DRT wrote:I watched about two hours of the game this morning before catching a train to London and then kept track via the ECB app. It was indeed a complete display of how not to play cricket. Strangely, the only highlight was Bell's innings which was quite respectable given the target. Morgan should be taken out the back and shot. The others are hardly worthy of comment.
Actually much better than Bell were Buttler, and also Woakes. Woakes kept his cool and watched as everyone around him suddenly blew up or lost their tiny minds. I'd also commend Root. Bell scored far too slowly, and I place the blame at the top of the innings - they did not put pressure on Bangladesh. They were scoring like it was a Test, it was painful, like Michael Vaughan's last ODIs.
And God only knows what happened to Jordan.
Daniel J.
Husband of a relentless former Soviet Chess Master.
delete.. delete.. *sigh*.. delete...
Firstly I agree with Daniel that Bangladesh won this game by playing better cricket than England.
I was dumbfounded by the post match interview from Moores. I accept that it was too early to come up with much on these occasions but I heard him make some references to difficulties with inexperienced players. I thought the inexperienced players (Buttler, Taylor, Root and probably Hales if they had played him a bit) were the good things about the side. It was the experienced players who seemed determined to get a longer holiday by going home early. He also made a comment that all aspects of one day cricket need to be looked at, the first thing that is needed is is a coherent and relevant plan for the England side. It looked awful, they seem to believe they are still playing in the 80s when 250 was a score that won matches. Errors and omissions excepted it doesn't. Broad doesn't look good but still acts like he's Mitchell Johnson while bowling a lot of wide long hops. Perhaps the Mitchell Johnson song could be adapted? Anderson looks very ordinary outside of English greentops. Bell kept looking elegant for a while then getting out to poor shots at critical moments. Ballance doesn't look happy at one dayers, this may be irrelevant in the tests, but I doubt it has helped his confidence. Morgan I have a dwindling stock of sympathy for in that he was given ten minutes notice that he was going to be captain on the back of poor form. I wish he hadn't come out to press conferences and been so upbeat, it made my insides wither.
The one good thing is that England have finished where they deserved to be which means that Moores is toast and we can start again.
DRT wrote:the only highlight was Bell's innings which was quite respectable given the target.
I think this is the problem with Bell. He has an unerring knack of doing just enough to stay in the side while endlessly and repeatedly getting out when he must stay in. Usually to idiotic shots. I understand this was the case today. He should be the core of the batting given his experience and Moeen Ali makes him look like a child most of the time and also seems to have a clear grasp that batsmen have to get on with it. Bell faced a lot of balls and did not score enough runs. Ditch the excess baggage.
I can also add that I agree with Daniel's response to your post. So there. (I assumed that your comment about Bell was designed to reduce me to frothing hysteria).
I can also add that I agree with Daniel's response to your post. So there. (I assumed that your comment about Bell was designed to reduce me to frothing hysteria).
Yes. I win.
djewesbury wrote:I'd also commend Root. Bell scored far too slowly
Are you familiar with basic arithmetic, Daniel?
Bell: 63 runs from 82 balls = 0.77 runs per ball (and 2.2x as many runs as...)
Root: 29 runs from 47 balls = 0.62 runs per ball
Well done Rooooooooot - highly commendable. A star in the making.
"The first duty of Port is to be red" Ernest H. Cockburn
I'll even go so far as to say that I think we have seen the extent of Bell's capabilities. He has nothing else in his locker.
Yes, Anderson has done nothing; but then, is it his fault if he, as a very gifted swing bowler, possibly the best in the world, is expected to cover up the deficiencies in our spinning? He probably shouldn't even be in this team.
Daniel J.
Husband of a relentless former Soviet Chess Master.
delete.. delete.. *sigh*.. delete...
As someone who often becomes blind to the positives of my own nation's performance in defeat I can see what is going on here. Logic is now irrelevant. Get it out fellas, just get it out and move on.
By tomorrow, Bell will still have put in the best performance behind the very promising Woakes. Roooooooooooooooot will still have been a bit rubbish for a promising player and the rest of the team will still be rubbish.
