Picking over the Bones: Final Ashes Panel

In the early hours of tomorrow morning, the One Day series between Australia and England will get underway.  For all the protestations about how vitally important the short form of the game is, it’s hard to believe many will remotely care about the outcome.  Even mischievously using the women’s Ashes rules, England are currently 18-2 down, which does at least make the point that winning the ODIs and T20 by a landslide still doesn’t make up for the thrashing received thus far.  Should England do reasonably, doubtless that will considered evidence that all is well; should they do badly, then England will finish the four year cycle exactly where they started it in the one day rankings.  Exceptional work all round.

With that in mind, we have the final Ashes panel drawn from the members of the blog.  Our contributors are Gareth, a long time supporter of English players, but not necessarily the England team – being from Edinburgh may explain that.  He can be reached on Twitter @G_Funk81.  Joining him is CricketJon, and Silk who also contributes frequently in the comments section.

So gents, I have some questions:

  • How do you feel about the outcome of the series? Did you expect it, or has it surprised you?

Gareth: The outcome itself did not surprise me, I had predicted 5-0, however the manner of the defeat was not what I expected. If I think back on the series, with the possible exception of the evening session in Brisbane (I think) when Root and Stoneman were given a working over, and perhaps England bowling under lights (albeit with the game gone) I cannot really think of a gripping period of play that really had that edge-of-the-seat Ashes feel. Rather than being blown away (as is often the case) it was more a case of being ground down, inexorably and inevitably, at the hands of Steve Smith. Death by a thousand depressing, tedious cuts, drives, pulls and whips through midwicket.

Silk:  Please. I’ve blanked it out of my mind already. I’m sure the NZ series, with a refreshed squad and a new vision will do fine.

CricketJon: I saved this question until last. The outcome of the series fills me with sadness. Not because a team lost 4-0 because that can happen in sport. Its life. No…..its the missed opportunities, the promises made after the last Ashes tour and the sheer lack of self awareness from the people running the English game. In other sports and business (and never the twain shall they meet…ah wait) the buck stops at the top.

Did I expect it? Well I wasn’t surprised. I would now class this team as a group I would be happy to idle away a summers day on (on the telly) but gone are the days of losing several hours sleep (and the consequences of doing so) to watch an away Ashes series.

  • Who is to blame, primarily?

Gareth: I predicted 5-0 the moment I saw the squad. Therefore I would say it is the fault of the selectors. Now, that being said, I do not think there was a squad they could have named that would have won the Ashes, but I’m sure there were several  possible squads that could have been less predictably dire. Any follower of English cricket could have predicted James Vince’s batting average and modes of dismissal before he got on the plane. Why couldn’t the selectors?

I notice in the aftermath of (and often during) the series that county cricket took a lot of stick from pundits and journalists. Certainly those top-performing county cricketers such as Leach, Robson, Northeast, Porter, Collingwood et al should be ashamed of the fact that the circumstances of their upbringing, choice of county or “character” (the go-to word when they just don’t like someone) led to them combining for a disappointing total of no runs and no wickets in the series. Moeen Ali exceeded that on his own (barely)!

Silk: I don’t really want to think about that. It’s just too depressing.

CricketJon: To answer this objectively one has to look at selection, coaching and the gap between the four day county championship and test cricket.

The selections raised eyebrows for me not for the first time because of the public endorsements of players by Michael Vaughan and his “interest in ISM”. The press, such as they, are do very little to entertain the myth regarding conflict of interest on this matter. It suggests that Whittaker listens to so called pundits, some of whom change their mind far too frequently or make it up as they go along. This may be a generational shift in how the press operates but I cannot see why that should apply to selectors.

The coaching set up at Bluffborough is more concerning. We hear stories of great athletes at the input stage (Bunbury week) and observe over coached bowling dry partially injured players unfit for 5 day cricket at the output stage. [ Maybe that’s why they want to reduce to 4 day Test cricket? The gap would be less exposed. ] The sheer lack of upcoming talent to replace Broad and Anderson is stunning given the huge financial resources. I do not know if the volume of inputs has reduced substantially because fewer teenagers watch cricket now (and we all know why that is) but the output is unequivocally poor.

