 93no under extreme pressure at Old Trafford as evidence of someone who can keep their head in such a situation.
The wreckless approach of the batting today reflects poorly on both the line manager, Trescothick, and the overall executive, Fletcher. I know he played a great knock in the first innings but i've always doubted his acumen as a captain. Fletcher has overall responsibilty for the approach of the line-up, surely he would have advised them of the correct approach. In the corporate world any executive who presided over such a debacle would be called into question.
|
 |
|
|
|
Message 2 - posted by ownworstenemy
(U2224713)
, Nov 16, 2005
Thank god it's not the corporate world then
This is a reply to this message
|
| |
|
|
|
Message 3 - posted by Tra_j_d
(U1030133)
, Nov 16, 2005
Since England were (self) elevated to "Best team in the World" when they beat Australia, does this now mean that Pakistan are the best team in the world - since they did beat England?
This is a reply to this message
|
| |
|
|
|
Message 4 - posted by Nicolas Fils de Jeffer
(U1733979)
, Nov 16, 2005
Thank god it's not the corporate world thenQuoted
message from
ownworstenemy
And thank god I don't adopt such a wreckless approach in my business dealings.
This is a reply to this message
|
| |
|
|
|
Message 5 - posted by ownworstenemy
(U2224713)
, Nov 16, 2005
I don't mean to be wreakless (sp) mate. I was just pointing out that this isn't the corporate world and there is no need to call someone into question everytime there is a setback. Still carry on writing your inane ramblings, get all your gloating out of your system. It can't do you any good to store up all this anger.
This is a reply to this message
|
| |
|
|
|
Message 6 - posted by ak30rigg
(U1773002)
, Nov 16, 2005
Thank god it's not the corporate world then
And thank god I don't adopt such a wreckless approach in my business dealings.
Quoted
message from
Nicolas Fils de Jeffer
No - you just waste valuable business hours by posting incoherent, miserable drivel on message boards on a daily basis. Time is money Mr Jefferson, time is money.
This is a reply to this message
|
| |
|
|
|
Message 7 - posted by wicked_curve
(U2421768)
, Nov 16, 2005
Questions should be asked about a middle order with two similar and aggressive batsmen. Both threw their wickets away. So instead of Bell, I think it's Pieterson whose position is precarious. To date, he has played only one meaningful innings (in the last Ashes Test) and then he was dropped four times. So once the flash and glamor of this cricketer/celebrity wears off, people have to see if he is really worth his place in the side.
This is a reply to this message
|
| |
|
|
|
Message 8 - posted by Nicolas Fils de Jeffer
(U1733979)
, Nov 16, 2005
Agreed very much about Pietersen. As you said he could easily have been out for not much at the Oval, and at that time people were on his back for him being too cocky in his batting approach e.g his dismissal to Warne in Oval first innings.
This is a reply to this message
|
| |
|
|
|
Message 9 - posted by Whispering_sid (roughly wooed)
(U2025800)
, Nov 16, 2005
For the first time ever, I think I find myself agreeing with Nic's basic thrust.
Far too reckless.
however "See Key's magnificent 93no under extreme pressure at Old Trafford as evidence of someone who can keep their head in such a situation."
Thorpe I can agree with. Key, however, got to 93 by sheer luck. I was at OT - 24 of his runs came through the vacant slip cordon, he was dropped several times, survived a number of very strong lbw decisions, and did not look the part at all. He only started to look 'effective' once Flintoff opened his shoulders and victory was in sight.
But we're talking current England team now. KP should have been, and could have been, our matchwinner. Yet he threw it away.
Damn the fool. But I'd not drop him. If I were Fletch, I'd administer a severe kick up the backside with a pointy boot, and ban him from looking in the mirror until he had done something meaningful.
This is a reply to this message
|
| |
|
|
|
Message 10 - posted by cujimi
(U1816052)
, Nov 16, 2005
I also thought the first post was a fair summary. With some basic test batting 170 in 4 sessions was an easy ask. Pakistan bowled well enough but the truth is England threw it away and managed to grab defeat from the jaws of Victory. Now that is reckless!  This is a reply to this message
|
| |
|
|
|
Message 11 - posted by aussiebaiter
(U2009045)
, Nov 16, 2005
I know NFDJ isn't everyones cup of tea but I do think that the man has a point in this case. It was inevitable that sooner or later England would lose a game that they failed to nail down at their first opportunity.
There is a real need for a solid accumulator between the hotheads, entertaining though they are. Is Key the man? I'm not certain, but I think that he's a little better than some think. I too watched his 93no and thought it was a lot more impressive than my fellow poster above.
Bell may fill that role in the long term. But what is certain at the moment is that playing Collingwood and Bell in the same side offers too many potential weak links to the opposition. England can, and will do better
This is a reply to this message
|
| |
|
|
|
Message 12 - posted by britanniaroolz
(U1987176)
, Nov 16, 2005
I now know you are a fraudster. No person that went to a fairly good school like Rugby would ever spell reckless as "wreckless". You have been exposed; forget the cricket , about which you are also wrong , just use the radio 5 rantline from now on - thats more you. Today's abysmal batting performance and defeat was entirely predictable and has been on the cards for a while. Many times over the past year England have had a chance to kill a team off while in a strong position such as 250-2 but each time have lacked the conviction and intelligence to put 500 on the board and close the game. We got away with it, just, against the Aussies, but Pakistan punished us for not shutting them out of the game on day three.
