The cricket...

[Wowbagger]

Well, this is all looking a bit ignominious...

[Greenbank]

England's bowling attack need to be able to deal with Smith, somehow.

They need to do a few things.

Off the top of my head I can think of:-
* Not lose their main pace/swing bowler after 4 overs
* Stop thinking it's impossible to begin with
* Stop listening to the media who keep saying it's impossible
* Stop thinking we have to do something amazing to get him out (a la Kane Williamson in the CWC).

Just bowl decent balls and he'll nick off or misjudge one at some point.

The wankery over him on TMS is getting a bit too much. What's worse is every single commentator/summariser change (every 20/30 minutes) brings another 5-10 minutes of the same old shit being rehashed.

[Jaded]

At lunchtime I thought we were doing rather well. Then I discovered that I’d somehow missed 4 notifications.

TMS? Boycott should be retired immediately. He comes from a previous century, nearly as far back as Rees-Mogg. Next, I appreciate they have an Australian audience, but when that Aussie comes on, with his back to front match statistics, getting excited about Aus scoring, I wonder what country I’m in.

Why wasn’t Woakes bowled more yesterday? Did I miss something?

[DuncanM]

England's bowling attack need to be able to deal with Smith, somehow.

They need to do a few things.

Off the top of my head I can think of:-
* Not lose their main pace/swing bowler after 4 overs
* Stop thinking it's impossible to begin with
* Stop listening to the media who keep saying it's impossible
* Stop thinking we have to do something amazing to get him out (a la Kane Williamson in the CWC).

Just bowl decent balls and he'll nick off or misjudge one at some point.

And if that doesn't work then bowl a foot outside off stump to off-side fields and stop him scoring runs. It's boring, but they have 5 days, and if they take the other 10 wickets and he gets 50*, that's fine.

[Von Broad]

Just bowl decent balls and he'll nick off or misjudge one at some point.

Problem is - he's too good a player to give too much away, so when the ball ceases to start helping the faster bowlers, decent balls become much easier to judge, as has been the case in this match, and with the pitch getting a bit slow and flat but turning, you look to your spinners, and unfortunately England don't have a spinner in Lyon's league. 

[Von Broad]

England's bowling attack need to be able to deal with Smith, somehow.

They need to do a few things.

Off the top of my head I can think of:-
* Not lose their main pace/swing bowler after 4 overs
* Stop thinking it's impossible to begin with
* Stop listening to the media who keep saying it's impossible
* Stop thinking we have to do something amazing to get him out (a la Kane Williamson in the CWC).

Just bowl decent balls and he'll nick off or misjudge one at some point.

And if that doesn't work then bowl a foot outside off stump to off-side fields and stop him scoring runs. It's boring, but they have 5 days, and if they take the other 10 wickets and he gets 50*, that's fine.

Problem with that is, all he has to do is stand there, do nothing and watch the bowlers knacker themselves out.
England will need to try and win a game at some point. Which I'm sure they will 

[Peter]

Smith is NOT the problem.  Get the others out.  The problem is that we can't bat for a day.  Why is Buttler in the team?  He didn't have a particularly good world cup and his long game average is worse than Lyon's bowling average.  We make Lyon look better than he is.  Certainly he has plenty of wickets - but he plays against England.  His bowling average is in the thirties, which (I don't think) is particularly brilliant.  As I mentioned earlier, Burns is not the great hope.  His last two starts have yielded low scores.  Root can (or used to be able to) bat but he couldn't captain a solo dinghy.  Why did he bowl twenty-odd overs and Woakes about 13?

All credit to Australia, even if they have been a bunch of cheats in the past.  I think it's all back-fired on England spectacularly, especially the booing,  Australia cheated against South Africa, for God's sake - they didn't need to cheat against England - the ball wasn't old enough!

And no, Joffra Archer isn't the answer, either, and it's wrong for him to have that pressure.

I'm irrationally angry about this!  They've let the public (who pay their wages) down by making stupid decisions.  Fine them!

[toontra]

Whatever they say, they've allowed winning the world cup to give them illusions of grandeur that they plainly don't merit. The world cup was won with the narrowest conceivable margin and was aided by bucket-loads of luck and possibly an umpire error that turned the outcome (6 overthrows rather than 5).

