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.
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.
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.
Because nobody ever mentions how important his runs were in a psychological sense in taking the attack to the Aussies and in scoring quickly to ensure results. He gets overlooked in most of the retrospectives about that series, but having an English opener go after Australia’s quicks when we’d spent the previous 15 years just desperately trying to hang on was a big psychological shift.
Nah. It was scoring 407 a/o in just under 80 overs on the first day of the 2nd test that turned things around after the Lords humiliation.
MK got 90 in 102 balls. That set it up for KP and Freddie to continue.
But I haven't watched any retrospectives. I only have my memories from the time. If only we had an opener like him now.