Cricket

[chrismpw]

Well that certainly isn't cricket.

 

[jazzy]

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.

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 .

 

[Walken]

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 .

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.

 

[jazzy]

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.

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