England Cricket chat

[Karabiner]

Are there no terrestrial highlights for this Ashes series?

[AndrewT]

Are there no terrestrial highlights for this Ashes series?

Not on telly - I think BT Sport have them on their website for free.

[TightEnd]

odd

[TightEnd]

Joe Root's failure to convert casts cloud over England Ashes


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2017/11/26/joe-roots-failure-convert-good-great-casts-cloud-england/

[muckthenuts]

Starc, Hazelwood and Cummins aren't bowling with the same kind of venom that Johnson, Harris and Siddle were bowling with in 2013/14 imo. England's non existent middle order making the current trio look better than they are.

Bigger issue is the lack of bowlers though. Stokes is a big miss, but i feel as though Mark Wood should have been in the squad.

[verndog158]

So are we thinking Keith meant fast when he said fearsome? Let's hear the faster bowling trio's that there have been?

Flintoff, Jones, Harmison ?

They were good but not quick.

Massively disagree, the speedos are so inaccurate imo and they juice them up a bit for
Tv.
Go back to 2005 and harmy/ flintoff were hitting ponting langer and co on the head/ grill and body and was being clocked at 88/89mph. Yet now you have broad/ starc sometimes bowling 93mph and people driving and pulling. I'm not saying these guys aren't fast but the speedometers are definitely misleading imo

I think we went better than expected in the test. They are definitely beatable and it showed how much we missed stokes. Ball isn't quite good enough and we miss that batter in the middle

[kukushkin88]

So are we thinking Keith meant fast when he said fearsome? Let's hear the faster bowling trio's that there have been?

Flintoff, Jones, Harmison ?

They were good but not quick.

Massively disagree, the speedos are so inaccurate imo and they juice them up a bit for
Tv.
Go back to 2005 and harmy/ flintoff were hitting ponting langer and co on the head/ grill and body and was being clocked at 88/89mph. Yet now you have broad/ starc sometimes bowling 93mph and people driving and pulling. I'm not saying these guys aren't fast but the speedometers are definitely misleading imo

I think we went better than expected in the test. They are definitely beatable and it showed how much we missed stokes. Ball isn't quite good enough and we miss that batter in the middle

So we're better off judging speed using our own visual assessment rather than using radar?

[verndog158]

So are we thinking Keith meant fast when he said fearsome? Let's hear the faster bowling trio's that there have been?

Flintoff, Jones, Harmison ?

They were good but not quick.

Massively disagree, the speedos are so inaccurate imo and they juice them up a bit for
Tv.
Go back to 2005 and harmy/ flintoff were hitting ponting langer and co on the head/ grill and body and was being clocked at 88/89mph. Yet now you have broad/ starc sometimes bowling 93mph and people driving and pulling. I'm not saying these guys aren't fast but the speedometers are definitely misleading imo

I think we went better than expected in the test. They are definitely beatable and it showed how much we missed stokes. Ball isn't quite good enough and we miss that batter in the middle

So we're better of judging speed using our own visual assessment rather than using radar?

Well I think there certainly is something in it, and I think it's fairly well know that the tv companies do add a little bit to the speed guns for the tv. Obviously these guys are fast and I certainty wouldn't want to face it!

[nirvana]

So are we thinking Keith meant fast when he said fearsome? Let's hear the faster bowling trio's that there have been?

Flintoff, Jones, Harmison ?

They were good but not quick.

Massively disagree, the speedos are so inaccurate imo and they juice them up a bit for
Tv.
Go back to 2005 and harmy/ flintoff were hitting ponting langer and co on the head/ grill and body and was being clocked at 88/89mph. Yet now you have broad/ starc sometimes bowling 93mph and people driving and pulling. I'm not saying these guys aren't fast but the speedometers are definitely misleading imo

I think we went better than expected in the test. They are definitely beatable and it showed how much we missed stokes. Ball isn't quite good enough and we miss that batter in the middle

So we're better off judging speed using our own visual assessment rather than using radar?

Have to say, my recollection might be a bit off but I thought they all clocked 90 at times and agree with Verndog, the hostility factor was very high and made much better batsman than our lot today, hop around a fair bit.

[TightEnd]

Click to see full-size image.

[Magic817]

Will it be the same 11 for England for the second test?

[verndog158]

Will it be the same 11 for England for the second test?

I think Overton in for Ball personally but doubt they'll change

[tikay]

The 2nd Test starts at 0330 UK time tomorrow (Saturday) morning.

Any value in backing England?

Current approx. prices are;

Australia 4/6

England 11/4

Draw 5/1



https://www.oddschecker.com/cricket/ashes/2nd-test/winner



Anyone planning on getting up to watch from the start?

[nellberg]

The 2nd Test starts at 0330 UK time tomorrow (Saturday) morning.

Any value in backing England?

Current approx. prices are;

Australia 4/6

England 11/4

Draw 5/1



https://www.oddschecker.com/cricket/ashes/2nd-test/winner



Anyone planning on getting up to watch from the start?

With it being a D/N game I'm setting my alarm for 6.10, just in time for the start of the 2nd session.

[TightEnd]

England weren’t terrible but they bowled too short and without lateral movement, high pace or a holding spin bowler (Ali injured oreor less) they were dismantled by the patience of Marsh & Cummins

Mark Wood can't come back quick enough.How Plunkett wasn't picked for this tour i will also never know. All four bowlers were 78-83 mph, its not varied or quick enough