The four day county championship now suffers from an identity crisis. Once a fiercely fought  competition for over 100 years in the pre-digital era to that of a feeder to the Test team  (2000-c2015) it has now become a background element shunted into disparate fragmented components of the season that would be imaginable in the days when Richard Hadlee and John Lever would take 110 wickets a season. It is not difficult to see how this fails to prepare players for Test matches even in English conditions.

The governing body are responsible for all three aspects.

  • Which players did better than you expected, and who did worse?

Gareth: Dawid Malan managed to do something that the other batsmen all singularly failed to do and adapted his batting to suit the circumstances. I’ll be honest and admit that I really didn’t think he had it in him, but I take my hat off to him and really hope he can kick on from here and establish himself as a fixture in the middle-order. He seems a phlegmatic sort of fellow, and I like the cut of his jib (and the flow of his cover drive). I’m already hearing talk of moving him to three, so I look forward to our collective suicide by face-palm in five Tests time.

The list doesn’t so much taper at this point as combust into flames and hurl itself into an abyss screaming “bring back Martin McCague”. I had high hopes that Chris Woakes would cement a long-term spot but he was ineffectual. I don’t think eight and nine-over spells did him many favours though.

I’m continually perplexed by pundits who express surprise at Broad and Cook’s lack of effectiveness. Had they not been watching for the last twelve months?

I know we should be getting stuck into James Vince, but he really didn’t perform worse than expectations, and an average of 26, with two half centuries, is actually a lot higher than I expected. He should never have been picked in the first place, and probably wouldn’t have made my own personal squad if I was purely picking a squad of sixteen English cricketers called James.

But Vince’s tour’s is akin to a silver feather run lovingly down the brow of a sleeping Baby Jesus when compared to the catastrophe that was Moeen Ali’s tour. An absolute disaster, but he’ll survive because he’s “a free spirit” and English cricket has invested too much in him, and spent too much time besmirching alternatives (Leach is a chucker and soft, Rashid bowls too slowly and is soft etc) to drop him.

Silk: You don’t really want me to answer that, do you?

CricketJon: Malan did better than I expected and Bairstow did worse than I expected. It was a struggle for Moeen but the inflexibility of the Master Strategists made provision for him to be picked even when injured. How ridiculous. If someone is unfit such as he was in the first two Tests then someone should replace him. Alas there was no Plan B.

  • Which players should be moved on, and who should replace them?

Gareth: If Broad is going to bowl cross-seam, then take the new ball off him. Too valuable, especially abroad, to waste. If he’s not happy being first-change, bin him. I’d give Woakes a go with the new ball in NZ. Toby Roland-Jones will hopefully be available to fill that vacant “fourteenth right-arm FM bowler” slot.

I’d personally take Moeen out of the firing line for his own good. If they want the (conservative) batsman-who-bowls option, I think Samit Patel would have done no worse. Adil Rashid took thirty wickets last winter, which I thought would have been enough to say “let’s work with him and try to build him up” but his time may have passed. I think Crane may have to wait until Stokes returns to provide that balance England crave. If they think Patel is too fat and Adil is too Rashid, there’s always Scott Borthwick for the batting part-timer role.

In terms of batting, I think they should tell Root to bat three, Bairstow to go to four and drop the gloves, and tell the pair of them that England are now in the business of winning Test matches, not Making Sure Joe And Jonny Get To Do What They Like Best.

Bairstow is probably the second most likely batsman to make a hundred. You diminish his chances of doing that by batting him at 6/7 and making him keep for two days. Foakes seems like a real blue-chip prospect, so let’s see what he can do.

As for Root – get him in at a 12-1 stumble rather than a 30-2 crisis.

My team for NZ – Cook, Stoneman, Root, Bairstow, Malan, Livingstone, Foakes, Woakes, Broad, Anderson, Crane

Livingstone makes it purely because he can turn his arm over (as can Root and Malan to be fair) a bit. I’m keen on Joe Clarke also, I’d take him as spare batsman. With Hameed and Gubbins in the wings, Stoneman needs a score. I’d tell Crane not to worry about the first innings – he’s there to mop up the tail, get overs and hopefully bowl well on days 4 and 5.

