ThePortForum.com

LGTrotter wrote:

DRT wrote:

LGTrotter wrote:Cook once again had men out for the hook against tailenders with a ball that was still moving about, I'm thinking that Derek's sense of his captaincy is about right.

I haven't just been saying it for effect. The guy is useless as a leader of men. Utterly.

I think that he just can't get himself out of his tailspin, either with the captaincy or his batting. His determination (a laudable characteristic in most circumstances) is just making it harder for him to accept that he needs to go away.

I think we are saying the same thing. Imagine the scenario:

"He was a great leader of men right up until the point when he lost his head and marched them across the minefield".

No, he was not competent. He showed promise as a soldier but did not have the right stuff to lead his men into battle or out of harm's way once he was promoted above his ability.

Cook will never be a good leader. He might one day return to being a tremendous batsman.

I see this every day at work. People who are great at the technical aspects of a task being promoted into management roles on the assumption that if you are good at the doing you can make others do it. It rarely works.

djewesbury wrote:

LGTrotter wrote:

djewesbury wrote:I have been on the Riesling with my pudding in this rather nice cafe. Heading home for a Madeira now.

Picking up the unfounded stereotypical traits of humourless but efficient...

Hmm. Where is André?

Apologies, I withdraw this. But not the bit about you, you auld crust.

DRT wrote:Cook will never be a good leader. He might one day return to being a tremendous batsman.

I see this every day at work. People who are great at the technical aspects of a task being promoted into management roles on the assumption that if you are good at the doing you can make others do it. It rarely works.

Yes, that's about it really. And he keeps leading them into the minefield. And then just keeps going.

LGTrotter wrote:

djewesbury wrote:

LGTrotter wrote:

djewesbury wrote:I have been on the Riesling with my pudding in this rather nice cafe. Heading home for a Madeira now.

Picking up the unfounded stereotypical traits of humourless but efficient...

Hmm. Where is André?

Apologies, I withdraw this. But not the bit about you, you auld crust.

X

djewesbury wrote:

LGTrotter wrote:

djewesbury wrote:

LGTrotter wrote:

djewesbury wrote:I have been on the Riesling with my pudding in this rather nice cafe. Heading home for a Madeira now.

Picking up the unfounded stereotypical traits of humourless but efficient...

Hmm. Where is André?

Apologies, I withdraw this. But not the bit about you, you auld crust.

X

Get a room.

DRT wrote:Get a room.

Got one, going there now with my latest 'special interest magazine', a copy of Decanter, plus wine awards bonus thing.

I've got one too.

LGTrotter wrote:

DRT wrote:Get a room.

Got one, going there now with my latest 'special interest magazine', a copy of Decanter, plus wine awards bonus thing.

Did it arrive this week? Don't think I've got mine yet so now have something [else] to look forward to when I get home.

djewesbury wrote:I've got one too.

Yes, we know, but you're strapped to the underside of the bed rehearsing your best "It is I, L'Eclaire" line in case they come for you.

X

X u 2

DRT wrote:X u 2

LGTrotter wrote:...a copy of Decanter, plus wine awards bonus thing.

I have read the wine awards thing. I thought it was rubbish. I haven't got it to hand to be able to recount examples of what was rubbish, but I recall being bemused by the scarcity of wines assessed in some (many?) categories. And when you read the part about how they undertake the award process, it broadly seems to be: some people apply in a category, we taste, we make awards. So it seems to me that this is not really an attempt to find and assess what might be the outstanding wines in a category, but a half hearted process which any self-promoting producer can probably take advantage of.

Sitting on my rudeboot (Google it before you make the obvious joke) in the middle of the Plötzensee, I hear an alert on my phone. And I know, I just know, that it's Cook. OK, I'm with you now. This is his last series as captain. Whether we should switch mid-series I'm not sure. I think we'd be sure to lose then. Better to hobble on till the end and in the meantime Moores can have a chat with him.

Bell.

From the TMS feed; Barney: Yet another soft dismissal for Bell, he has been appalling since the end of the summer Ashes. Last home Ashes was the only time Bell has consistently gotten tough runs, rest of his career he has flattered to deceive. Time running out surely?

Thank you Barney (whoever you are) well put.

djewesbury wrote:I hear an alert on my phone. And I know, I just know, that it's Cook. OK, I'm with you now.

