The Captain blamed the bowlers and now Anderson has come out and said the Batsmen didn't score enough runs and too many chances were dropped

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/sport/cricket-adelaide-defeat-not-just-down-bowlers-says-anderson-2399651

On Friday, December 24, 2021 at 5:22:28 PM UTC+11, Will Sutton wrote:
> The Captain blamed the bowlers and now Anderson has come out and said the Batsmen didn't score enough runs and too many chances were dropped
>
>
> https://www.channelnewsasia.com/sport/cricket-adelaide-defeat-not-just-down-bowlers-says-anderson-2399651

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/sport/cricket/cricket-adelaide-defeat-not-just-down-to-the-bowlers-says-anderson/ar-AAS6tqQ?ocid=uxbndlbing

In message <b899a91f-1038-4e1b-887e-1479b1d7b422n@googlegroups.com>,
Will Sutton <wlsutton@gmail.com> writes
>The Captain blamed the bowlers and now Anderson has come out and said
>the Batsmen didn't score enough runs and too many chances were dropped
>
>
>https://www.channelnewsasia.com/sport/cricket-adelaide-defeat-not-just-d
>own-bowlers-says-anderson-2399651

I don't think anyone (including Root) would argue with that.
--
John Hall
"Home is heaven and orgies are vile,
But you *need* an orgy, once in a while."
Ogden Nash (1902-1971)

On 24/12/2021 06:22, Will Sutton wrote:
> The Captain blamed the bowlers and now Anderson has come out and said the Batsmen didn't score enough runs and too many chances were dropped
>
>
> https://www.channelnewsasia.com/sport/cricket-adelaide-defeat-not-just-down-bowlers-says-anderson-2399651

I can't see how the bowlers can be blamed, the batsmen were the ones at
fault, and a couple of dropped catches didn't exactly help. The only
change I would make for the next Test would be Bairstow for Buttler,
he's a better keeper and has a better Test record with the bat. Wood is
seriously quick, but who would you drop for him?

On Friday, December 24, 2021 at 12:53:36 PM UTC, steve hague wrote:
> On 24/12/2021 06:22, Will Sutton wrote:
> > The Captain blamed the bowlers and now Anderson has come out and said the Batsmen didn't score enough runs and too many chances were dropped
> >
> >
> > https://www.channelnewsasia.com/sport/cricket-adelaide-defeat-not-just-down-bowlers-says-anderson-2399651
> I can't see how the bowlers can be blamed, the batsmen were the ones at
> fault, and a couple of dropped catches didn't exactly help. The only
> change I would make for the next Test would be Bairstow for Buttler,
> he's a better keeper and has a better Test record with the bat. Wood is
> seriously quick, but who would you drop for him?

The England bowling has been adequate but the bowlers are constantly bowling without a score to defend which puts the batting side under pressure. RH ,

On Friday, December 24, 2021 at 1:59:44 PM UTC, RH wrote:
> On Friday, December 24, 2021 at 12:53:36 PM UTC, steve hague wrote:
> > On 24/12/2021 06:22, Will Sutton wrote:
> > > The Captain blamed the bowlers and now Anderson has come out and said the Batsmen didn't score enough runs and too many chances were dropped
> > >
> > >
> > > https://www.channelnewsasia.com/sport/cricket-adelaide-defeat-not-just-down-bowlers-says-anderson-2399651
> > I can't see how the bowlers can be blamed, the batsmen were the ones at
> > fault, and a couple of dropped catches didn't exactly help. The only
> > change I would make for the next Test would be Bairstow for Buttler,
> > he's a better keeper and has a better Test record with the bat. Wood is
> > seriously quick, but who would you drop for him?
> The England bowling has been adequate but the bowlers are constantly bowling without a score to defend which puts the batting side under pressure. RH ,

its not a good omen when on the eve of the next match, theyre all blaming each other.
the batters have failed, but oz have made 400+ twice on green tops that Anderson
and co would love to bowl on in England.