Get it out. You will feel better for it, until the Ashes.
"The first duty of Port is to be red" Ernest H. Cockburn
djewesbury wrote:I'll even go so far as to say that I think we have seen the extent of Bell's capabilities. He has nothing else in his locker.
Yes, Anderson has done nothing; but then, is it his fault if he, as a very gifted swing bowler, possibly the best in the world, is expected to cover up the deficiencies in our spinning? He probably shouldn't even be in this team.
Yes, yes and possibly not. What England need for their bowling is quicker, fuller and consistent. They never built pressure.
Other thoughts: Taylor is amazingly short. Isn't it amazing how fast the batsmen score. I am astounded by the idea of a double century and four hundred runs being scored in fifty overs. Much more interesting these days. I'm not sure I think much of the wickets, I think they need a bit more variation, give something to the bowlers.
I reckon 2015 could be the last year Bell plays for England.
And Derek; Root is terrific and hasn't done too bad for a natural test player. Buttler is great for one day, he has a range which means he could do Gilchrist if he takes to tests. Even Taylor looked right. Lots to look forward to.
I think Ian Bell is the only candidate to replace Morgan as captain of the one day side. After all, he's been the only consistent performer out of all of the players who have represented England at the World Cup.
Top Ports in 2024: Niepoort 1900 Colheita, b.1971. A near perfect Port.
2025: Quevedo 1972 Colheita, b.2024. Just as good as Niepoort 1900!
AHB wrote:I think Ian Bell is the only candidate to replace Morgan as captain of the one day side. After all, he's been the only consistent performer out of all of the players who have represented England at the World Cup.
I think I shall go to bed and cry myself to sleep.
AHB wrote:I think Ian Bell is the only candidate to replace Morgan as captain of the one day side. After all, he's been the only consistent performer out of all of the players who have represented England at the World Cup.
I think I shall go to bed and cry myself to sleep.
On second thoughts; the heavy roller has more chance of being made captain than Bell. I shall sleep soundly.
A friend of mine pointed out that the England Cricket team has now achieved the same levels of ineptitude as the football team. Then followed the suggestion we should just appoint the ladies team as our 'mens' team - with the expectation they would beat some of the mens teams in this tournament!
Ben
-------
Vintage 1970 and now proud owner of my first ever 'half-century'!
I have thought about Derek's last comment and was about to say what Owen already has - that we are well aware what the good points and the positives are, but that Bell isn't one of them. He scored too slowly. Against Bangladesh. End of story. The middle of the team are good, very strong, and with time to learn and a lot to build on. Our bowling unit is ready for retirement and was unimaginatively used. They are not one-day bowlers.
Bell as captain would be a pair of steps backwards. He wouldn't be able to do it, I just don't think it's in his make-up.
Last edited by djewesbury on 08:31 Tue 10 Mar 2015, edited 1 time in total.
Daniel J.
Husband of a relentless former Soviet Chess Master.
delete.. delete.. *sigh*.. delete...
Now here's a thought. Why don't we introduce a league status based on World Cup results? All those teams who qualify for the knockout stages form the premier league and get to automatically play in the next World Cup and in the next Champion's Trophy. Those who don't qualify become Associate Members and have to play 4 years of semi-meaningless one day games in order to qualify for one of 6 Associate Member places in the next World Cup. Who knows, maybe England will end up losing to Belgium
And whatever happened to the idea of the England side improving its ability by having the Unicorns play in the 40 overs league?
Top Ports in 2024: Niepoort 1900 Colheita, b.1971. A near perfect Port.
2025: Quevedo 1972 Colheita, b.2024. Just as good as Niepoort 1900!
I think Daniel missed the point of my comment. Whether or not Bell played well isn't the issue. But he definitely scored more runs at a faster rate than Root, whom Daniel claims was one of the shining lights of the innings. Continuing to deny that Root was rubbish is exactly the attitude that leads to England being in this sorry state.