About time.

No sign of rain in London so likely to see the session out. The only question is which side will be at the crease at stumps?

I think we've answered that one. Surely.

djewesbury wrote:I think we've answered that one. Surely.

There is still an hour to go

Ton up for Ballance.

At this point in their innings, India were 20ish runs ahead and had lost 3 2 more wickets. I (still) think England are in front.

DRT wrote:

djewesbury wrote:Still you two moan. I'm looking forward to what should be an amazing game. This won't be easy for England to bat on. By the time I get there on Day 4, who will be at the crease when the first session starts? It could be the last day.

Right, that's a quiz, who will be the facing batsman at the start of Day 4?

Rahane.

I've been cheated by a blind umpire, a bowler with a history of cheating and a decision by India that has deservedly come back to haunt them. It's a conspiracy!

Harrumph.

Very well poised for an exciting day tomorrow for anyone lucky enough to have a ticket

What will England have to chase?

DRT says 273.

DRT wrote:Very well poised for an exciting day tomorrow for anyone lucky enough to have a ticket

What will England have to chase?

DRT says 273.

Poised is the mot juste. The chase will be for 296 runs. England will not make it. Somebody got the facing batsman right I think, now who was it?

djewesbury wrote:I'll say Kumar.

We have a winner!

Can someone explain to me why Stokes is in the side in preference to a spinner or one of the other long line of medium pacers who are on the edge of the England team?

Because England are always looking for batting having correctly diagnosed that their middle order is forever collapsing. Rather than deal with the actual issue (the batting) they spread the problem around by putting in folks who can do both a bit but can't quite do either.

And what other spinner did you have in mind?

LGTrotter wrote:

djewesbury wrote:I'll say Kumar.

We have a winner!

Apologies, dunno why I said this, probably been at the pop. Following a DRS review I see that I was wrong.

No DRS in this game. Umpire's call.

…and the Wallace & Grommet Award goes to the member in seat J16…
Quite splendid.

Please, please, please, please don't get out…

They are not listening, Daniel. Shout louder!

Owen, (Bell bowled for 1) over to you...

No, this is ok. This is good tense close-fought stuff. Bell is a tw@t but Cook's holding on. Good.

Tapatalk users may not be able to see the edit.

22 runs from 93 balls and then out in the usual manner. Disgraceful.

Could all be over tonight! Last time we see Cook as captain at Lord's?!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

benread wrote:Last time we see Cook as captain at Lord's?!

Surely.

DRT wrote:They are not listening, Daniel. Shout louder!

Owen, (Bell bowled for 1) over to you...

Bell. And I have yet to hear anyone talking about his place. Cook may prove to be the shield which protects Bell long enough for him to produce another career saving innings. Somebody else will have to score a century first in a game in which the runs will make no material difference to the outcome, obvs.

DRT wrote:

benread wrote:Last time we see Cook as captain at Lord's?!

Surely.

I think this is by no means a done deal. I bet they give him another game.

New captain by Sunday? I think not.

But he won't captain at Lord's again, no.

Broad as captain?

Good days play though.

djewesbury wrote:Broad as captain?

I don't know that he would do a better job. On reflection I doubt he could do a worse one.

Yes, we had a good day and will be back in the morning. Very exciting.

LGTrotter wrote:

djewesbury wrote:Broad as captain?

I don't know that he would do a better job. On reflection I doubt he could do a worse one.

I'm not convinced he'd be amazing. But what other options?

djewesbury wrote:Yes, we had a good day and will be back in the morning. Very exciting.

What time will England be bowled out then? Or is that too negative?

Yes. It is.

If you believed for once, Owen, we might win.

And if you'd been sitting next to the Indian headcase next to us your desire would have been sharpened. He yelled all through the day. A one-man barmy army. As someone half-Indian, I sometimes have (very slightly) mixed allegiances. But that put me firmly in the England camp.

Off to dinner now. TNs to follow of Chasse-Spleen 2000 and Ni94.

djewesbury wrote:If you believed for once, Owen, we might win.

Oh yes, blame me for the England cricket team. Think of me as a conduit for the dressing room because they (England) looked like they had their heads down for most of the last two sessions.

OK, I have just removed my brain washed it in England juice and dried it with the cross of Saint George, now I BELIEVE.

Until about four o'clock.

I think England will win.