mike

In message <sq4fse$12mb$1@gioia.aioe.org>, steve hague
<stevehague82@gmail.com> writes
>On 24/12/2021 06:22, Will Sutton wrote:
>> The Captain blamed the bowlers and now Anderson has come out and said
>>the Batsmen didn't score enough runs and too many chances were dropped
>>
>>https://www.channelnewsasia.com/sport/cricket-adelaide-defeat-not-just-
>>down-bowlers-says-anderson-2399651
>
>I can't see how the bowlers can be blamed, the batsmen were the ones at
>fault, and a couple of dropped catches didn't exactly help. The only
>change I would make for the next Test would be Bairstow for Buttler,
>he's a better keeper and has a better Test record with the bat. Wood is
>seriously quick, but who would you drop for him?

My newspaper thinks that Crawley will come in for Burns (apparently
Australian pitches are thought to suit him and he's looked good in the
nets), Bairstow for Pope, Wood for Woakes, and possibly Leach for Broad.
--
John Hall
"Home is heaven and orgies are vile,
But you *need* an orgy, once in a while."
Ogden Nash (1902-1971)

On Friday, December 24, 2021 at 10:53:36 PM UTC+10, steve hague wrote:
> On 24/12/2021 06:22, Will Sutton wrote:
> > The Captain blamed the bowlers and now Anderson has come out and said the Batsmen didn't score enough runs and too many chances were dropped
> >
> >
> > https://www.channelnewsasia.com/sport/cricket-adelaide-defeat-not-just-down-bowlers-says-anderson-2399651
> I can't see how the bowlers can be blamed, the batsmen were the ones at
> fault, and a couple of dropped catches didn't exactly help. The only
> change I would make for the next Test would be Bairstow for Buttler,
> he's a better keeper and has a better Test record with the bat. Wood is
> seriously quick, but who would you drop for him?

Drop Pope, keep Buttler, bring in Bairstow to keep.

On Saturday, December 25, 2021 at 3:51:07 AM UTC+11, John Hall wrote:
> In message <sq4fse$12mb$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, steve hague
> <steveh...@gmail.com> writes
> >On 24/12/2021 06:22, Will Sutton wrote:
> >> The Captain blamed the bowlers and now Anderson has come out and said
> >>the Batsmen didn't score enough runs and too many chances were dropped
> >>
> >>https://www.channelnewsasia.com/sport/cricket-adelaide-defeat-not-just-
> >>down-bowlers-says-anderson-2399651
> >
> >I can't see how the bowlers can be blamed, the batsmen were the ones at
> >fault, and a couple of dropped catches didn't exactly help. The only
> >change I would make for the next Test would be Bairstow for Buttler,
> >he's a better keeper and has a better Test record with the bat. Wood is
> >seriously quick, but who would you drop for him?
> My newspaper thinks that Crawley will come in for Burns (apparently
> Australian pitches are thought to suit him and he's looked good in the
> nets), Bairstow for Pope, Wood for Woakes, and possibly Leach for Broad.
> --
> John Hall
> "Home is heaven and orgies are vile,
> But you *need* an orgy, once in a while."
> Ogden Nash (1902-1971)

https://www.msn.com/en-au/sport/cricket/england-swing-four-changes-for-boxing-day/ar-AAS85XD?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531

well looks like that is the side

In message <f5e767a8-8f26-45cf-a6e8-73846963657en@googlegroups.com>,
jack fredricks <jzfredricks@gmail.com> writes
>On Friday, December 24, 2021 at 10:53:36 PM UTC+10, steve hague wrote:
>> On 24/12/2021 06:22, Will Sutton wrote:
>> > The Captain blamed the bowlers and now Anderson has come out and
>> >said the Batsmen didn't score enough runs and too many chances were
>> >dropped
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>https://www.channelnewsasia.com/sport/cricket-adelaide-defeat-not-just-down-bowlers-says-anderson-2399651
>> I can't see how the bowlers can be blamed, the batsmen were the ones at
>> fault, and a couple of dropped catches didn't exactly help. The only
>> change I would make for the next Test would be Bairstow for Buttler,
>> he's a better keeper and has a better Test record with the bat. Wood is
>> seriously quick, but who would you drop for him?
>
>Drop Pope, keep Buttler, bring in Bairstow to keep.

