Install the app
How to install the app on iOS

Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.

Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.

Cricket

Walken said:
Well played Sri Lanka, lets not get too caught up in hammering England (who were poor in this test) and remember to praise the side that is looking to bounce back and improve.

Nissanka and Mendis look like super players.
Click to expand...
Well I agree that Sri Lanka played well but you can't just gloss over how poor , unprofessional and downright disrespectful England were with their selections ( chucking Lawrence in as an opener , and Hull after a handful of first class matches and terrible figures), tactics and approach . There is absolutely no way they would have done this against India or Australia.

Brook is a wonderful talent but his arrogant approach was disgraceful.

Let's hope this is a wake up call that is heeded .
 
jazzy said:
Well I agree that Sri Lanka played well but you can't just gloss over how poor , unprofessional and downright disrespectful England were with their selections ( chucking Lawrence in as an opener , and Hull after a handful of first class matches and terrible figures), tactics and approach . There is absolutely no way they would have done this against India or Australia.

Brook is a wonderful talent but his arrogant approach was disgraceful.

Let's hope this is a wake up call that is heeded .
Click to expand...
That's hyperbolic for me and indictive of this desire to jump all over any slip up in the baz/stokes era.

Lawrence has been the next cab off the rank and would have opened whoever the opposition with a Crawley/Ducket injury. Against India England literally picked a bowler in Bashir with no experience, so that argument doesn't make sense to me. Hull has some great ingredients and picking him in a dead rubber is fine. It's how these selectors have operated and it's largely served them well.

Brook came up against a new tactic, all part of the cat and mouse of international cricket and he in turn will now have to adapt. He's allowed to be human.

You would think we were world number 1 before stokes and baz the way folk want to jump all over them.
 
Walken said:
That's hyperbolic for me and indictive of this desire to jump all over any slip up in the baz/stokes era.

Lawrence has been the next cab off the rank and would have opened whoever the opposition with a Crawley/Ducket injury. Against India England literally picked a bowler in Bashir with no experience, so that argument doesn't make sense to me. Hull has some great ingredients and picking him in a dead rubber is fine. It's how these selectors have operated and it's largely served them well.

Brook came up against a new tactic, all part of the cat and mouse of international cricket and he in turn will now have to adapt. He's allowed to be human.

You would think we were world number 1 before stokes and baz the way folk want to jump all over them.
Click to expand...
Not at all .

The attacking intent is fine but FFS play with your brains

1. Pick an opener
2. Pick an established bowler - why was Potts dropped
3. Play the conditions and game situation.

It is arrogant to think you can get away with those things just because you play Sri Lanka.

Would we have made those selections and taken such a reckless attitude against India or Australia.

And as for this " new tactic " against Brook - they just bowled a foot outside off stump - hardly novel
 

This Australian side looks so much stronger England's on paper. Think we'll struggle. Livingstone due to come in at 5... That's fine if we're flying near the end but not it we're three down for not very many.
 


Welcome to GrandOldTeam

Get involved. Registration is simple and free.

Register
Back
Top