The Aussies yesterday.....

Ahead of England’s run rate for 48.4 overs looooooooool

Lovely game...intriguing, tense battles.

England deserve props for the mature way they went about rebuilding their innings and for having to reshuffle the billowing line up after Plunkett’s injury 1 over in.

I was disappointed with Smith in his interview post match....it was out. Clean catch from Buttler.

But he’s still moaning about it...came across as the sort of guy what has to believe he was cheated rather than admitting Woods did a number on him!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tony C

Ahead of England’s run rate for 48.4 overs looooooooool

Lovely game...intriguing, tense battles.

England deserve props for the mature way they went about rebuilding their innings and for having to reshuffle the billowing line up after Plunkett’s injury 1 over in.

I was disappointed with Smith in his interview post match....it was out. Clean catch from Buttler.

But he’s still moaning about it...came across as the sort of guy what has to believe he was cheated rather than admitting Woods did a number on him!

---

Smith is a born moaner - will complain about that but doesn't mind his bowlers hurling the ball back at the batsman and then appealing when it hits their hand. ****. We seem to be rather good at this ODI **** at the moment though, shame about Plunkett's injury (though that won me a few arguments with the muppets who said he should have been in the Test squad - simply can't be trusted not to break down).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Luis Anaconda

Smith is a born moaner - will complain about that but doesn't mind his bowlers hurling the ball back at the batsman and then appealing when it hits their hand. ****. We seem to be rather good at this ODI **** at the moment though, shame about Plunkett's injury (though that won me a few arguments with the muppets who said he should have been in the Test squad - simply can't be trusted not to break down).

---

I don't watch slog cricket. But I see Woakes has scored something like 90-odd in 60-odd over two innings, not out both times, at a similar SR of 140-odd.

Is he any good, or did he just get lucky? I mean, this isn't domestic Sunday League (or whatever it is now.). This was vs Aus in Aus. At the death.

Also, who gets dropped for Stokes out of the top 3?

And is Buttler worth another go in the test team? It's a pity Malan's a no.5, not a no.3. Then we could move YJB up to 5, Stokes 6, Buttler 7, Moeen 8 and Woakes 9. {Just a pity we can't play pace or spin.}

Quote:

---

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

I don't watch slog cricket. But I see Woakes has scored something like 90-odd in 60-odd over two innings, not out both times, at a similar SR of 140-odd.

Is he any good, or did he just get lucky? I mean, this isn't domestic Sunday League (or whatever it is now.). This was vs Aus in Aus. At the death.

Also, who gets dropped for Stokes out of the top 3?

And is Buttler worth another go in the test team? It's a pity Malan's a no.5, not a no.3. Then we could move YJB up to 5, Stokes 6, Buttler 7, Moeen 8 and Woakes 9. {Just a pity we can't play pace or spin.}

---

Malan bats 3 or 4 for Middlesex so I wouldn't mind him moving up. Not that fussed about Buttler making the Test team when you have Bairstow, Ali (should he find form) and Stokes. Foakes is worth a look at though (and I don't say that often about Surrey players). Someone to get some grubby runs down the order - or keep it ticking over.

Woakes is actually a quality batsmen - Athers has said for years that he could see he becoming a batting all rounder, before his bowling came on again. Very good technique - has a lot of first class tons for someone who bats low and can hit the ball. Hales looks most vulnerable but I think that is unfair. Would still go with him and Roy opening but YJB difficult to drop. Nice problem to have

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Luis Anaconda

Malan bats 3 or 4 for Middlesex so I wouldn't mind him moving up. Not that fussed about Buttler making the Test team when you have Bairstow, Ali (should he find form) and Stokes. Foakes is worth a look at though (and I don't say that often about Surrey players). Someone to get some grubby runs down the order - or keep it ticking over.

Woakes is actually a quality batsmen - Athers has said for years that he could see he becoming a batting all rounder, before his bowling came on again. Very good technique - has a lot of first class tons for someone who bats low and can hit the ball. Hales looks most vulnerable but I think that is unfair. Would still go with him and Roy opening but YJB difficult to drop. Nice problem to have

---

I know that T20 monies is a major reason why we're developing all these sloggers and no test players. But Aussies got and play slog for cash and yet they're the other way round.

Do you think that having an ODI specialist as a coach has anything to do with it?

And if so, why don't we have one test coach and one slog coach.

I know lots of people would be over the moon if we won the WC, but I preferred being **** at slogging but winning tests in Aus and India.

If we can have different captains, why can't we have different coaches?

Quote:

---

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

I know that T20 monies is a major reason why we're developing all these sloggers and no test players. But Aussies got and play slog for cash and yet they're the other way round.

Do you think that having an ODI specialist as a coach has anything to do with it?

And if so, why don't we have one test coach and one slog coach.

I know lots of people would be over the moon if we won the WC, but I preferred being **** at slogging but winning tests in Aus and India.

If we can have different captains, why can't we have different coaches?

---

Oh it will go that way after the next World Cup I think - can see why they are focusing on the home world cup at first though