It looks like Bairstow will play. It will be interesting to see whether
he or Buttler keeps.
--
John Hall
"Home is heaven and orgies are vile,
But you *need* an orgy, once in a while."
Ogden Nash (1902-1971)

On Sat, 25 Dec 2021 10:05:00 +0000, John Hall
<john_nospam@jhall.co.uk> wrote:

>It looks like Bairstow will play. It will be interesting to see whether
>he or Buttler keeps.

Bairstow is an excellent outfielder and Buttler's not that good, which
might come into it.

Cheers,

Mike

In message <096esgdv3iq49nepftn48sipckk8nsp5ah@4ax.com>, Mike Holmans
<spam@jackalope.uk> writes
>On Sat, 25 Dec 2021 10:05:00 +0000, John Hall
><john_nospam@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>It looks like Bairstow will play. It will be interesting to see whether
>>he or Buttler keeps.
>
>Bairstow is an excellent outfielder and Buttler's not that good, which
>might come into it.

Since I originally posted, I understand that England have confirmed that
Buttler will keep. Let's hope that his confidence has increased from his
fine rearguard action at Adelaide and that it will spill over from his
batting to his keeping.
--
John Hall
"Home is heaven and orgies are vile,
But you *need* an orgy, once in a while."
Ogden Nash (1902-1971)

On Saturday, 25 December 2021 at 20:50:00 UTC, John Hall wrote:
> In message <096esgdv3iq49nepf...@4ax.com>, Mike Holmans
> <sp...@jackalope.uk> writes
> >On Sat, 25 Dec 2021 10:05:00 +0000, John Hall
> ><john_...@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>It looks like Bairstow will play. It will be interesting to see whether
> >>he or Buttler keeps.
> >
> >Bairstow is an excellent outfielder and Buttler's not that good, which
> >might come into it.
> Since I originally posted, I understand that England have confirmed that
> Buttler will keep. Let's hope that his confidence has increased from his
> fine rearguard action at Adelaide and that it will spill over from his
> batting to his keeping.
> --
> John Hall
> "Home is heaven and orgies are vile,
> But you *need* an orgy, once in a while."
> Ogden Nash (1902-1971)
It's not that easy to lose a Test on day one but we've had a pretty good shot at it !

On Sun, 26 Dec 2021 04:17:27 -0800 (PST), D Cornwell
<dcweather01@googlemail.com> wrote:

>It's not that easy to lose a Test on day one but we've had a pretty good shot at it !

I don't know that it's difficult to lose a Test on day one. This is
purely a finger in the air estimate, but I'd guess you can be pretty
sure of the eventual result after day one in about 20% of Tests.

Cheers,

Mike

In message <3e9a333c-e1c1-4fef-8ecd-aeb02b4ac6f5n@googlegroups.com>, D
Cornwell <dcweather01@googlemail.com> writes
>It's not that easy to lose a Test on day one but we've had a pretty
>good shot at it !

It's deja vu all over again.

The only crumb of comfort I can find is that we did better than
Australia managed on day 1 of the corresponding Test in 2010.
--
John Hall
"Home is heaven and orgies are vile,
But you *need* an orgy, once in a while."
Ogden Nash (1902-1971)

On Sun, 26 Dec 2021 16:35:09 +0000, John Hall
<john_nospam@jhall.co.uk> wrote:

>In message <3e9a333c-e1c1-4fef-8ecd-aeb02b4ac6f5n@googlegroups.com>, D
>Cornwell <dcweather01@googlemail.com> writes
>>It's not that easy to lose a Test on day one but we've had a pretty
>>good shot at it !
>
>It's deja vu all over again.

