RugbyRebels

Buttler at least showing spine. Is Bairstow a much better keeper, because there must have been some fatigue, not ideal at 5.

Banquo wrote:Buttler at least showing spine. Is Bairstow a much better keeper, because there must have been some fatigue, not ideal at 5.

Keeping wicket and batting 5 seems an insane ask, and for still less good reason with two keepers.

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:Buttler at least showing spine. Is Bairstow a much better keeper, because there must have been some fatigue, not ideal at 5.

Keeping wicket and batting 5 seems an insane ask, and for still less good reason with two keepers.

Indeed. Stick Bairstow at 7 rather than this, if he is to keep.

awesome from 7 and 8 today. Other batters should hang their heads tbh

Yep, hats off to Butler and Bess who applied themselves and put together a very good partnership.

That aside, we have been second best to quite an embarrassing degree.

fivepointer wrote:Yep, hats off to Butler and Bess who applied themselves and put together a very good partnership.

That aside, we have been second best to quite an embarrassing degree.

Indeed. Lack of quality plus heart

Banquo wrote:

fivepointer wrote:Yep, hats off to Butler and Bess who applied themselves and put together a very good partnership.

That aside, we have been second best to quite an embarrassing degree.

Indeed. Lack of quality plus heart

Lack of heart, composure and application. I'm sorry, but Bayliss has been the worst test coach I've seen for a long time. We have not played well since he came in. Sure, we've done well in our pyjamas, but tests are the bread and butter. I don't watch or listen to limited over cricket, it's just not interesting: there's not as much going on. If England want Bayliss for the limited overs, appoint a real red ball coach.

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote:

fivepointer wrote:Yep, hats off to Butler and Bess who applied themselves and put together a very good partnership.

That aside, we have been second best to quite an embarrassing degree.

Indeed. Lack of quality plus heart

Lack of heart, composure and application. I'm sorry, but Bayliss has been the worst test coach I've seen for a long time. We have not played well since he came in. Sure, we've done well in our pyjamas, but tests are the bread and butter. I don't watch or listen to limited over cricket, it's just not interesting: there's not as much going on. If England want Bayliss for the limited overs, appoint a real red ball coach.

Seriously? Blaming the coach I think misses what's occurring.

Banquo wrote:

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote: Indeed. Lack of quality plus heart

Lack of heart, composure and application. I'm sorry, but Bayliss has been the worst test coach I've seen for a long time. We have not played well since he came in. Sure, we've done well in our pyjamas, but tests are the bread and butter. I don't watch or listen to limited over cricket, it's just not interesting: there's not as much going on. If England want Bayliss for the limited overs, appoint a real red ball coach.

Seriously? Blaming the coach I think misses what's occurring.

In what way?

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Stom wrote:
Lack of heart, composure and application. I'm sorry, but Bayliss has been the worst test coach I've seen for a long time. We have not played well since he came in. Sure, we've done well in our pyjamas, but tests are the bread and butter. I don't watch or listen to limited over cricket, it's just not interesting: there's not as much going on. If England want Bayliss for the limited overs, appoint a real red ball coach.

Seriously? Blaming the coach I think misses what's occurring.

In what way?

In that he can't mitigate the pathetic way many players are playing. How is he supposed to stop poor shot selection for example?

He is picking players from a drossy well. To say we havent played well since he got in is also not correct.

hopes dashed inside 20 mins!

Truly pathetic so far this morning, spineless .

WTAF,,,,,6 runs, 4 wickets.

Ffs. This is embarrassing.

a 2nd new ball due and Broad, Wood and Anderson to come, it didn't have the makings of a good day. a shame we couldn't put them under some pressure and take 3-4 wickets to give them some concerns ahead of the 2nd test

Digby wrote:a 2nd new ball due and Broad, Wood and Anderson to come, it didn't have the makings of a good day. a shame we couldn't put them under some pressure and take 3-4 wickets to give them some concerns ahead of the 2nd test

was hardly a wild imagining to think they could have got 10-15 apiece from the the remaining batsmen, and 130-40 might have been interesting. But 6 runs between 5 batsmen is shoddy.

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:a 2nd new ball due and Broad, Wood and Anderson to come, it didn't have the makings of a good day. a shame we couldn't put them under some pressure and take 3-4 wickets to give them some concerns ahead of the 2nd test

was hardly a wild imagining to think they could have got 10-15 apiece from the the remaining batsmen, and 130-40 might have been interesting. But 6 runs between 5 batsmen is shoddy.

2 batsmen in that list, and that not knowing much about Bess. It's a shame what's happened to Broad with his batting, but the others were never more than bowlers (though Jimmy was more organised in defence for a while)

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:a 2nd new ball due and Broad, Wood and Anderson to come, it didn't have the makings of a good day. a shame we couldn't put them under some pressure and take 3-4 wickets to give them some concerns ahead of the 2nd test

was hardly a wild imagining to think they could have got 10-15 apiece from the the remaining batsmen, and 130-40 might have been interesting. But 6 runs between 5 batsmen is shoddy.

2 batsmen in that list, and that not knowing much about Bess. It's a shame what's happened to Broad with his batting, but the others were never more than bowlers (though Jimmy was more organised in defence for a while)

Bess has a first class hundred. The rest only had to put up a bit of a fight, like the Pakistan bowlers did when they batted. Obviously the defeat isn’t down to the bowlers not batting well, but even if they had got their test averages scores.....whatever, losing our last 4 wickets for 6 runs is poor, esp given similar in the 1st innings. More resilience required.