Silk: I almost think we are all of us ghosts. It is not only what we have inherited from our father and mother that ‘walks’ in us. It is all sorts of dead ideas, and lifeless old beliefs, and so forth. They have no vitality, but they cling to us all the same, and we cannot shake them off.

CricketJon: Vince is not a number 3 and given his selection for NZ I direct you to part of my answer to question 2. I do not know who should replace them because I have a full time job and do not have the time to analyse talent. I should point out however that Mr Bayliss does have a full time job but he, by his own admission, knows very little about county cricket. We therefore, in light of this worrying news, defer to Mr Whittaker and his line of engagement with pundits who change their mind (“it’s just an opinion, Mr Vaughan?”) too regularly. This does not have the molecular structure of a successful operating model. If there were shareholders involved in this as a private enterprise, then action would be taken. It does not apply here which I shall detail in the last question.

  • How did BT do with the coverage?

Gareth: If I never hear Graeme Swann again it will be far too soon. You can just tell he thinks Tim Lovejoy’s stint on Soccer A.M was the cultural highlight of all mankind’s achievements. Boycs was awful too.

Silk: No idea. I was listening on Radio 4 LW.

CricketJon: Whilst it made a refreshing change not to have to listen to Sir Horseshit talking about golf, alcohol, bbq’s, DK Lillee and how the best road in London is the one that leads out of it, it was significantly more toe curling listening to Graeme Swann constantly rehearsing for some hitherto unknown stand up. The Australians, Gilchrist and Ponting were unsurprisingly erudite and generally factual and objective (something which is only possible if they don’t work for Channel 9) whereas Boycott either became a bore or I had forgotten just how boring and dogmatic he was. Alison Mitchell was very credible and Matt Smith was an ok frontman. No material problems with Damien Fleming. I despise Michael Vaughan on the grounds that he simply makes it up as he goes along and caveats this M.O. with “it’s just an opinion”. He is nothing more than a 2017/18 lounge lizard. Cant believe I once adored him.

  • Were England that bad, or were Australia really good? 

Gareth: I thought Australia’s bowling was as good as we expected. Smith was outstanding, and most of their batsmen chipped in at key times. As I said previously, there was a grim inevitability about the way they ground England’s attack to dust. You cannot help but respect their preparation – they clearly saw what happened in the sub-continent last year where you can patiently accumulate 600 plus against England’s attack.

Silk: Stop asking me these questions. Why do you torture me so?

CricketJon: When Shaun Marsh spooned the ball to mid off at Brisbane, I was chuffed with just how well England stayed with Australia bearing in mind this was quite a few guys first tour. Brisbane isn’t easy. Its 30 years since anyone won there. It was the high point of the tour in terms of the outcome of the series. The rest of the match is history.

What really boils my piss is that two guys with 2.6m Test wickets between them were entrusted by a young captain upon winning the toss to take advantage of the conditions in Adelaide. The correct decision. Root was let down. They bowled the wrong length and if any proof was necessary look what happened throughout the match when they altered the length. We keep being told they are experienced warhorses and similar claptrap. Where does this rainbow end? I can understand human error, it happens, they are not robots but lack of concentration and application? The match was lost there and it was galling to see when Malan and Root batted so well in the fourth innings on the fourth evening just what might have been possible.

We have 4000 backroom staff or whatever the current number is. With the amount of time that gets forever lost in Test cricket (what other sport are you allowed to just piss off after 83 overs and short change the punters?) there was ample time for someone to send a message to the bowlers in the first half hour. Maybe they did and the bowlers weren’t listening? As David Brent would say “They wont remember”. I do.

  • How do England make sure it doesn’t happen again in four years’ time?

Gareth: Sack KP again?

I think they have to identify what was lacking and look at a group of about 8-10 players that they feel, in 4 years time, will, with careful nurturing and gradual integration into the side, provide the necessary tools to overcome Australian conditions. And look at skill levels alone, not what a nice bloke Liam Dawson is in the dressing room or claptrap like that. The skills? Pace bowling, reverse swing, skilful spin bowling and nous, ability to bat and concentrate for long periods and adapt.