Talk about down to earth with a bump.  They look fragile from top to bottom without exception, and I get the sense that Australia are only firing on 3 cylinders at the moment.

[andyoxon]

Whatever they say, they've allowed winning the world cup to give them illusions of grandeur that they plainly don't merit. The world cup was won with the narrowest conceivable margin and was aided by bucket-loads of luck and possibly an umpire error that turned the outcome (6 overthrows rather than 5).

Talk about down to earth with a bump.  They look fragile from top to bottom without exception, and I get the sense that Australia are only firing on 3 cylinders at the moment.

I heard some discussion on TMS of the WC 'overthrows' saying the the law should be amended to 'if the ball is still active' the run counts, not was it thrown before the batsmen crossed.  This since the laws of cricket are relevant to the village green, where there would realistically be no way, to pick the bones of this particular freak occurence.  In any event in cricket the umpires have been know to get stuff wrong.  Tiny margin though yes.

[Greenbank]

Whatever they say, they've allowed winning the world cup to give them illusions of grandeur that they plainly don't merit. The world cup was won with the narrowest conceivable margin and was aided by bucket-loads of luck and possibly an umpire error that turned the outcome (6 overthrows rather than 5).

Talk about down to earth with a bump.  They look fragile from top to bottom without exception, and I get the sense that Australia are only firing on 3 cylinders at the moment.

I heard some discussion on TMS of the WC 'overthrows' saying the the law should be amended to 'if the ball is still active' the run counts, not was it thrown before the batsmen crossed.  This since the laws of cricket are relevant to the village green, where there would realistically be no way, to pick the bones of this particular freak occurence.  In any event in cricket the umpires have been know to get stuff wrong.  Tiny margin though yes.

Indeed, it was Jason Holder of "You are the umpire" fame, you can find the podcast of his lunch time chat on the BBC website. His opinion is that the existing law is wrong ("not fit for purpose" was his exact words I believe) and needs changing. His argument was that the ball was still live until it hit the boundary rope so why would you stop counting their runs (or partially completed runs if they'd crossed) when the fielder threw the ball. It's convention that the batsmen run no more after the ball has hit them, and they didn't run any more, it's just a freak occurrence that the ball went to the boundary after hitting the bat of Stokes. The law (as written) doesn't deal with that situation clearly and so the on-filed umpires used their discretion/experience/judgement.

He also said that had he been umpiring that day he would have awarded 6 runs in the same way, and the ICC stood by the on-field umpires decisions on the day (because they never question umpires decisions). The laws of cricket do not cover every eventuality and some eventualities they cover they produce the wrong results, it's up to the umpires on the day to use their experience and judgement to come up with the most obvious and sensible outcome. Awarding just 5 runs in the Guptill/Stokes situation was not the most obvious/sensible outcome.

Expect that law (19.8) to be amended in the next few years.

[DuncanM]

England's bowling attack need to be able to deal with Smith, somehow.

They need to do a few things.

Off the top of my head I can think of:-
* Not lose their main pace/swing bowler after 4 overs
* Stop thinking it's impossible to begin with
* Stop listening to the media who keep saying it's impossible
* Stop thinking we have to do something amazing to get him out (a la Kane Williamson in the CWC).

Just bowl decent balls and he'll nick off or misjudge one at some point.

And if that doesn't work then bowl a foot outside off stump to off-side fields and stop him scoring runs. It's boring, but they have 5 days, and if they take the other 10 wickets and he gets 50*, that's fine.

Problem with that is, all he has to do is stand there, do nothing and watch the bowlers knacker themselves out.
England will need to try and win a game at some point. Which I'm sure they will 

Not losing would be a good start.

[mattc]

I'm irrationally angry about this!  They've let the public (who pay their wages) down by making stupid decisions.  Fine them!

Flippin 'eck! Peter is ranting, and I've never seen Greenbank and Jaded this angry on the same thread - is this the beginning of The End Times for English* Sport??

*yes, I know. Sorry.