Deja vecu?

max.it

>
>The only crumb of comfort I can find is that we did better than
>Australia managed on day 1 of the corresponding Test in 2010.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On 26/12/2021 16:35, John Hall wrote:
> In message <3e9a333c-e1c1-4fef-8ecd-aeb02b4ac6f5n@googlegroups.com>, D
> Cornwell <dcweather01@googlemail.com> writes
>> It's not that easy to lose a Test on day one but we've had a pretty
>> good shot at it !
>
> It's deja vu all over again.
>
> The only crumb of comfort I can find is that we did better than
> Australia managed on day 1 of the corresponding Test in 2010.

Doing better than a team that went on to lose by an innings and 157
certainly qualifies as a crumb.

The previous three teams to make 185 or fewer batting first in a
Melbourne Ashes (England 2006/07 and Australia 1986/87 and 1974/75) also
lost by an innings. The last team to do so and avoid such a fate was
Australia in 1911/12 - they made 184 and lost by 8 wickets.

On a more positive note, Australia made 112 and 144 batting first in the
two MCG Tests of 1901/02 and won both, Australia in 1950/51 and England
in 1954/55 also won after making 194 and 191 respectively, and England
even won in 1894/95 after being bowled out for 75.

--
David North

In message <j2rpefFck93U1@mid.individual.net>, David North
<nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>On 26/12/2021 16:35, John Hall wrote:
>> In message <3e9a333c-e1c1-4fef-8ecd-aeb02b4ac6f5n@googlegroups.com>,
>>D Cornwell <dcweather01@googlemail.com> writes
>>> It's not that easy to lose a Test on day one but we've had a pretty
>>>good shot at it !
>> It's deja vu all over again.
>> The only crumb of comfort I can find is that we did better than
>>Australia managed on day 1 of the corresponding Test in 2010.
>
>Doing better than a team that went on to lose by an innings and 157
>certainly qualifies as a crumb.
>
>The previous three teams to make 185 or fewer batting first in a
>Melbourne Ashes (England 2006/07 and Australia 1986/87 and 1974/75)
>also lost by an innings. The last team to do so and avoid such a fate
>was Australia in 1911/12 - they made 184 and lost by 8 wickets.
>
>On a more positive note, Australia made 112 and 144 batting first in
>the two MCG Tests of 1901/02 and won both, Australia in 1950/51 and
>England in 1954/55 also won after making 194 and 191 respectively, and
>England even won in 1894/95 after being bowled out for 75.
>
After reading your second paragraph, I thought "but what about 1954-5?",
and looked up the score. Had I read your final paragraph first, I could
have saved myself the trouble. :) As England won by 128 runs on that
occasion, having made six runs fewer in their first innings this time
perhaps they will win by 122. It might require Wood to emulate Tyson
(2-68 and 7-27) and either Anderson or Robinson to emulate Statham (5-60
and 2-38), though.

Someone might also need to copy May and score 91 in England's second
innings. No English batsman in the current match copied Cowdrey's 102
out of that first innings 191, without which England would have been
dead and buried. He played that innings in his first Test series at the
age of 22 and - for all his great feats afterwards - I don't think he
ever played an innings to quite equal that one, perhaps unsurprisingly.
--
John Hall
"Home is heaven and orgies are vile,
But you *need* an orgy, once in a while."
Ogden Nash (1902-1971)

On Sunday, December 26, 2021 at 8:18:26 PM UTC, John Hall wrote:
> In message <j2rpef...@mid.individual.net>, David North
> <nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> writes
> >On 26/12/2021 16:35, John Hall wrote:
> >> In message <3e9a333c-e1c1-4fef...@googlegroups.com>,
> >>D Cornwell <dcwea...@googlemail.com> writes
> >>> It's not that easy to lose a Test on day one but we've had a pretty
> >>>good shot at it !
> >> It's deja vu all over again.

yes its like watching brisbane all over again.