Sounds simple doesn’t it? But isn’t that what selection is about?

Some of the short-termism of some selections made by England in the last 18 months (hello Liam Dawson!) shows just how non-existent the planning process was. Dawson (and Ansari before him) was never going to make the Ashes. Was he just there to have a dig at Rashid?

Silk: There is no health left within me. I am bereft.

CricketJon: Tear up the operating model and bring in people that have no conflicts of interest, are not obsessed with 20 or 10 over cricket and the money it brings and sadly bring it down to 3 Tests which is where it is eventually heading anyway.

  • What about the home Ashes? Who will win that?

Gareth: I have it too close to call. It really does depend on if James Anderson maintains his standards – England have little else but Jimmy remains a master of his craft. If Aussie can keep those three quicks fit they will be a handful on any surface (bar Melbourne!).

Silk: Please, make it stop.

CricketJon: Much rests on the pitches and overhead conditions. Please note that in 2015 the two tracks that were most like Australian conditions resulted in Australian victories.

  • England have a tour of New Zealand next, should they be worried?

Gareth: Very much so; they’re not Starc, Cummins and Hazlewood but Southee, Boult and Wagner are no pushovers, and if I were any of those three I’d be looking forward to getting stuck into Vince. New Zealand also have their own superstar batsman, and a good settled team ethos. They are consistently more than the sum of their parts.

Silk: ARGH. <thud>

CricketJon: Yes without a doubt.

  • Any Other Business?

Gareth: I know we give Peter Moores absolute pelters and rightly so. But he did identify Liam Plunkett as someone who could bowl bouncers with an old ball on garbage surfaces (Headingley 2014 etc). I was thinking about that as I watched Tom Curran run in. Using the old ball is a skill in itself, and one which England have lost sight of.

Silk: I would very much like to thank everyone at BOC who have put some much effort into following this crap, and writing about it. To write so well, and with such effort, about such crap is a magnificent effort. The long-suffering England support deserves you, but those Inside Cricket do not. More power to you.

CricketJon; Yes. I have said it already on this website. The debate should be opened as to precisely who the game belongs to. Furthermore the following (and previously written) questions need considering. It applies to any form of democracy and governance and the source of the five questions is the late and remarkable Tony Benn:

1, What power have you got?
2, Where did you get it from?
3, In whose interests do you use it?
4, To whom are you accountable?
5, How do we get rid of you?

Any difficulties arising from answering those questions raises an enormous red flag.

My thanks to all for their time and effort in answering my questions, and as always, comment below is very welcome.


67 thoughts on “Picking over the Bones: Final Ashes Panel

  1. thebogfather Jan 13, 2018 / 4:01 pm

    Congratulations to Gareth, Silk and CricketJon for having more enthusiasm than I could (and should) have mustered to reply to what before is one thing I would usually love to take part in on here – a panel of true cricket lovers.

    If I’d had a bit more free time and inspiration, I’d have bored you all here today (Hey, you know I only reply in rhyme…) – but a combination of being truly p!ssed of by what seems to be the acceptance of most MSM of ‘oh, well, nevermnd…’ and the governing body cash-counters who are never questioned (Glory be, only Sir Geoffrey and Dobell excepted).
    Sorry to Chris too, but the Q’s felt tame, only going over everything that has been writ here above and below – my lack, not yours.
    I couldn’t (yet) even be arsed to scribe something rhyming about the 4 ECB WhoresMen of the Apocalypse…

    Like our leader, LCL, perhaps I’ve just reached the stage where my love of the game has been f**ked over too many times by those in charge and those ‘in the know’..

    But like LCL, I shall return, off a Jeff Thomson/Michael Holding/Mike Proctor long run!

    Best wishes to everyone on here who cares.