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote: was hardly a wild imagining to think they could have got 10-15 apiece from the the remaining batsmen, and 130-40 might have been interesting. But 6 runs between 5 batsmen is shoddy.

2 batsmen in that list, and that not knowing much about Bess. It's a shame what's happened to Broad with his batting, but the others were never more than bowlers (though Jimmy was more organised in defence for a while)

Bess has a first class hundred. The rest only had to put up a bit of a fight, like the Pakistan bowlers did when they batted. Obviously the defeat isn’t down to the bowlers not batting well, but even if they had got their test averages scores.....whatever, losing our last 4 wickets for 6 runs is poor, esp given similar in the 1st innings. More resilience required.

Our tail does not wag when the going is tough, that's for sure.

It seemingly doesn't matter who plays at 7 and 8, they're the two players who have to dig us out of holes. Consistently.

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:
2 batsmen in that list, and that not knowing much about Bess. It's a shame what's happened to Broad with his batting, but the others were never more than bowlers (though Jimmy was more organised in defence for a while)

Bess has a first class hundred. The rest only had to put up a bit of a fight, like the Pakistan bowlers did when they batted. Obviously the defeat isn’t down to the bowlers not batting well, but even if they had got their test averages scores.....whatever, losing our last 4 wickets for 6 runs is poor, esp given similar in the 1st innings. More resilience required.

Our tail does not wag when the going is tough, that's for sure.

It seemingly doesn't matter who plays at 7 and 8, they're the two players who have to dig us out of holes. Consistently.

If you want a waggier tail pick Ali at 8, which then gives you a problem with the bowlers I'd grant

Digby wrote:

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote: Bess has a first class hundred. The rest only had to put up a bit of a fight, like the Pakistan bowlers did when they batted. Obviously the defeat isn’t down to the bowlers not batting well, but even if they had got their test averages scores.....whatever, losing our last 4 wickets for 6 runs is poor, esp given similar in the 1st innings. More resilience required.

Our tail does not wag when the going is tough, that's for sure.

It seemingly doesn't matter who plays at 7 and 8, they're the two players who have to dig us out of holes. Consistently.

If you want a waggier tail pick Ali at 8, which then gives you a problem with the bowlers I'd grant

It's not the personnel that's the problem for me, it's the team ethos.

And, in response to Banquo earlier, if that's not the coach's job, whose is it?

If I pick Ali, I pick him at 4 and he can be a part-time spinner on the side.

But more important, we need to sort out the attitude and, whatever you say about the players needing to take it on themselves, the attitude of any organisation comes from the leadership. We're not talking isolated individuals, we're talking the entire team, consistently over Bayliss' entire test reign. We need a change in approach from the top, changing personnel won't change anything (except at 2, Stoneman isn't good enough).

Well, there's that 1 personnel change. Stoneman out, Jennings in.

Stom wrote:

Digby wrote:

Stom wrote:
Our tail does not wag when the going is tough, that's for sure.

It seemingly doesn't matter who plays at 7 and 8, they're the two players who have to dig us out of holes. Consistently.

If you want a waggier tail pick Ali at 8, which then gives you a problem with the bowlers I'd grant

It's not the personnel that's the problem for me, it's the team ethos.

And, in response to Banquo earlier, if that's not the coach's job, whose is it?

If I pick Ali, I pick him at 4 and he can be a part-time spinner on the side.

But more important, we need to sort out the attitude and, whatever you say about the players needing to take it on themselves, the attitude of any organisation comes from the leadership. We're not talking isolated individuals, we're talking the entire team, consistently over Bayliss' entire test reign. We need a change in approach from the top, changing personnel won't change anything (except at 2, Stoneman isn't good enough).

I'm just not convinced we have the quality of player to lay it all at Bayliss's door, who was successful when he started. I agree the resilience and ethos of the side is poor, but the players need to cop a load of the responsibility for that- thinking getting rid of Bayliss is the answer doesn't do it for me. Our massive weakness is away from home, and that's from before Bayliss. If you remember, we won the ashes at home in his first series, and recovered from losing away to Pakistan to beat SA in SA; we then beat Sri Lanka and drew with Pakistan at home..and then beat Bangladesh away. Then we got stuffed by India away, but came back to beat SA at home in 2017. Then whacked by the aussies away again! So, in fairness his home red-ball record is decent.

Stom wrote:

Digby wrote:

Stom wrote:
Our tail does not wag when the going is tough, that's for sure.

It seemingly doesn't matter who plays at 7 and 8, they're the two players who have to dig us out of holes. Consistently.

If you want a waggier tail pick Ali at 8, which then gives you a problem with the bowlers I'd grant

It's not the personnel that's the problem for me, it's the team ethos.

And, in response to Banquo earlier, if that's not the coach's job, whose is it?

If I pick Ali, I pick him at 4 and he can be a part-time spinner on the side.

But more important, we need to sort out the attitude and, whatever you say about the players needing to take it on themselves, the attitude of any organisation comes from the leadership. We're not talking isolated individuals, we're talking the entire team, consistently over Bayliss' entire test reign. We need a change in approach from the top, changing personnel won't change anything (except at 2, Stoneman isn't good enough).

I think it's much more a personnel problem, they're not very good and there's not really much in the way of an alternative. Not sure I get Jennings coming back in now, on faster truer pitches in Oz would almost have seemed a better time to call him back up, like Key he's a bit unusual for an England player looking to leave a ball on length and that's tricky here in the UK. Ali isn't t top 5 batter, he's a counter attacking option against a tired bowling lineup

Stom wrote:Well, there's that 1 personnel change. Stoneman out, Jennings in.

Thank goodness. It’s not an England team without some South African blood in it.