Couldn't disagree more but then we each have diametrically opposed views and have been round this circle before.
I'll post on today's play soon
Couldn't disagree more but then we each have diametrically opposed views and have been round this circle before.
Yes, it's possible that we prepared really really hard for Sri Lanka and didn't bother preparing at all for the West Indies. I think I prefer my theory though, on balance.
There was no proper warm-up game, just some 12-a-side two-day crap.hancockjr wrote: ↑24 Jan 2019, 22:10Yes, it's possible that we prepared really really hard for Sri Lanka and didn't bother preparing at all for the West Indies. I think I prefer my theory though, on balance.
So I'm not approaching puberty
Sri Lanka just lost by an innings to Australia.
Before England toured it is true Sri Lanka had had a series of fine results both at home and in the subcontinent with virtually EXACTLY the players who played in the first test against England. Beating Australia and South Africa at home and Pakistan in the UAE.hancockjr wrote:Sri Lanka just lost by an innings to Australia.
Rankings are ok but they are very backward looking - maybe I'm wrong but I thought most of those matches that got them to 6th (hardly dizzy heights!) was with players who had retired by the time we got to play them, so they were considerably weaker than the lowly 6th their ranking suggested.
West Indies bowling attack in home conditions is very good, it has been a potent weapon at home for some time. Its not making enough runs that has constantly been the problem. If they have runs on the board to back them up then they will be formidable. England losing the toss, picking the wrong team and bowling too short was the cocktail that provided the antidote to their recent batting woes.forestfan wrote:Anyway, whatever the arguments about relative merits of opponents... the truth is West Indies aren’t very good. .
No not at all imo, besides it being completely impractical and never going to happen, it's winning the next test match that matters and building on this sides' recent successes by playing to the top of their abilities.forestfan wrote: ↑26 Jan 2019, 21:41 If you “fail completely and in all departments” that’s exactly when you judge, panic and make big changes.
Send 6 or 7 of them home on the next plane and say you’re not playing in the Ashes or World Cup unless you do spectacular things in the early county season. Cook made a debut century after being flown half way around the world at the last minute, time for a few young players to be given the opportunity to do the same.
Halfway up the page you were explaining England lost because they were given insufficient preparation - which is management's fault. Why would you drop 6-7 players for something that was management's fault?forestfan wrote: ↑26 Jan 2019, 21:41 If you “fail completely and in all departments” that’s exactly when you judge, panic and make big changes.
Send 6 or 7 of them home on the next plane and say you’re not playing in the Ashes or World Cup unless you do spectacular things in the early county season. Cook made a debut century after being flown half way around the world at the last minute, time for a few young players to be given the opportunity to do the same.
The first innings collapse was more than likely a failure of preparation. Throwing in the towel to part-timers afterwards is what justifies sending players home in disgrace.hancockjr wrote: ↑26 Jan 2019, 22:04Halfway up the page you were explaining England lost because they were given insufficient preparation - which is management's fault. Why would you drop 6-7 players for something that was management's fault?forestfan wrote: ↑26 Jan 2019, 21:41 If you “fail completely and in all departments” that’s exactly when you judge, panic and make big changes.
Send 6 or 7 of them home on the next plane and say you’re not playing in the Ashes or World Cup unless you do spectacular things in the early county season. Cook made a debut century after being flown half way around the world at the last minute, time for a few young players to be given the opportunity to do the same.
Fair pointforestfan wrote: ↑26 Jan 2019, 23:42The first innings collapse was more than likely a failure of preparation. Throwing in the towel to part-timers afterwards is what justifies sending players home in disgrace.hancockjr wrote: ↑26 Jan 2019, 22:04Halfway up the page you were explaining England lost because they were given insufficient preparation - which is management's fault. Why would you drop 6-7 players for something that was management's fault?forestfan wrote: ↑26 Jan 2019, 21:41 If you “fail completely and in all departments” that’s exactly when you judge, panic and make big changes.
Send 6 or 7 of them home on the next plane and say you’re not playing in the Ashes or World Cup unless you do spectacular things in the early county season. Cook made a debut century after being flown half way around the world at the last minute, time for a few young players to be given the opportunity to do the same.
Does this sort of thing annoy anyone else as much as me? This was not a "bold" call - putting Rashid in instead of Broad was neither Bold nor "Unbold", it was just a decision and it was wrong, at least in retrospect. Too often people hide behind bad decisions saying "at least it was brave" or "I could have made the easy decision" - just make the correct one!CricInfo wrote:Joe Root admitted that England "might have got their selection wrong" in the wake of his side's 381-run drubbing in the first Test against West Indies, but insisted that England would not be deterred from making further bold calls in the future,
It wasn't as straight forward beforehand without all the all-knowing hindsight we now possess. The pitch before the match did look mottled, blotchy and ugly and looked at least to the eye as if picking two spinners may well turn out to be the 'bold' decision that gave a significant advantage.hancockjr wrote:Does this sort of thing annoy anyone else as much as me? This was not a "bold" call - putting Rashid in instead of Broad was neither Bold nor "Unbold", it was just a decision and it was wrong, at least in retrospect. Too often people hide behind bad decisions saying "at least it was brave" or "I could have made the easy decision" - just make the correct one!CricInfo wrote:Joe Root admitted that England "might have got their selection wrong" in the wake of his side's 381-run drubbing in the first Test against West Indies, but insisted that England would not be deterred from making further bold calls in the future,
I actually think bowling part timers more than they did to save Stokes being over bowled and burnt out might have been the better call. Overworking one of your main men in a completely futile effort to somehow get something from a game already lost, seemed absolutely pointless to me. Bowling 50 overs is ridiculous especially when so many were unnecessary, it risks burn out before the rest of the series in games they need to win and possible serious injury. You have to remember England's first innings was so short the bowlers barely had a rest before going out again.hancockjr wrote:Fair pointforestfan wrote: ↑26 Jan 2019, 23:42The first innings collapse was more than likely a failure of preparation. Throwing in the towel to part-timers afterwards is what justifies sending players home in disgrace.hancockjr wrote: ↑26 Jan 2019, 22:04Halfway up the page you were explaining England lost because they were given insufficient preparation - which is management's fault. Why would you drop 6-7 players for something that was management's fault?forestfan wrote: ↑26 Jan 2019, 21:41 If you “fail completely and in all departments” that’s exactly when you judge, panic and make big changes.
Send 6 or 7 of them home on the next plane and say you’re not playing in the Ashes or World Cup unless you do spectacular things in the early county season. Cook made a debut century after being flown half way around the world at the last minute, time for a few young players to be given the opportunity to do the same.