    Liked by 1 person

    • thebogfather Jan 13, 2018 / 4:28 pm

      …and having read the responses, long or short, from our three panelists… wow!, and thank you, some truly inspirational words and thoughts…(striding back to the sightscreen) 🙂


  2. Sri.Grins Jan 13, 2018 / 4:32 pm

    Nice comments. I thought that any comments I make would only add to the angst not just about the Ashes but the NZ tour team selection.

    I wish you English fans a set of selectors a lot more focused and honest and a board that believes in importance of England doing well anywhere.

    Meanwhile, an interesting contest in the second test. SA 269/6 which seems more than what India deserve as they did not bowl well.


  3. Mark Jan 13, 2018 / 7:23 pm

    The irony is of course that what happens in the early hours of the morning is VERY important to the ECB. This is in fact the most important part of the whole tour. If England play well then it’s mission accomplished.

    It’s the first time in my lifetime when the ODIs are more important the Ashes. But that is now the case. There will be packed crowds and if England play well then George Harrison will be able to say “Everything must pass!”

    Look out for 39 pushing this like a drug dealer selling crack. . It’s all they are interested in now. I wonder how Cook feels about playing in the secondary class of Cricket? Test matches are so twentieth century.c


  4. Quebecer Jan 13, 2018 / 8:26 pm

    Well played, silk, well played.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Benny Jan 14, 2018 / 3:29 am

    Fine work. The three guys entertained me a lot.

    Late night tonight – friends round for a curry and one or two drinks. Now the ODI has started. Wood looks wicked.


    • Sri.Grins Jan 14, 2018 / 4:06 am

      The reality is that you have a LOI team that is much better selected in terms of ability to change the course of an ODI. The quality of resources in the ODI team is certainly superior to the test team. This was and is true of India for many years and is now true for England too.


  6. dlpthomas Jan 14, 2018 / 4:10 am

    Wood making the Aussies jump around with his bit of extra pace and then Rashid picks up Smith in his first over. It suddenly looks a different game.


    • dlpthomas Jan 14, 2018 / 5:07 am

      Australia cruising now – this looks more familiar.


  7. Sri.Grins Jan 14, 2018 / 5:50 am

    Moeen is good in LOI bowling. Controls runs much more than Rashid.


  8. Tom Jan 14, 2018 / 6:32 am

    Thank you all, but special thanks to Silk for making me laugh! I spent 30 minutes this morning wondering if I was going to be glowing worm food for 30 or so minutes, so it was wonderful to read this when the anger started to hit and the heart rate needed slowing.


  9. Sri.Grins Jan 14, 2018 / 7:57 am

    Englad have started brilliantly . 53/1 . great scoring rate from Roy


  10. Sri. Grins Jan 14, 2018 / 8:38 am

    99/2 in 13.here on it should be reasonably achievable. Around 6 per over


    • dlpthomas Jan 14, 2018 / 9:30 am

      Don’t jinx us. (but they are looking pretty good. Very nice hundred from Roy)


      • dlpthomas Jan 14, 2018 / 10:27 am

        Let me just change that to an amazing hundred from Roy


  11. Sri. Grins Jan 14, 2018 / 10:35 am

    271/2. As I said, England have the right odi team. Surprisingly, Oz don’t of late


    • Sri. Grins Jan 14, 2018 / 10:37 am

      To beat England in odis you need tracks helping spinners or pace bowlers. On flat pitches, I would back England to win most times except probably against India who are equally good in flat pitches


  12. OscarDaBosca Jan 14, 2018 / 10:45 am

    I feel dirty because I am enjoying this, but it is tempered by the knowledge that a winning the odi series will allow the dark forces to triumph and allow them to justify the defenestration of the test side.
    However saying that it helps my enjoyment that all the unlikeable characters from the test team aren’t present.
    Perhaps Athers is right and we need two coaches, because Bayliss has clearly got this team playing but is like Moores with the Test team.
    Great innings by Roy and invaluable contribution by Root who has just kept it ticking over at the other end

    Liked by 1 person

    • LordCanisLupus Jan 14, 2018 / 11:34 am

      Roy was great and as he always needs, he had that good fortune. But what a truly gorgeous knock by Root. Perfect foil.


  13. Mark Jan 14, 2018 / 11:21 am

    Oh F… It’s Lovejoy. Switched it off!


