• TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
  • Follow
    • Follow
    • facebook
    • twitter
    • google+
    • instagram
    • youtube
Hearst Corporation
  • TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
Forums
  • Register
  • Login
  • Forums
  • Entertainment
  • Sport
International Cricket 2016
<<
<
196 of 284
>>
>
Callum Collum
09-08-2016
West Indies doing well approaching tea. India 130 for 5. Sky Sports 3.
SULLA
10-08-2016
Same ream for tomorrow
makeba72
10-08-2016
Originally Posted by SULLA:
“Same ream for tomorrow”

Thanks Joey Essex!
davethecue
10-08-2016
India back in control with an unbroken 6th wicket partnership of 190*

318/5 at lunch


also


The ECB has invited Graeme Swann to work with England's best young spinners.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/england/...y/1044459.html
seansnotmyname@
10-08-2016
Originally Posted by davethecue:
“India back in control with an unbroken 6th wicket partnership of 190*

318/5 at lunch


also


The ECB has invited Graeme Swann to work with England's best young spinners.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/england/...y/1044459.html”

Swann should be a good choice, he wasn't the most talented, was a bit wayward in his yoof, then became a very decent spinner, by just learning flight and control. Sometimes I feel just getting the most talented in who can rip it, like a Warne or Murali, isn't brilliant because there's no way that you can possibly replicate that.
Callum Collum
10-08-2016
Originally Posted by davethecue:
“India back in control with an unbroken 6th wicket partnership of 190*

318/5 at lunch


also


The ECB has invited Graeme Swann to work with England's best young spinners.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/england/...y/1044459.html”

If there was a turning point in this match (so far) it was surely when Ashwin was given out on 35 but it was overturned because of a back-foot no-ball. In the end there was a late collapse by India and they were all out for 353.
SULLA
10-08-2016
Originally Posted by makeba72:
“Thanks Joey Essex! ”

Noted
mb@2day
11-08-2016
So the selectors took pity on James Vince ( and his bad hand ) He gets the pick over Adil Rashid for the Oval test. I hope this doesn't tempt fate and Vince drops more chances in the slips and then struggles with his batting.
mimik1uk
11-08-2016
thats a very green looking pitch

hope we dont regret that decision to bat first
bradybrady
11-08-2016
Some terrific clips of Waquar and Wasim in previous Tests at the Oval

Wonder if Tuffers toe is still hurting....
Darren Lethem
11-08-2016
Originally Posted by mb@2day:
“So the selectors took pity on James Vince ( and his bad hand ) He gets the pick over Adil Rashid for the Oval test. I hope this doesn't tempt fate and Vince drops more chances in the slips and then struggles with his batting.”

Why change a winning team ? Not only would it change the team dynamic it also upsets the team spirit. As Not Sean said earlier, England are playing well as a team at the moment so why change that ?
makeba72
11-08-2016
Originally Posted by Darren Lethem:
“Why change a winning team ? Not only would it change the team dynamic it also upsets the team spirit. As Not Sean said earlier, England are playing well as a team at the moment so why change that ?”

Because they could be playing even better. As they said on TMS this morning, England do have questions about their batting.

I understand the argument (a thread staple!) about not changing a winning team, but I don't personally agree with it.
mb@2day
11-08-2016
Originally Posted by Darren Lethem:
“Why change a winning team ? Not only would it change the team dynamic it also upsets the team spirit. As Not Sean said earlier, England are playing well as a team at the moment so why change that ?”


Having seen the greener than expected pitch it makes a little more sense. I was anticipating something drier and conducive to spin. Not so this test, Vince and his hand will prop up the batting once more. I wish him well and hope he can escape the frightful forties in this match.

Anyway this means Rashid is free to play against my team in the T20 finals ( curses )
Sam_Clarke1
11-08-2016
Doesn't look out but the soft signal was out

Not the correct outcome imo
Lojen
11-08-2016
That looks a bad decision
Sam_Clarke1
11-08-2016
The close up on Hales facial reaction on playing the shot suggests he saw it hadn't carried
hatpeg
11-08-2016
Originally Posted by mb@2day:
“So the selectors took pity on James Vince ( and his bad hand ) He gets the pick over Adil Rashid for the Oval test. I hope this doesn't tempt fate and Vince drops more chances in the slips and then struggles with his batting.”

He is not going to field in the slips due to his injury.
makeba72
11-08-2016
Typical - I had to take a work phone call during that controversy and couldn't hear the commentary. So was the general consensus that Hales was unlucky?
Darren Lethem
11-08-2016
Originally Posted by makeba72:
“Because they could be playing even better. As they said on TMS this morning, England do have questions about their batting.

I understand the argument (a thread staple!) about not changing a winning team, but I don't personally agree with it.”

And they could equally be playing worse. If TMS are questioning our batting then dropping a batsman for a spinner seems an odd solution.
Sam_Clarke1
11-08-2016
Originally Posted by makeba72:
“Typical - I had to take a work phone call during that controversy and couldn't hear the commentary. So was the general consensus that Hales was unlucky?”

The issue was that the umpires gave a soft signal of out and there was no clear evidence to overturn it due to their being no clear footage

Without the soft signal it would have been not out
makeba72
11-08-2016
Originally Posted by Darren Lethem:
“And they could equally be playing worse. If TMS are questioning our batting then dropping a batsman for a spinner seems an odd solution.”

To be fair, I didn't say that. I was speaking generally, as I don't get or agree with the age-old argument about not changing a winning team.

I would have had a look at Borthwick in this match at the expense of Vince or Ballance, but I've said that before.

Being specific, though, this England team is unusual due to it's very long batting line up. IMO Moeen is a proper batsman, so could easily be given more responsibility and bumped up the order to bring in Rashid, who is also better than a tail-ender. In my mind, the phrase 'dropping a batsman to bring in a spinner' doesn't really reflect the wider context.
makeba72
11-08-2016
Originally Posted by Sam_Clarke1:
“The issue was that the umpires gave a soft signal of out and there was no clear evidence to overturn it due to their being no clear footage

Without the soft signal it would have been not out”

Thanks.
Sam_Clarke1
11-08-2016
I wonder whether the thinking of not bringing Rashid in has anything to do with Misbah's tactics of attacking the spin bowler and memories of what happened to Simon Kerrigan at the Oval
gomezz
11-08-2016
TMS are saying the Hales dismissal clip is up on the BBC web site but blowed if I can find it?
sangreal
11-08-2016
Originally Posted by Sam_Clarke1:
“The issue was that the umpires gave a soft signal of out and there was no clear evidence to overturn it due to their being no clear footage

Without the soft signal it would have been not out”


Yes, very strange.

They gave the soft "out" signal because they expect fielders to be honest.
An honest fielder would have given the "not sure" signal.
It looked pretty obvious from the shot we did see that he'd scooped it up off the ground.
I can't believe we've still not seen a blown up version, or that they didn't have any better camera angles.

Oh well, nothing short of 500+ will do now :--)
<<
<
196 of 284
>>
>
VIEW DESKTOP SITE TOP

JOIN US HERE

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Hearst Corporation

Hearst Corporation

DIGITAL SPY, PART OF THE HEARST UK ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK

© 2015 Hearst Magazines UK is the trading name of the National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved.

  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Complaints
  • Site Map