Another facet of this has been the wreckless approach of our batting, especially our middle order. We had the whole day to get 170 runs, thats about two an over, so what the hell were the likes Pietersen and Flintoff doing?? If they had shown a bit more application and intelligence then we could have comfortably go home. Again there is previous form here, we had over 4 sessions to get 129 at Trent Bridge yet panick set in and we had batsmen throwing away their wickets.
The problem lies in both the composition of the batting line-up and its approach. The lack of a middle order accumulator has been glaringly obvious for ages to counter the wrecklessness of others. Someone such as Thorpe or Key would have come in at 250-2 and consolidated a position of strength. In addition they would have kept a cool head and adopted the correct approach in a situation such as today. See Key's magnificent 93no under extreme pressure at Old Trafford as evidence of someone who can keep their head in such a situation.
The wreckless approach of the batting today reflects poorly on both the line manager, Trescothick, and the overall executive, Fletcher. I know he played a great knock in the first innings but i've always doubted his acumen as a captain. Fletcher has overall responsibilty for the approach of the line-up, surely he would have advised them of the correct approach. In the corporate world any executive who presided over such a debacle would be called into question.Quoted
message from
Nicolas Fils de Jeffer
This is a reply to this message
|
| |
|
|
|
Message 13 - posted by LOPAGSFLOUNDER
(U2506054)
, Nov 16, 2005
This is a reply to this message
|
| |
|
|
|
Message 14 - posted by Rags1984
(U2506067)
, Nov 16, 2005
All well and good criticising Pietersen. But, Paul Collingwood, for all his hard work and diligence, is just not cut out to play at Test level.
This is a reply to this message
|
| |
|
|
|
Message 15 - posted by mikel angulus
(U1650612)
, Nov 16, 2005
no it isn't reckless, 198 would have been the 3rd best score in the 4th innings by an opposition team in Pakistan to win a test match England threw it away by not building a big enough first innings lead I also thought the first post was a fair summary.
With some basic test batting 170 in 4 sessions was an easy ask. Pakistan bowled well enough but the truth is England threw it away and managed to grab defeat from the jaws of Victory.
Now that is reckless! Quoted
message from
cujimi
This is a reply to this message
|
| |
|
|
|
Message 16 - posted by Whispering_sid (roughly wooed)
(U2025800)
, Nov 16, 2005
Maybe I'm being harsh on Key, but I still don't see him coming back into the England fold.
At best, he was the equivalent of someone going on a cricketing version of Stars in Their Eyes, and providing an inadequate imitation of Gatting. He has had some excellent knocks, for certain, but if we're looking for long-term replacements to the middle order (ie, getting in a grinder/accumulator rather than a big-hitter), I'd much prefer Shah.
Much classier, better footwork, and the potential to more than a flat-track bully.
This is a reply to this message
|
| |
|
|
|
Message 17 - posted by Mavs05
(U1983129)
, Nov 16, 2005
they are a young inexperienced batting line up, so these collapses will happen, especially playing in the subcontinent.
This is a reply to this message
|
| |
|
|
|
Message 18 - posted by merseyviking
(U2348195)
, Nov 16, 2005
we can all turn everything this way and that - look at it from this angle and that angle
But the cold fact remains - Australia would not have lost that game
This is a reply to this message
|
| |
|
|
|
Message 19 - posted by LOPAGSFLOUNDER
(U2506054)
, Nov 16, 2005
Blaming the batsmen is all too easy as the Pakistan 2nd Innings total would have been lower if England had one if not two decent spinners. Both Giles and "new find" Udal hardly got a ball to turn and nearly all the wickets were taken by seamers. England cannot be a world power on the sub-continent until bowlers who can generate both spin, variation and control have been discovered. Danish Kaneira operating in tandem with Shoaib Akhtar was the Pakistani version of Shane Warne with Glenn McGrath.
Bring back Robert Key - what nonsense - he failed miserably when the opportunity arose and has played far more tests than Kevin Pieterson. Why are people wanting to discard the dyed hairy after his first away Test and after being England's batting hero in the Ashes Tests? It's a wonder there are no Butcher fans bleating!
This is a reply to this message
|
| |
|
|
|
Message 20 - posted by courteousTimothy
(U1723631)
, Nov 16, 2005
). Since England were (self) elevated to "Best team in the World" when they beat Australia, does this now mean that Pakistan are the best team in the world - since they did beat England?Quoted
message from
Tra_j_d
No, Pakistan would have to win seven series in succession to be considered such a team. That is why people have been calling England, recently, the best side in the world. It wasn't only because of the Ashes victory. (Incidentally, Australians have called them that too). This is a reply to this message
|
| |
|
|
First | < Previous 1
2
3
4
5
6
Next > | Last
|
Home
How to 
Are you being 
Listen Live