  14. hatmallet Jan 14, 2018 / 11:51 am

    “Which players did better than you expected, and who did worse?”

    Tbh, Vince did better than I expected. I honestly didn’t expect him to pass 50 once let alone twice!

    The squad for the New Zealand series is a little underwhelming (though I’m glad to see Livingstone selected), but hopefully by the summer it will be easier for changes to be made – there will have been an England Lions tour and a few round of Championship matches by then.


    • alecpaton Jan 14, 2018 / 4:51 pm

      Livingston can at least point to 2 massive things in his favour- An average well into the 40s and experience of top division FC cricket. His selection at least is based on actual merit.

      He may work out, he may not, but surely half the joy of sport is seeing how these things do turn out. If he is tried out, stumbles, and is sent back to Lancashire, he is at least young enough that he can do what he can to remedy his flaws and come back better than before.


  15. Miami Dad's 6 Jan 14, 2018 / 3:02 pm

    Would like to add my thanks to the writers and commentators on the blog. It is a slog at the best of times, we all have commitments in life that prohibit absolute dedication to cricket, but the output on here is ridiculously well written and good.

    I like Roy. Would anyone see him at 6 in the Test side, told to go out and play his natural game? Or is he pigeon holed into white ball stuff now?


  16. Mark Jan 14, 2018 / 3:55 pm

    I know it’s a completely different game, and it probably won’t last, but how funny was it to see Rashid get Smith out? After 3 months of seeing Smith frustrate England you have to admit it was amusing.

    Liked by 1 person

    • metatone Jan 14, 2018 / 9:30 pm

      From the little I’ve seen Wood looked good, but part of how the ODI side prospers is they have accepted that you have to take wickets, it really is important along side the run rate. So odd that the Test setup can’t get their heads around it.


      • oreston Jan 15, 2018 / 12:27 am

        Absolutely agree – and it’s hardly particle physics, is it? With a change of format and personnel, suddenly England were able to turn out a reasonably effective attack. Plunkett and Rashid did well to take 5/144 between them. From what I saw of his first spell, Wood was causing quite a few problems. If he hadn’t got Warner early England just might’ve struggled. I would still be a little concerned about his fitness & stamina over a five day game, but that’s for another time. Moeen at least bowled tidily and got Finch. Still think he should’ve been rested for this series though. And then there was Woakes…

        Liked by 1 person

      • oreston Jan 15, 2018 / 12:42 am

        Just occurred to me – you refer to the “Test setup” as though it’s a totally different entity to the ODI structure. Yet they they have the same selectors, the same head coach and support staff, even a few of the same players. You’re right about the apparent difference of approach though. Team ECB is developing a split personality. It’s hard not to suspect that its Test cricket capabilities aren’t being run down deliberately. You can see that in the difference between the expectations of success expressed for the two formats. Limited overs? The sky’s the limit! Test team thrashed in India and humiliated down under? It’s been worse, no need to panic, nothing fundamentally wrong…

        Liked by 1 person

      • dlpthomas Jan 15, 2018 / 1:46 pm

        Wood was impressive. However, when you see the effort he puts into bowling fast it is easy to understand why he gets injured so often. It was with Gough or Harmison who said he isn’t a natural fast bowler but rather a fast medium bowler pushing his body to its limits.

        Liked by 1 person

    • dannycricket Jan 15, 2018 / 5:04 pm

      And on thelegglance’s behalf, let me remind everyone that any comments that could potentially prejudice the proceedings (speculating on his guilt or innocence, for example) are strictly forbidden until after the court reaches its verdict. It could get both you and us in trouble, so please don’t.

      Liked by 2 people

      • oreston Jan 15, 2018 / 8:23 pm

        Indeed, the scales of justice must weigh the matter to a nicety and twelve good men/women/ze’s and true must pronounce their solemn verdict.
        On a purely cricket related point of order, is he still in the squad for New Zealand, or haven’t the ECB had their muddling through and making-it-up-as-they-go-along meeting yet?