If jaded is moaning about Mitchell Johnson in commentary, I have to say I quite like him. Yes, I am enjoying listening to an elite Aussie sportsman. Strewth!
(he won me over in the interview about  That Song:
Aggers: so did it ever get to you?
Johnson: a bit. The problem was it was so catchy - you just couldn't help singing it!)

Do bowlers make better pundits? Are they the game's thinkers (in general)? Are batsmen mainly playing on instinct in that half-second, while the bowler is thinking for the whole time between one delivery and the next?

Yes, Boycott is an idiot - but he's entertaining in the small doses we get, and does know a lot.

[Jaded]

No, it wasn't Mitchell Johnson, it sounded like a fossil like Boycott.

Yes, I heard MJ taking about That Song. It was quite funny.

I should have sent in question about when he got a standing ovation at Cardiff last time around, when he reached 100 runs and no wickets.

[Peter]

I'm irrationally angry about this!  They've let the public (who pay their wages) down by making stupid decisions.  Fine them!

Flippin 'eck! Peter is ranting, and I've never seen Greenbank and Jaded this angry on the same thread - is this the beginning of The End Times for English* Sport??

Sorry, Matt: I can cope with Ashley owning my football club, the shambles in the Labour Party,  or the cricket; but all together?!  I'd try deep-breathing but there's the pollen!

[Greenbank]

I've never seen Greenbank and Jaded this angry on the same thread

I'm not angry at all.

Cricket, like most sport watched, is entertainment.

I'd only be angry if it was my own involvement that was causing problems.

[andyoxon]

England's bowling performance looks like it will be key again.

[mattc]

I've never seen Greenbank and Jaded this angry on the same thread

I'm not angry at all.

Cricket, like most sport watched, is entertainment.

I'd only be angry if it was my own involvement that was causing problems.

Well you did use the word "wankery" - that isn't your usual restrained self.

I look forward to new vocabulary as the series develops

[Greenbank]

Well you did use the word "wankery" - that isn't your usual restrained self.

Who was it directed at? Hint: Not the England cricketers.

Anyway, more fucknuggetry from the majority of England's top order.

I think the vast majority of them need to play less white ball cricket, but there's far more £££ in that than test cricket.

[DuncanM]

Anyway, more fucknuggetry from the majority of England's top order.

I think the vast majority of them need to play less white ball cricket, but there's far more £££ in that than test cricket.

To be fair, it's England who picked them for white ball stuff and stopped them playing for their counties.

I think the test team are where the 1 day team were 10 years ago - picking lots of supposed all-rounders only really works if they are good enough with ball and bat (in which case you'll be the best team in the world). It they aren't (and the majority never are), you end up with a top order, and then a bunch of #7s batting higher than they should and vulnerable to a good bowling attack. And our top order isn't exactly solid at the moment either.

[toontra]

The cretins who were booing Smith as he came back on yesterday should have been ejected from the ground by stewards as far as I'm concerned.  They clearly know nothing about cricket, bravery, or much about anything for that matter.  And at Lords of all places.

[mattc]

Well you did use the word "wankery" - that isn't your usual restrained self.

Who was it directed at? Hint: Not the England cricketers.

Apologies, didn't mean to misrepresent you. I shall work on my diligence ...

Anyway, more fucknuggetry from the majority of England's top order.

That's better!

[mattc]

MEANWHILE ...
Our chaps are putting on quite a good show now. Talk of declarations   


But I cannot explain this:

The cretins who were booing Smith as he came back on yesterday should have been ejected from the ground by stewards as far as I'm concerned.  They clearly know nothing about cricket, bravery, or much about anything for that matter.  And at Lords of all places.

Didn't hear this - hopefully it was just a few utter "fucknuggets", and Smith realises that he doesn't need to give a dingo about what they think.

GWS Smithy!

[andyoxon]

Mildly amusing to hear Labuschagne pronounced Labooshane, rather than a guttural Labusschuhnee...

edit   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVbqyRhZMmY  the man himself, apparently his wife says Labooshane...

[Peter]

This is not an outstanding Australian ream - but they are tough!

[Basil]

First time I have seen a reference to 'The Men's Ashes' on the BBC site.