canta_brian wrote:On the basis of aba (anyone but Australia) I listened to most of today’s play ont’ radio.
What does England need to actually excel in a World Cup? Surely they must have known that conditions would require a level of flexibility of approach? You can’t score 400 on every pitch.
What do they talk about during the game that they kept bowling short for so long.
Are they just flat track bullies with no plan B? Has 20/20 made them entirely one dimensional.
I’m glad I get to switch back to supporting NZ again now. We probably won’t win, but we generally know that it won’t come easy and we will have to work at it to have a chance.
Anyway. Boring rant over
It's just a congenital inability of our cricketers to perform under pressure. We went into the tournament as favourites for a very good reason - we'd beaten all comers across the last few years and were an excellent team. Come a tournament and we very promptly shit the bed, again.
Mind, in our slight defence, losing Roy has made a massive difference to our batting, as it means we are playing James "20 then out" Vince (or second ball duck, as he was today). And we didn't get the rub of the green, as Archer and Wood could've had 4 in that opening spell and slightly better connections would've seen about 4 of our wickets be sixes by a metre, rather than caught by a metre. Having said that, we folded like an deckchair bought from Lidl and Australia bowled very well, so I'm in no way suggesting that we deserved to win.
Speaking of bowling well, that ball from Starc that bowled Stokes was utterly unplayable. Starts outside off, looks like it might go away, slides in and then last minute veers in to hit off stump. You give me that in slow motion and I couldn't have defended it. Wonderful bowling.
Puja