The only thing that might save england from defeat is a bevy of positive
covid tests.

mike

On Sun, 26 Dec 2021 15:07:13 -0800 (PST), mike <dmike204@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

>On Sunday, December 26, 2021 at 8:18:26 PM UTC, John Hall wrote:
>> In message <j2rpef...@mid.individual.net>, David North
>> <nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>> >On 26/12/2021 16:35, John Hall wrote:
>> >> In message <3e9a333c-e1c1-4fef...@googlegroups.com>,
>> >>D Cornwell <dcwea...@googlemail.com> writes
>> >>> It's not that easy to lose a Test on day one but we've had a pretty
>> >>>good shot at it !
>> >> It's deja vu all over again.
>
>yes its like watching brisbane all over again.
>
>The only thing that might save england from defeat is a bevy of positive
>covid tests.
>
>mike

Did you put the scud on it? The positives have started, but not the
bowling.

max.it

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On Sunday, December 26, 2021 at 11:57:24 PM UTC, max.it wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Dec 2021 15:07:13 -0800 (PST), mike <dmik...@yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
> >On Sunday, December 26, 2021 at 8:18:26 PM UTC, John Hall wrote:
> >> In message <j2rpef...@mid.individual.net>, David North
> >> <nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> writes
> >> >On 26/12/2021 16:35, John Hall wrote:
> >> >> In message <3e9a333c-e1c1-4fef...@googlegroups.com>,
> >> >>D Cornwell <dcwea...@googlemail.com> writes
> >> >>> It's not that easy to lose a Test on day one but we've had a pretty
> >> >>>good shot at it !
> >> >> It's deja vu all over again.
> >
> >yes its like watching brisbane all over again.
> >
> >The only thing that might save england from defeat is a bevy of positive
> >covid tests.
> >

I meant for oz, but even if they lost cummins [like at adelaide] marnus
smith and lyon, i think oz still have good enough subs to beat england easily.
Most of their batters failed to get big scores today, so probably the least
regarded one, harris,of course top scored. When i turned on this morning
england had just taken the 8th wkt, but those last 2 added 50 runs more,
which made a big difference when they came out to bowl. of course if
england had had more time to bat, they might have lost even more wkts.

As it stands its hard to see england getting much more than 100, so oz
will presumably win by 10 wkts or something tomorrow.

mike

In message <Kr6IxuDD1MyhFwMo@jhall_nospamxx.co.uk>, John Hall
<john_nospam@jhall.co.uk> writes
>In message <j2rpefFck93U1@mid.individual.net>, David North
><nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> writes
<snip>
>>
>>The previous three teams to make 185 or fewer batting first in a
>>Melbourne Ashes (England 2006/07 and Australia 1986/87 and 1974/75)
>>also lost by an innings. The last team to do so and avoid such a fate
>>was Australia in 1911/12 - they made 184 and lost by 8 wickets.
>>
>>On a more positive note, Australia made 112 and 144 batting first in
>>the two MCG Tests of 1901/02 and won both, Australia in 1950/51 and
>>England in 1954/55 also won after making 194 and 191 respectively, and
>>England even won in 1894/95 after being bowled out for 75.
>>
>After reading your second paragraph, I thought "but what about
>1954-5?", and looked up the score. Had I read your final paragraph
>first, I could have saved myself the trouble. :) As England won by 128
>runs on that occasion, having made six runs fewer in their first
>innings this time perhaps they will win by 122. It might require Wood
>to emulate Tyson (2-68 and 7-27) and either Anderson or Robinson to
>emulate Statham (5-60 and 2-38), though.
>
>Someone might also need to copy May and score 91 in England's second
>innings. No English batsman in the current match copied Cowdrey's 102
>out of that first innings 191, without which England would have been
>dead and buried. He played that innings in his first Test series at the
>age of 22 and - for all his great feats afterwards - I don't think he
>ever played an innings to quite equal that one, perhaps unsurprisingly.

Unfortunately the parallel has now rather broken down. England were only
forty runs behind on first innings in that match, and when their fourth
second innings wicket fell the score was 173 rather than 31.
--
John Hall
"Home is heaven and orgies are vile,
But you *need* an orgy, once in a while."
Ogden Nash (1902-1971)

On Mon, 27 Dec 2021 19:44:31 +0000, John Hall
<john_nospam@jhall.co.uk> wrote:

>In message <Kr6IxuDD1MyhFwMo@jhall_nospamxx.co.uk>, John Hall
><john_nospam@jhall.co.uk> writes
>>In message <j2rpefFck93U1@mid.individual.net>, David North
>><nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> writes
><snip>
>>>
>>>The previous three teams to make 185 or fewer batting first in a
>>>Melbourne Ashes (England 2006/07 and Australia 1986/87 and 1974/75)
>>>also lost by an innings. The last team to do so and avoid such a fate
>>>was Australia in 1911/12 - they made 184 and lost by 8 wickets.
>>>
>>>On a more positive note, Australia made 112 and 144 batting first in
>>>the two MCG Tests of 1901/02 and won both, Australia in 1950/51 and
>>>England in 1954/55 also won after making 194 and 191 respectively, and
>>>England even won in 1894/95 after being bowled out for 75.
>>>
>>After reading your second paragraph, I thought "but what about
>>1954-5?", and looked up the score. Had I read your final paragraph
>>first, I could have saved myself the trouble. :) As England won by 128
>>runs on that occasion, having made six runs fewer in their first
>>innings this time perhaps they will win by 122. It might require Wood
>>to emulate Tyson (2-68 and 7-27) and either Anderson or Robinson to
>>emulate Statham (5-60 and 2-38), though.
>>
>>Someone might also need to copy May and score 91 in England's second
>>innings. No English batsman in the current match copied Cowdrey's 102
>>out of that first innings 191, without which England would have been
>>dead and buried. He played that innings in his first Test series at the
>>age of 22 and - for all his great feats afterwards - I don't think he
>>ever played an innings to quite equal that one, perhaps unsurprisingly.
>
>Unfortunately the parallel has now rather broken down. England were only
>forty runs behind on first innings in that match, and when their fourth
>second innings wicket fell the score was 173 rather than 31.

You know when a cup draw used to be made on tv? Football probably, and
they would choose the opponents from a black bag and put them on a
chart to determine the fixtures.
Imagine the England cricket team in the dressing room ready to bat and
having to choose their individual scores from a similar black bag.
There are lots of low scores in the bag and some decent scores and a
couple of whoppers..
England need to inspect their batting bag because kicking their bums
didn't work and Root's pledge to 'bang out a century" so far has
remained in constipation.

max.it

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On 26/12/2021 18:09, David North wrote:
> On 26/12/2021 16:35, John Hall wrote:
>> In message <3e9a333c-e1c1-4fef-8ecd-aeb02b4ac6f5n@googlegroups.com>, D
>> Cornwell <dcweather01@googlemail.com> writes
>>> It's not that easy to lose a Test on day one but we've had a pretty
>>> good shot at it !
>>
>> It's deja vu all over again.
>>
>> The only crumb of comfort I can find is that we did better than
>> Australia managed on day 1 of the corresponding Test in 2010.
>
> Doing better than a team that went on to lose by an innings and 157
> certainly qualifies as a crumb.
>
> The previous three teams to make 185 or fewer batting first in a
> Melbourne Ashes (England 2006/07 and Australia 1986/87 and 1974/75) also
> lost by an innings. The last team to do so and avoid such a fate was
> Australia in 1911/12 - they made 184 and lost by 8 wickets.

All of those had a first-innings deficit of over 200.

82 is the 3rd-lowest deficit in all Tests where a team failed to make
their opponents bat again, behind:

46 - NZ 200 & 26 v Eng 246, Auckland 1954/55
74 - Eng 318 & 51 v WI 392, Kingston 2008/09

267 is the lowest total to win by an innings since West Indies 218 v
Pakistan 131 & 77 at Lahore in 1986/87.

--
David North