        • Sean B Jan 15, 2018 / 10:10 pm

          I would guess he will now be left out whilst the wheels of justice do their thing and someone else will likely be called up.

          Also want to reiterate on Danny’s point, we ‘cannot post anything about this until after the trial reaches its conclusion’. This also applies BTL. Please don’t put us in a very awkward position.

          Still, white ball cricket, it’s the future right.


  17. Silk Jan 15, 2018 / 4:10 pm

    I’m glad people appeared to find my contribution amusing, rather than annoying (and sorry to anyone who found it annoying).

    I was looking forward to the panel, and agitated for its return. But when it came to it, having seen the selection for the NZ series, I couldn’t bring myself to engage seriously about the performance, and the future. James Whittaker can’t be bothered. So why should I care?

    Liked by 4 people

    • Gareth Jan 15, 2018 / 5:29 pm

      I myself did my answers to the panel before the selection for the NZ series was announced. I’d probably have just got blitzed on absinthe if I’d waited and seen that utterly uninspiring selection.



          • northernlight71 Jan 15, 2018 / 11:31 pm

            Absinthe. The only substance that ever induced a lovely French girl to kiss me, a long time ago.

            Magic I tells ya. Magic.


          • thelegglance Jan 15, 2018 / 11:32 pm

            Hence the saying ‘absinthe makes the heart grow fonder’.


          • OscarDaBosca Jan 16, 2018 / 10:17 am

            I use that phrase on my wife, but she refuses to drink it anymore after a debauched evening in Barcelona.


  18. Rohan Jan 15, 2018 / 8:51 pm

    This comment from Gareth really irked me:

    “I’d tell Crane not to worry about the first innings – he’s there to mop up the tail, get overs and hopefully bowl well on days 4 and 5.”

    Not because I disagree with it, but because he is completely right, but even more so, it’s what should have been said to Rashid! Rashid should have been treated like this by Cook, Baylis, Moores and the MSM. Hell, there was even an article on the BBC website where the Yorkshire captain was interviewed about Rashid and he said exactly the above, but it was royally ignored by those inside cricket……

    How many more good bowlers will England destroy or sideline in favour of those whose face fits!

    Liked by 2 people

    • Rohan Jan 15, 2018 / 9:01 pm

      This was what Gale said in the BBC article on 20th Oct 2015:

      “In the first innings, we have such a good seam-bowling attack that we predominantly use them until the last three or four wickets,” said Gale.

      “I always bring Rash on when they are six or seven down because he’s best suited against the tail in the first innings. We encourage him to use his variations because tailenders really struggle to pick him.

      “In the second innings we set the field back and encourage him to spin the ball as hard as he can. I know he might bowl a few bad balls, but usually the outcome is he will pick up wickets.”

      Liked by 1 person

      • OscarDaBosca Jan 16, 2018 / 10:21 am

        Good captaincy that.
        Amazing a leg spinner that takes wickets in the second innings but goes for a few and bowls a few bad balls.
        Warne has a lot to answer for, his control was McGrath like, for a slower bowler, bad balls are going to be hit, but he bowled such few bad deliveries that he cursed the next few generations of leg spinners who are always going to judged by those ridiculously high standards.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Silk Jan 17, 2018 / 11:30 am

          But Gale was a good captain. When did England last have a captain who knew how to captain spinners?


  19. man in a barrel Jan 16, 2018 / 12:38 am

    Looking at India v Proteas, I wonder if India will be able to chase more than 250 in the last innings. Their cutting edge, Ashwin, is not getting through. This is boiling up nicely


    • oreston Jan 16, 2018 / 4:54 pm

      India were set 287 and are 35/3. Still trailing by 251 with Kohli gone (a nice scalp for debutant paceman Lungi Ngidi who trapped him LBW for 5). Interesting final day in prospect but South Africa surely have to be favourites.


      • oreston Jan 17, 2018 / 9:31 am

        Oh dear, India are playing a second innings worthy of recent England efforts. I don’t think the term “collapse” is strictly appropriate since they never really had much of a position to collapse from.


    • Sherwick Jan 16, 2018 / 3:07 pm

      Back with aplomb.


