Author Topic: 2nd Test - Why bat first?  (Read 13581 times)

Offline Slogger

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1852
Re: 2nd Test - Why bat first?
« Reply #15 on: June 23, 2014, 07:44:16 PM »
He's been fielding away from the slips and I've just got a felling this could be his last game as skipper. I suspect once relieved of that burden he'll go back to churning runs out as an opener.

Diatribe

  • Guest
Re: 2nd Test - Why bat first?
« Reply #16 on: June 23, 2014, 09:04:13 PM »
I suspect once relieved of that burden he'll go back to churning runs out as an opener.

But for who, England, Essex or one one of his money spinning charity bashes.

Blocky

  • Guest
Re: 2nd Test - Why bat first?
« Reply #17 on: June 24, 2014, 07:03:04 AM »
If he retires at 28 then he's an idiot.  I can see him taking a break from international cricket though...

Offline squarelegumpire

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1459
Re: 2nd Test - Why bat first?
« Reply #18 on: June 24, 2014, 07:38:39 AM »
Well he’s likely to be suspended for slow over-rate, isn’t he? Mind, I can’t see who’d take over as captain. The obvious choice is Broad, but his fuse is somewhat short.

I don’t think Bell’s ever been a captain has he?

Offline firehazard

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 605
Re: 2nd Test - Why bat first?
« Reply #19 on: June 24, 2014, 07:42:48 AM »
He's been fielding away from the slips and I've just got a felling this could be his last game as skipper. I suspect once relieved of that burden he'll go back to churning runs out as an opener.

Cook's been captain for long enough now to demonstrate that he's not got any apparent talent for the role, and, as you say, it's affected his batting form to the detriment of the team. But if he does give up the captaincy, who takes it on? One of the problems of the disconnect between the test squad and the county game is that there's no one in the England set-up with any meaningful experience of captaincy.

If he retires at 28 then he's an idiot.  I can see him taking a break from international cricket though...

Though if by 28 you've made enough money from playing the game, and a potentially lucrative career in the media beckons, you can see the temptation...

Offline Valentines Park

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3820
  • In Ron We Trust
Re: 2nd Test - Why bat first?
« Reply #20 on: June 24, 2014, 07:52:44 AM »

Cook's been captain for long enough now to demonstrate that he's not got any apparent talent for the role

<cough>Foster<cough>

tonk

  • Guest
Re: 2nd Test - Why bat first?
« Reply #21 on: June 24, 2014, 08:58:31 AM »
Best thing he can do is quit because looking at the team England they are going to struggle for some time to come and his life will be intolerable once the media get on his case.Only question is does he need the money?

Blocky

  • Guest
Re: 2nd Test - Why bat first?
« Reply #22 on: June 25, 2014, 07:29:42 AM »
I think he should walk away from england and let Moores sort out the mess, after all, it's his job to do so.

Very few of the players look captain material.  And what worries me is that there are very few on the county circuit with the ability to play test cricket.

My real concern for Ali is that he thinks he's actually doing a good job, which he clearly isn't, and that none of his senior players is helping him. 

Come on home mate, you'll be welcome back....

Offline Valentines Park

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3820
  • In Ron We Trust
Re: 2nd Test - Why bat first?
« Reply #23 on: June 25, 2014, 07:54:47 AM »
he thinks he's actually doing a good job, which he clearly isn't

<cough>Foster<cough>

Diatribe

  • Guest
Re: 2nd Test - Why bat first?
« Reply #24 on: June 25, 2014, 12:26:38 PM »
Actually I thought it was an excellent game to watch with England offering unexpected resistance on the final day. A top class effort from Moen Ali and no-one could blame Anderson for fending off the penultimate ball, after all, what were the odds of him even being there at that stage of the game with 19 overs left to play.

The series should however have been drawn but for Cook's decision to bat on too long at Lords and I can't help but wonder if this was partly as a result of allowing Ballance to reach his maiden test match century. I tend to remember(it may have been Atherton) denying Hick a century in Australia by declaring when the aforementioned was within sight of three figures, no doubt in the better interest of the game.