"The first duty of Port is to be red" Ernest H. Cockburn
Root was playing at a point when the Bangladeshi seam attack was closing the match down, it was a different part of the innings. I am not overly concerned about that though. My point was that the best innings came from Buttler, because of when he played it and what strokes he used, not because of how many runs he scored how quickly.
Daniel J.
Husband of a relentless former Soviet Chess Master.
delete.. delete.. *sigh*.. delete...
DRT wrote:I think Daniel missed the point of my comment. Whether or not Bell played well isn't the issue. But he definitely scored more runs at a faster rate than Root, whom Daniel claims was one of the shining lights of the innings. Continuing to deny that Root was rubbish is exactly the attitude that leads to England being in this sorry state.
Like Moores said after the match; you need to look at the data. I don't need to look at the data. Root has an instinctive grasp of situations, is a better bat and has more gumption than Bell has for all his million innings for England. And yes Root will get it wrong and play badly some days.
I honestly hope you are both right about Root. He has indeed showed promise on some occassions. However, this match was a chance for an ambitious, confident, potential future leader to step up and spray the field with boundaries on his way to a match saving 150, just like some other players have done in this tournament for other teams. But he didn't do that. He scored slowly and didn't score many. He, like most of the others, was posted missing when it mattered. I do hope he turns out to be spectacularly wonderful, but I fear he is our next Andy Murray - just not good enough most of the time.
"The first duty of Port is to be red" Ernest H. Cockburn
DRT wrote:I honestly hope you are both right about Root. He has indeed showed promise on some occassions. However, this match was a chance for an ambitious, confident potential future leader to step up and spray the field with boundaries on his way to a match saving 150, just like some other players have done in this tournament for other teams. But he didn't do that. He scored slowly and didn't score many. He, like most of the others, was posted missing when it mattered. I do hope he turns out to be spectacularly wonderful, but I fear he is our next Andy Murray - just not good enough most of the time.
I just like the look of Root. And I am thinking of his character as much as his cricket. I just hope the experience of this World Cup hasn't hurt him too much. There is much talk of the team lacking confidence, of being frightened. This may be true but I thought they looked like people who were being badly led. For all Morgan's lack of form I lay the main blame at the door of Moores.
But in one sense I agree, I hoped that somebody would step up and score a load of runs quickly, perhaps I missed it but I can't think of such an innings from anyone.
Some of the contributors to this conversation seem rather caught up with what qualities they want England cricketers to have. Instead you should be asking who would be least bad — who is missing the least amount of the less-important qualities.
jdaw1 wrote:Some of the contributors to this conversation seem rather caught up with what qualities they want England cricketers to have. Instead you should be asking who would be least bad — who is missing the least amount of the less-important qualities.
Kevin Pietersen.
"The first duty of Port is to be red" Ernest H. Cockburn
jdaw1 wrote:Some of the contributors to this conversation seem rather caught up with what qualities they want England cricketers to have. Instead you should be asking who would be least bad — who is missing the least amount of the less-important qualities.
Kevin Pietersen.
I don't see problems everywhere for England. Their bowling is an issue for sure, but it is less the qualities of the team as how they are deployed. I don't see a problem with Ali, Taylor, Hales, Buttler, Root etc. I do see an issue a plan which involves scoring 250 to 275 when the opposition are looking to score 300 to 400 and regularly do so. The batsmen I have mentioned did not get close to this but seem to have the wit to know this is where they need to be. But when you have a plan that isn't going to work it is hardly surprising that the players go about their task in such a half hearted way.
Pietersen was dropped because he kept getting out cheaply and refused to acknowledge he is getting older and needed to change his game. Whether they should have said they would never have him back is a separate issue. Would I pick him? No. He seems to have been toxic in every dressing room he has been in. I would remind peeps of the time his kit was thrown off the balcony of Trent Bridge by less than satisfied team mates. Leave it Derek! He ain't worth it!