        • jomesy Jan 16, 2018 / 3:22 pm

          Genuine question: why would they want him?


          • quebecer Jan 16, 2018 / 3:53 pm

            My question is how exactly you make a fortune in the city. I genuinely don’t understand how this can happen to Paul Downton. I’m serious. What exactly did he do to amass this fortune, and can I?


          • jomesy Jan 16, 2018 / 8:47 pm

            I think he was an M&A guy. So they take a % of the size of the deal. Money for old rope if you’re, literally, there.


          • LordCanisLupus Jan 16, 2018 / 8:55 pm

            Put his name in Companies House and check out some of his “directorships”. Very interesting.


          • jomesy Jan 16, 2018 / 8:58 pm

            And, no, you can’t. Because you need a ring on your pinkie, establishing that you have “lineage”, preferably back to William the Conqueror, then you need to be a member (or at least on a waiting list) to a proper gentleman’s club, and even then you need some (in-bred) friends. If, if, you have all that and you played for England, then you may make a fortune in London even if you couldn’t piss in a pot when occasionally required to, know your own name in the morning without prompting (you’re probably not called “Darling”) or form your own views about what might be important in life or, indeed, what you are paid to fucking do. Before that, no. Know.


    • oreston Jan 16, 2018 / 4:24 pm

      Did he really make a “humiliating apology” for the “disinterested” comment? I don’t recall.


  20. Scrim Jan 17, 2018 / 11:16 am

    Stokes under investigation: suspended
    Stokes charged and awaiting trial: free to play

    Anyone able to explain that one for me?

    Liked by 1 person

  21. Silk Jan 17, 2018 / 11:32 am


    We couldn’t pick him when we didn’t know whether or not he’d be charged with something, so now he’s been charged with something we can pick him.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Rooto Jan 17, 2018 / 11:47 am

      “What? How long? Well, sod principles, we’re not going to wait all that time…”
      They bottled it.

      Liked by 1 person

  22. rpoultz Jan 17, 2018 / 2:55 pm

    Cutting to the chase here – Looking out of window = banishment and never playing for your country again. Charged with Affray = Play on

    Liked by 1 person

    • nonoxcol Jan 17, 2018 / 3:11 pm

      H/T Martin Johnson, as ever:
      Flight in a Tiger Moth – two more Tests after that series, ditched for good within 18 months
      Flight to Johannesburg (in some cases two) – picked again straight away, still playing in 1995, chairman of selectors, work for the ECB, etc.
      Only the board’s initials ever changed.


    • Mark Jan 17, 2018 / 3:35 pm

      “As the ECB acknowledged, it would not be “fair, reasonable or proportionate for Ben Stokes to remain unavailable for a further indeterminate period”.

      Fair, reasonable, or proportionate! Hello?……

      This is an organisation which compiled a Soviet style dossier on a former player which included such heinous crimes as looking out of the window, and whistling. They also ended said players career for crimes that are still unknown, and they are still too cowardly to make public.

      WTF would they know about being “fair, reasonable or proportionate?”


  23. nonoxcol Jan 17, 2018 / 3:18 pm

    Meanwhile, I expect SimonH will love this…

    Liked by 1 person

  24. Silk Jan 17, 2018 / 3:18 pm

    It’s not in any way related, but Shiny Toy really is a colossal , isn’t he?

    There was a handled-the-ball (now ‘Obstructed the field’) dismissal to which he twatted

    “The politically correct crew will say Rules are Rules… But let’s be honest this is a disgraceful way to claim a wicket.”

    WFT? What does being “politically correct” (I doubt Vaughan could explain what he means by the phase in any case) have to do with enforcing the laws of the game?

    What a …


    • oreston Jan 18, 2018 / 12:34 am

      Sadly I’m coming to the view, increasingly so with every new pronouncement from him, that he often literally doesn’t understand what it is he’s said.

      This so-called incident was a straightforward error, made while the ball was deemed still in play, by a young batsman who will doubtless never be dismissed that way again. Yes it’s a silly way to lose a wicket, but to criticise the fielding side for claiming it in the midst of a competitive international game is absurd.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s