200 - Overseas Test defeats for England. They have lost 101 Test matches in Australia now. In the rest of the world (barring England), they have lost 99 matches combined.
It also coincides with the Gabba test being Ben Stokes' 200th first class match.
200 - Overseas Test defeats for England. They have lost 101 Test matches in Australia now. In the rest of the world (barring England), they have lost 99 matches combined.
It also coincides with the Gabba test being Ben Stokes' 200th first class match.
Whilst obviously enjoying the Poms imploding before our very eyes, I’d prefer a series akin the 2005 tour of England, up there with one of the best series I’ve seen.
Pity Billy Bowden didn’t know the rules otherwise it would have been 2-1 Australia’s way, and there’d be a few less Poms with Royal honours.
whufc wrote:I'm not sure our bowling attack is getting enough credit.
Yes we have a few out but .....
-Mitchell Starc is proving his above world class and can lead the attack on his own.
-Scott Boland is the perfect foil to Mitchell Starc, with consistent line and length. In his own right has been a very handy test bowler.
-Michael Neser was/is the perfect horses for courses selection. In his small amount of tests has proven his more than capable at test level and if he was born in any other country would have been a test regular.
I said it when Cummins went down but the one area, we do have depth is our bowling.
You reckon? Take out Neser and Starc and I feel as though the Poms have had the better of the rest.
whufc wrote:I'm not sure our bowling attack is getting enough credit.
Yes we have a few out but .....
-Mitchell Starc is proving his above world class and can lead the attack on his own.
-Scott Boland is the perfect foil to Mitchell Starc, with consistent line and length. In his own right has been a very handy test bowler.
-Michael Neser was/is the perfect horses for courses selection. In his small amount of tests has proven his more than capable at test level and if he was born in any other country would have been a test regular.
I said it when Cummins went down but the one area, we do have depth is our bowling.
You reckon? Take out Neser and Starc and I feel as though the Poms have had the better of the rest.
I mean Starc destroyed them in the first innings, first test but Doggett chipped in with 2/27
First Test second innings Boland got 4/33 at 2.83 and then Doggett chipped in with some late ones to get 3/51
Yeah, in the first innings of the second test if it wasnt for Starc we were stuffed but then in the second innings Neser starred with 5/42 and Boland 2/47 at 2.76.
Starc 18 at 14
Doggett 7 at 31
Boland 7 at 32
Neser 6 at 14.
Boland and Doggett have been got to a tad but they also have had 2 innings each out of the 4 where they have bowled well. Everyone is doing their bit when they need to.
wenchbarwer wrote:Carey standing up to the stumps means the Whineys can't advance down the pitch to Boland & Neser, bringing their line and length into play nicely
You can’t emphasised this enough.
It was an a obvious ploy by England to bat out of their crease and push forward to cover their stumps (even batting on off) They took LBW and bowled out of the equation and opened up runs on legside.
Carey comes up and immediately that allows Neser and Boland more latitude with length, gives the ball more of a chance to swing and makes the batsman having to think about the keeper. Automatically three additional modes of dismissal are possible compared to when Carey was standing back.
It was brilliant work by “Lucky”
Let that be a lesson to you Port, no one beats the Bays five times in a row in a GF and gets away with it!!!
Neither of their spinners are any good but Jacks is 'ok' with the bat in hand. 1/34 and an economy of 2.96 probably keeps him in the side.
They haven't got many options keeping wise. Maybe at the point that they have to go with Pope and bring in another genuine bat. Bethell is probably the only option with the bat to come in, scoring runs for the Lions and averaging 38 in his first four tests with 3 x 50's.
Atkinson doesnt look like getting wickets and at 2 nil down probably have to take the punt on Wood and Archer coming alive. Maybe just maybe Smith has sparked something in Archer. Funny people had a crack at Konstas going at Bumrah last year but i would have thought Australia might wanted to have kept Archer in his shell given his about Englands only hope of bowling well and not sparked him up albeit what Smith said was right.......surprised more people haven't had a crack at Archer.
We know Archer picks and chooses when to apply effort. Could be an interesting first spell this week......albeit he probably only has one decent spell as day in him.
whufc wrote:What are England going to do with their side.
Neither of their spinners are any good but Jacks is 'ok' with the bat in hand. 1/34 and an economy of 2.96 probably keeps him in the side.
They haven't got many options keeping wise. Maybe at the point that they have to go with Pope and bring in another genuine bat. Bethell is probably the only option with the bat to come in, scoring runs for the Lions and averaging 38 in his first four tests with 3 x 50's.
Atkinson doesnt look like getting wickets and at 2 nil down probably have to take the punt on Wood and Archer coming alive. Maybe just maybe Smith has sparked something in Archer. Funny people had a crack at Konstas going at Bumrah last year but i would have thought Australia might wanted to have kept Archer in his shell given his about Englands only hope of bowling well and not sparked him up albeit what Smith said was right.......surprised more people haven't had a crack at Archer.
We know Archer picks and chooses when to apply effort. Could be an interesting first spell this week......albeit he probably only has one decent spell as day in him.
whufc wrote:What are England going to do with their side.
Neither of their spinners are any good but Jacks is 'ok' with the bat in hand. 1/34 and an economy of 2.96 probably keeps him in the side.
They haven't got many options keeping wise. Maybe at the point that they have to go with Pope and bring in another genuine bat. Bethell is probably the only option with the bat to come in, scoring runs for the Lions and averaging 38 in his first four tests with 3 x 50's.
Atkinson doesnt look like getting wickets and at 2 nil down probably have to take the punt on Wood and Archer coming alive. Maybe just maybe Smith has sparked something in Archer. Funny people had a crack at Konstas going at Bumrah last year but i would have thought Australia might wanted to have kept Archer in his shell given his about Englands only hope of bowling well and not sparked him up albeit what Smith said was right.......surprised more people haven't had a crack at Archer.
We know Archer picks and chooses when to apply effort. Could be an interesting first spell this week......albeit he probably only has one decent spell as day in him.
Ease up Turbo, Tait lacked ability not heart, he gave it everything, just couldn't control the ball with that action and the body was always going to be strained.
whufc wrote:I'm not sure our bowling attack is getting enough credit.
Yes we have a few out but .....
-Mitchell Starc is proving his above world class and can lead the attack on his own.
-Scott Boland is the perfect foil to Mitchell Starc, with consistent line and length. In his own right has been a very handy test bowler.
-Michael Neser was/is the perfect horses for courses selection. In his small amount of tests has proven his more than capable at test level and if he was born in any other country would have been a test regular.
I said it when Cummins went down but the one area, we do have depth is our bowling.
You reckon? Take out Neser and Starc and I feel as though the Poms have had the better of the rest.