When asked how he explained his team’s shocking defeat on Monday at the hands of Bangladesh, Moores said bloodlessly: “We’ll have to look at the data.” Rather than expressing regret, with feeling, at having steered his nation’s team to humiliation — or admitting that the result might be down to a failure of leadership — Moores did what is so common today. He fell back on the data as though the numbers must contain the answer to human failings.
Henceforth this should be known as Peter Moores’ law — to distinguish it from Moore’s law…. Under Peter Moores’ law, if you collect enough information about what just happened then everything might somehow be all right. Then you can run all that data through an algorithm designed in Silicon Valley. Only then will you know what to think about what might happen next.
This mania for data mapping will be well known to anyone who works in business, or who has ever had to go to a presentation by technologists. Indeed, the obsession with the potential power of big data and measurement is everywhere.
When asked how he explained his team’s shocking defeat on Monday at the hands of Bangladesh, Moores said bloodlessly: “We’ll have to look at the data.” Rather than expressing regret, with feeling, at having steered his nation’s team to humiliation — or admitting that the result might be down to a failure of leadership — Moores did what is so common today. He fell back on the data as though the numbers must contain the answer to human failings.
Henceforth this should be known as Peter Moores’ law — to distinguish it from Moore’s law…. Under Peter Moores’ law, if you collect enough information about what just happened then everything might somehow be all right. Then you can run all that data through an algorithm designed in Silicon Valley. Only then will you know what to think about what might happen next.
This mania for data mapping will be well known to anyone who works in business, or who has ever had to go to a presentation by technologists. Indeed, the obsession with the potential power of big data and measurement is everywhere.
Once again the FT gets it about right. I weep for a future in which pattern recognition from data trawls becomes the only way to find out what to do next.
To be considered in the forthcoming tour of the West Indies are;
1) The return of J. Trott.
2) Who are Adam Lyth, Mark Wood and Adil Rashid.
3) Will this tour be any use in informing selection for the Ashes?
Oh you want to know what I think? OK if you insist. Trott should be given another go because he is so good when he is going well, I have no idea who the other players mentioned are and it will be mainly useless with regard to selection in the Ashes.
The England cricket squad are beside me here in Gatwick. I see Jonathan Trott. I see Alistair Cook. I see Owen's heart-throb Ian Bell. I see cricket visionary Peter Moores. They look a bit knackered though.
Daniel J.
Husband of a relentless former Soviet Chess Master.
delete.. delete.. *sigh*.. delete...
djewesbury wrote:The England cricket squad are beside me here in Gatwick. I see Jonathan Trott. I see Alistair Cook. I see Owen's heart-throb Ian Bell. I see cricket visionary Peter Moores. They look a bit knackered though.
Didn't you rush over and get me a signature from the captain-in-waiting? I think Cook will throw it all away in a 'Fredalo' moment and Bell (OBE and soon to be Sir Ian, I fancy) will sweep all before him and regain the Ashes.
I did see an article about how Root should be next captain. I like the lad but he looks more like the drummer to me, if you know what I mean.
Come on, Ben, don't spoil it. I called Jimmy Hill this evening and he said this is the year that he has been waiting for since 1966. It's all looking good.
"The first duty of Port is to be red" Ernest H. Cockburn
It seems to me that the England batsmen are the right selection but in the wrong order. Trott to open!?
The most interesting stat of the day - that Bell moved into second place on the list of batsmen involved in the most century stands. Surely that makes him a shoe-in as captain.
Top Ports in 2024: Niepoort 1900 Colheita, b.1971. A near perfect Port.
2025: Quevedo 1972 Colheita, b.2024. Just as good as Niepoort 1900!
LGTrotter wrote:Congratulations to Jimmy Anderson. Pity about the result. I haven't payed much attention to the game, the highlights were on at a weird time.
Congratulations indeed. I watched the last half dozen overs of the final day and must say Jason Holder's first test century looked well deserved. I didn't see enough of the game to judge whether or not a draw was the right result but it did seem that the players had decided it was by the time I tuned in. I think the pitch might have been a bit dead.
"The first duty of Port is to be red" Ernest H. Cockburn
