Click here for Arsenal FC news and reports

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 46

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

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1

    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.

  2. #2
    Seems natural that a massive dose of hubris is in the post after thwacking the convicts like that.

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult View Post
    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

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by PSRB View Post
    Sri Lanka was pretty inept stuff
    Australia the first time was quite bad as well 53-4

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Luis Anaconda View Post
    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.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult View Post
    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.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by PSRB View Post
    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?

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult View Post
    How does he get too little credit? He was the 2nd highest run scorer. While Strauss got two tons, MK didn't get any but got 3 50s and averaged 43. Great opening combination, imo.
    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.

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Burney View Post
    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.
    Lovely player to watch as well

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Burney View Post
    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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •