• Welcome to the ShrimperZone forums.
    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which only gives you limited access.

    Existing Users:.
    Please log-in using your existing username and password. If you have any problems, please see below.

    New Users:
    Join our free community now and gain access to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and free. Click here to join.

    Fans from other clubs
    We welcome and appreciate supporters from other clubs who wish to engage in sensible discussion. Please feel free to join as above but understand that this is a moderated site and those who cannot play nicely will be quickly removed.

    Assistance Required
    For help with the registration process or accessing your account, please send a note using the Contact us link in the footer, please include your account name. We can then provide you with a new password and verification to get you on the site.

2017 Ashes

From TMS' Andrew Samson...

Scoring 400+ in 1st inns of Test and losing by an innings:
Eng v Aus The Oval 1930
SL v Eng Cardiff 2011
Eng v Ind Mumbai 2016 *
Eng v Ind Chennai 2016 *
Pak v Aus Melbourne 2016
Eng v Aus Perth 2017 *
* 3 of England's last 5 away Tests

:cry:
 
From TMS' Andrew Samson...

Scoring 400+ in 1st inns of Test and losing by an innings:
Eng v Aus The Oval 1930
SL v Eng Cardiff 2011
Eng v Ind Mumbai 2016 *
Eng v Ind Chennai 2016 *
Pak v Aus Melbourne 2016
Eng v Aus Perth 2017 *
* 3 of England's last 5 away Tests

:cry:

We collapse like a very-good-at-collapsing thing.
 
Pretty sure I saw that Anderson is averaging around 25 a wicket this tour. That is hardly terrible as conditions in 90% of the tour hasn't suited him at all.
Broad on the other hand has been bloody awful.
Ali has had a terrible series with bat and ball but can we decide to discard someone who in 2017 has had batting and bowling average comparable or better than Stokes (who is apparently the saviour) Unfortunately batting wise Lyon has him all ends up.
A tail end batsman is always going to manage better and score more runs against a bowling attack that bowls 80mph with the ball going in a straight line than a 90mph bowling at his head. on the flip side I would expect our tailenders to do better playing against this Aussie attack in England and I would expect the same Aussie tail enders to do worse playing against the same England attack in English conditions.
Steve Smith - no answer to this sadly, he is just awesome.
 
Pretty sure I saw that Anderson is averaging around 25 a wicket this tour. That is hardly terrible as conditions in 90% of the tour hasn't suited him at all.
Broad on the other hand has been bloody awful.
Ali has had a terrible series with bat and ball but can we decide to discard someone who in 2017 has had batting and bowling average comparable or better than Stokes (who is apparently the saviour) Unfortunately batting wise Lyon has him all ends up.
A tail end batsman is always going to manage better and score more runs against a bowling attack that bowls 80mph with the ball going in a straight line than a 90mph bowling at his head. on the flip side I would expect our tailenders to do better playing against this Aussie attack in England and I would expect the same Aussie tail enders to do worse playing against the same England attack in English conditions.
Steve Smith - no answer to this sadly, he is just awesome.

The problem with Anderson is that he's only taken 3 wickets this series when the match was actually on the line. Given that he's supposed to be England's spearhead that's an issue.

At Brisbane he took two wickets in the first innings as Australia racked up 300+ and then wicketless in the second innings when England needed early breakthroughs to have any chance of defending 170.

At Adelaide he took a solitary wicket in the first innings as Australia racked up 400+. He bowled beautifully in the second innings and took 5 wickets but by then England were already facing a 200+ run deficit.

He didn't take his first wicket in Perth until Australia already had 549 runs on the board and ended up with 4 ultimately meaningless wickets.

He's been pretty economical, but when someone's given the new ball, the choice of ends and new batsmen to bowl at they need to be offering more than being economical. That's what you want from your change bowler, not your spearhead.
 
The problem with Anderson is that he's only taken 3 wickets this series when the match was actually on the line. Given that he's supposed to be England's spearhead that's an issue.

At Brisbane he took two wickets in the first innings as Australia racked up 300+ and then wicketless in the second innings when England needed early breakthroughs to have any chance of defending 170.

At Adelaide he took a solitary wicket in the first innings as Australia racked up 400+. He bowled beautifully in the second innings and took 5 wickets but by then England were already facing a 200+ run deficit.

He didn't take his first wicket in Perth until Australia already had 549 runs on the board and ended up with 4 ultimately meaningless wickets.

He's been pretty economical, but when someone's given the new ball, the choice of ends and new batsmen to bowl at they need to be offering more than being economical. That's what you want from your change bowler, not your spearhead.

No good blaming Anderson, he can't be expected to defend 170.

He produced a match winning spell at Adelaide. The reason it was wasted was down to our real poor batting and low total in the first innings.
 
The problem with Anderson is that he's only taken 3 wickets this series when the match was actually on the line. Given that he's supposed to be England's spearhead that's an issue.

At Brisbane he took two wickets in the first innings as Australia racked up 300+ and then wicketless in the second innings when England needed early breakthroughs to have any chance of defending 170.

At Adelaide he took a solitary wicket in the first innings as Australia racked up 400+. He bowled beautifully in the second innings and took 5 wickets but by then England were already facing a 200+ run deficit.

He didn't take his first wicket in Perth until Australia already had 549 runs on the board and ended up with 4 ultimately meaningless wickets.

He's been pretty economical, but when someone's given the new ball, the choice of ends and new batsmen to bowl at they need to be offering more than being economical. That's what you want from your change bowler, not your spearhead.

There's a few of the players who need to take a long hard look at themselves, Anderson ain't one of them.
Being economical is how bowlers like Anderson using the kookaburra will get his wickets on surfaces prepared for 90mph plus bowlers, he has bowled his heart out on this tour with next to zero support from his fellow bowlers. Perhaps if we had a spinner who actually turned the ball and held up a end then Anderson could be more effective bowling more hostile shorter spells.
 
No good blaming Anderson, he can't be expected to defend 170.

He produced a match winning spell at Adelaide. The reason it was wasted was down to our real poor batting and low total in the first innings.

If, like in Adelaide, you let the opposition score 400 in the first innings you are going to struggle to win matches (unless the opposition is England, who have managed to lose 3 times in the last year after the batsmen posted 400+). Australia, batting first, scored enough runs to be able to declare in the first innings at Adelaide. Given that England hadn't at this stage batted and Anderson was widely considered to have bowled too short in this innings, only Graeme Swann would think that England's batsmen were to blame for that. Anderson therefore has to share some of the blame.

Now England's batsmen could and should have done more to have a bigger lead in the first test at Brisbane, but Anderson and England could have bowled better in the first innings there as well where they had 300+ runs on the scoreboard an opening but let Australia take the lead. Then in the second innings a couple of early wickets would have piled the pressure on Australia. Anderson was economical there but lacked a cutting edge in both innings. That's an issue if he's taking the new Kookaburra, gets choice of ends etc. If it's not swinging use him as a change bowler and let him bowl dry and let your quicker bowlers who want the extra bounce of a new ball take the new ball.

Then at Perth, which you don't mention, he was wicketless until the 150th over and Australia had 550 on the board. That's a problem.

He's leading the England attack that has now conceded 328, 442/8d and 662/9d in the first innings of the three tests so far.

England's new ball bowlers have taken just 2 wickets in the first 10 overs despite being up against a rookie opener.

In contrast Australia's new ball bowlers have taken 7 wickets in the first 10 overs and at least one in every innings but one (2nd innings at Adelaide, when Cook was first out to Lyon after 19.5 overs). Even ignoring the wicket of the struggling Cook, Australia have dismissed Stoneman and Vince inside the 1st 10 overs more often than Anderson and Broad have taken an Aussie wicket inside the 1st 10 overs. England's new ball attack which Anderson is supposed to be leading is being comprehensively outbowled.

There's a few of the players who need to take a long hard look at themselves, Anderson ain't one of them.
Being economical is how bowlers like Anderson using the kookaburra will get his wickets on surfaces prepared for 90mph plus bowlers, he has bowled his heart out on this tour with next to zero support from his fellow bowlers. Perhaps if we had a spinner who actually turned the ball and held up a end then Anderson could be more effective bowling more hostile shorter spells.

Anderson isn't going to bowl short hostile spells even if England have the second coming of Derek Underwood at the other end as he's no longer that type of bowler and hasn't been for about a decade.

Anderson needs to take a look at himself and the lengths he bowled in the first innings at Adelaide and his lack of in-game adjustments.
 
If, like in Adelaide, you let the opposition score 400 in the first innings you are going to struggle to win matches (unless the opposition is England, who have managed to lose 3 times in the last year after the batsmen posted 400+). Australia, batting first, scored enough runs to be able to declare in the first innings at Adelaide. Given that England hadn't at this stage batted and Anderson was widely considered to have bowled too short in this innings, only Graeme Swann would think that England's batsmen were to blame for that. Anderson therefore has to share some of the blame.

Now England's batsmen could and should have done more to have a bigger lead in the first test at Brisbane, but Anderson and England could have bowled better in the first innings there as well where they had 300+ runs on the scoreboard an opening but let Australia take the lead. Then in the second innings a couple of early wickets would have piled the pressure on Australia. Anderson was economical there but lacked a cutting edge in both innings. That's an issue if he's taking the new Kookaburra, gets choice of ends etc. If it's not swinging use him as a change bowler and let him bowl dry and let your quicker bowlers who want the extra bounce of a new ball take the new ball.

Then at Perth, which you don't mention, he was wicketless until the 150th over and Australia had 550 on the board. That's a problem.

He's leading the England attack that has now conceded 328, 442/8d and 662/9d in the first innings of the three tests so far.

England's new ball bowlers have taken just 2 wickets in the first 10 overs despite being up against a rookie opener.

In contrast Australia's new ball bowlers have taken 7 wickets in the first 10 overs and at least one in every innings but one (2nd innings at Adelaide, when Cook was first out to Lyon after 19.5 overs). Even ignoring the wicket of the struggling Cook, Australia have dismissed Stoneman and Vince inside the 1st 10 overs more often than Anderson and Broad have taken an Aussie wicket inside the 1st 10 overs. England's new ball attack which Anderson is supposed to be leading is being comprehensively outbowled.



Anderson isn't going to bowl short hostile spells even if England have the second coming of Derek Underwood at the other end as he's no longer that type of bowler and hasn't been for about a decade.

Anderson needs to take a look at himself and the lengths he bowled in the first innings at Adelaide and his lack of in-game adjustments.

At this point in time England haven't got anyone available with the height and pace that suit those conditions.....That's not Jimmy Andersons fault. Obviously his game is about swing bowling so he is never going to be as dangerous in Auz.

Broad has height and can bowl at 90 but never seems up for it in his later years. Most of his career has been lots of average with short fantastic spells.

Our all rounder spinner has been anonymous and Overton lacks any aggression.

We haven't won in Perth for about 40 years, so nothing new there.

Just like football, Cricket is a team game and England have failed miserably as a team so no point in trying to scapegoat individuals.... Or managers
 
The way I look at it is this. Yes Anderson certainly hasn't played to the best of his ability. Yes he was our opening bowler. Was he our worst bowler. No. Was he our best bowler. Probably. Would Woakes, Overton or Ball have done a better job opening the bowling. I doubt it.

One thing I have noticed which has annoyed me about Anderson and Broad for a long time is the field settings are so defensive against boundaries that Aus continually rotate the strike. England either get a dot, or a boundary and that is about it.
Aus build pressure by getting 2-3 maidens in a row and forcing us into a shot and we just haven't done that at all against the Aussies.
 
The way I look at it is this. Yes Anderson certainly hasn't played to the best of his ability. Yes he was our opening bowler. Was he our worst bowler. No. Was he our best bowler. Probably. Would Woakes, Overton or Ball have done a better job opening the bowling. I doubt it.

One thing I have noticed which has annoyed me about Anderson and Broad for a long time is the field settings are so defensive against boundaries that Aus continually rotate the strike. England either get a dot, or a boundary and that is about it.
Aus build pressure by getting 2-3 maidens in a row and forcing us into a shot and we just haven't done that at all against the Aussies.


Or as Boycott rightly states time and time again, leave the bad balls, play the good ones and the opposition bowlers will get frustrated and bowl not to a tight line

Not sure if ODI are the cause as suggested in the press, you only had to look at the old Australia that came out blazing and put pressure on the bowlers in the first session on day one.

Think we missed Finn a lot, and really thought after first lost we could turn things around, dead games next two, but must give the non playing squad a chance

Seems Ali has a torn side as well as cut finger, but if not fit enough should have deemed himself big enough to let someone else into the team, hindsight a wonderful thing though, positives Stoneman and Malan my surprise packages of the tour, hopefully they will have gained confidence and kick on

UTE
 
Why wasn't Plunkett selected?
Why don't more of our players go and play in Australia, the same way they come over here and play?
Why weren't Broad and Anderson rested in the summer and blooded the likes of Crane, Ball and Overton rather than throwing them in the deep end in the hardest place to win a test?
 
Why wasn't Plunkett selected?
Why don't more of our players go and play in Australia, the same way they come over here and play?
Why weren't Broad and Anderson rested in the summer and blooded the likes of Crane, Ball and Overton rather than throwing them in the deep end in the hardest place to win a test?

Is the answer" Delilah":smile:
 
Why wasn't Plunkett selected?
Why don't more of our players go and play in Australia, the same way they come over here and play?
Why weren't Broad and Anderson rested in the summer and blooded the likes of Crane, Ball and Overton rather than throwing them in the deep end in the hardest place to win a test?

1. By Yorkshire or England? He's not a regular in Yorkshire's County Championship side.
2. Crane actually played for NSW last year, which is ironic considering they are the strongest Aussie side and he can't always make the Hants Championship side. The Aussies don't really do overseas players in the Shield which made it noteworthy. Plenty of English players do though play in the Big Bash and also in Aussie grade cricket.
3. Because we had a series to win against West Indies, which was closer than it should have been.
 
This post probably belongs in the "what is hacking you off today" thread.

But England finally show up to the "ashes".. being 3-0 down and nothing to play for.

We bowl out Australia for 327. (5 wickets for just 13 runs). then Cook suddenly finds his form with a 104 not out, & Root on a 49 not out.

Sadly to little, & to late.
 
Third day of a test match is traditionally a "moving" day so I expect England to kick on and look to score 500 plus. With their best two batsmen at the crease and both in, this should be a minimum goal.
A word for those saying there is nothing now to play for. This is not true, every test match has to be competed, it is why players like Cook, Anderson and Broad have the records they have in the game.
Just a thought, there probably won't be a England player or even any player who will score as many runs as Cook or take as many wickets as Anderson or possibly even Broad in our life times. Dismiss them at your peril.
 
This post probably belongs in the "what is hacking you off today" thread.

But England finally show up to the "ashes".. being 3-0 down and nothing to play for.

We bowl out Australia for 327. (5 wickets for just 13 runs). then Cook suddenly finds his form with a 104 not out, & Root on a 49 not out.

Sadly to little, & to late.

3-0 and a session down.

Warner played very well, underlining that he's the best opener in the world, but it was weird how England didn't turn up until after lunch on Boxing Day. They then bowled superbly post-lunch on the opening day and again before lunch on the second day, so why did we have to gift them a 100 run start? We've been so flat with the new ball the entire series (second innings in Adelaide aside).

Hopefully we can kick on as Shrimpers are Magic says and Root can convert this into a daddy hundred as I wouldn't fancy us chasing too many on here against Jackson Bird in the last innings.
 
If it goes as well as I'm hoping then England won't have to bat again in this test.

It wont..... There's a collapse just dying to show its face. And frankly, we have such a weak and lengthy tail that I just have no faith in extending our score by any more than 50 runs once the 6th wicket falls.

Most probable first innings score will be around evens.
 
Back
Top