...between Iran and the England cricket team?
Iran eventually got rid of the Shah.
Thursday 17 September 2009
Thursday 10 September 2009
Utterly without a clue
Three ODIs down and three England defeats. Not only that, but three miserable defeats, all of which came about in pretty much identical circumstances. There's no plan, there's no strategy and whoever makes the tactical decisions in a clueless idiot, especially regarding powerplays.
After the second game of this seven (seven!!) match series, the batting powerplay was left until England were eight wickets down and the batting colossus that is Ryan Sidebottom strode out to the crease. This happened again in match three. The reason given by Andrew Strauss was that "you can lose wickets in those overs". Where, oh where, does one begin?
It may not have come to Strauss's notice, but England have proved a bit too fecking adept at losing wickets in any over, powerplay or not. When they come, as they do all to reliably, the wickets are given away to one of the worst Australian sides in living memory and yet are more than able to outclass this shambles of an England side. Matt Prior's dismissal in game two, slapping a reverse sweep straight to backward point, was a very Matt Prior way to get out while the travails of Owais Shah would be finny if they weren't real. He's amazing at turning easy twos and threes into singles, looks a candidate for a run out at all times and then when he trod on his wicket.... Dear me. Any yet he, like most of the batters (as discussed previously), seems exempt from being dropped.
This series has gone, that much is clear, so why not chuck the lot of them out and start trying to bring something together ahead of the Champions Trophy which isn't that far away? Probably a bit too radical, but England are going nowhere in ODIs at the moment and it seems the only thing that will stop the slide is the scrapping of the 50-over format.A
After the second game of this seven (seven!!) match series, the batting powerplay was left until England were eight wickets down and the batting colossus that is Ryan Sidebottom strode out to the crease. This happened again in match three. The reason given by Andrew Strauss was that "you can lose wickets in those overs". Where, oh where, does one begin?
It may not have come to Strauss's notice, but England have proved a bit too fecking adept at losing wickets in any over, powerplay or not. When they come, as they do all to reliably, the wickets are given away to one of the worst Australian sides in living memory and yet are more than able to outclass this shambles of an England side. Matt Prior's dismissal in game two, slapping a reverse sweep straight to backward point, was a very Matt Prior way to get out while the travails of Owais Shah would be finny if they weren't real. He's amazing at turning easy twos and threes into singles, looks a candidate for a run out at all times and then when he trod on his wicket.... Dear me. Any yet he, like most of the batters (as discussed previously), seems exempt from being dropped.
This series has gone, that much is clear, so why not chuck the lot of them out and start trying to bring something together ahead of the Champions Trophy which isn't that far away? Probably a bit too radical, but England are going nowhere in ODIs at the moment and it seems the only thing that will stop the slide is the scrapping of the 50-over format.A
Sunday 6 September 2009
Dropped for other's mistakes
"Well played son. You almost won us a game we had no right to get close in at the Oval. By the way, you're dropped". I'm guessing that's the conversation captain and coaches had with Adil Rashid ahead of the one-dayer at Lord's.
How typically English. Which other side in world cricket drops bowlers - any bowlers, let alone the pick of the attack - to compensate for batting failures? How can it be that the ones sweating on selection after a collapse aren't those responsible for getting the runs? It's a mystery. And the even more stupid thing is that Rashid was the pick of the batters as well as bowling superbly well. I've nothing against Eoin Morgan, quite the reverse. I think he'll make a fine player and he would warrant a call-up should any of the top order fail. That top order failed, as England ODI top orders are wont to do, and yet it's a young, impressive bowler that gets the chop. Ludicrous. The selection policy is completely backwards and England will never be a force in one day cricket while it persists.
How typically English. Which other side in world cricket drops bowlers - any bowlers, let alone the pick of the attack - to compensate for batting failures? How can it be that the ones sweating on selection after a collapse aren't those responsible for getting the runs? It's a mystery. And the even more stupid thing is that Rashid was the pick of the batters as well as bowling superbly well. I've nothing against Eoin Morgan, quite the reverse. I think he'll make a fine player and he would warrant a call-up should any of the top order fail. That top order failed, as England ODI top orders are wont to do, and yet it's a young, impressive bowler that gets the chop. Ludicrous. The selection policy is completely backwards and England will never be a force in one day cricket while it persists.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)