Have we actually had a proper, old skool English collapse so far this tournament?

Just sayin' that when we play like this, we always have one game where our batsmen all go to pieces.

I'd suggest a cheeky punt on the Kiwis.

Seems natural that a massive dose of hubris is in the post after thwacking the convicts like that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult

Just sayin' that when we play like this, we always have one game where our batsmen all go to pieces.

I'd suggest a cheeky punt on the Kiwis.

---

Sri Lanka was pretty inept stuff

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PSRB

Sri Lanka was pretty inept stuff

---

Australia the first time was quite bad as well 53-4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Luis Anaconda

Australia the first time was quite bad as well 53-4

---

3 single figure scores, three in the 20s and an 89 wasn't really what I meant. I'd almost be happier is we'd been skittled out in that game for a hundred or so, knowing we'd got it out of our system.

Against SL we need c.110 off 20 overs with 7 wickets left, so we've had an end collapse as well as a beginning collapse, but we haven't had a proper, old skool, English collapsofück yet.

Stokes scored 80s in both games. {And that bodes well for the Ashes, I accept.}

If you had a choice, would you bat first or chase? I just wonder if we're more likely to collapse while chasing or if this would be offset by the fact that our bowlers could restrict the Kiwis and reduce scoreboard pressure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult

3 single figure scores, three in the 20s and an 89 wasn't really what I meant. I'd almost be happier is we'd been skittled out in that game for a hundred or so, knowing we'd got it out of our system.

Against SL we need c.110 off 20 overs with 7 wickets left, so we've had an end collapse as well as a beginning collapse, but we haven't had a proper, old skool, English collapsofück yet.

Stokes scored 80s in both games. {And that bodes well for the Ashes, I accept.}

If you had a choice, would you bat first or chase? I just wonder if we're more likely to collapse while chasing or if this would be offset by the fact that our bowlers could restrict the Kiwis and reduce scoreboard pressure.

---

Without wishing to put the mockers on us, we do have one hell of a batting line up at our disposal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PSRB

Without wishing to put the mockers on us, we do have one hell of a batting line up at our disposal.

---

You jinxing cünt.

With the exception of Stokes, all of them collapsed against either SL or Aus. And we couldn't chase down 350 against Pak.

Anyway, if we win the toss, do we bat or not?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult

You jinxing cünt.

With the exception of Stokes, all of them collapsed against either SL or Aus. And we couldn't chase down 350 against Pak.

Anyway, if we win the toss, do we bat or not?

---

Yes - bat first please

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Luis Anaconda

Yes - bat first please

---

Any idea why Woakes would still have had an over left if the Aussies had gone the distance? Seems silly to me.

He's really proving himself as an ODI bowler.

There was an article in the Times or Graun saying Joffra must play in the Ashes. But if both JA and SB are fit and firing, and Stokes is going to play, are they really suggesting we should drop Woakes?

Or could be go into a test match with 5 quicks and just Root's twirlers, a bit like the WIndies used to but with Stokes as well.

It's a pity YJB isn't good enough as a test no.3 as I'd like to see Foakes keep. But we have too many all rounders and no test top order.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult

Any idea why Woakes would still have had an over left if the Aussies had gone the distance? Seems silly to me.

He's really proving himself as an ODI bowler.

There was an article in the Times or Graun saying Joffra must play in the Ashes. But if both JA and SB are fit and firing, and Stokes is going to play, are they really suggesting we should drop Woakes?

Or could be go into a test match with 5 quicks and just Root's twirlers, a bit like the WIndies used to but with Stokes as well.

It's a pity YJB isn't good enough as a test no.3 as I'd like to see Foakes keep. But we have too many all rounders and no test top order.

---

Don't think Broad is an automatic pick so maybe an opportunity there (wrong in my view). Woakes isn't guaranteed a start - there is Wood as well. I fancy there may be a bit of rotation but I would start at Edgbaston with:
Burns
Roy
??? (won't score any runs anyway)
Root
Bairstow
Stokes
Buttler (these three in any order)
Ali
Archer
Broad
Anderson


Re Woakes in the ODI - don't think Morgan likes to bowl him in the middle overs. Really seen as just a new ball bowler. Could almost bowl him out from the start. Fair enough to bring him back for the tail though