ThePortForum.com

And all the while we chatter the scoreboard ticks along...

Ian Bell anyone?

I went to bed at lunch when England were 50-something for 0 and looked to be cruising. It seems the cucumber sandwiches were poisoned.

I listened till 4 am. I heard Cook go. Oh well, he got a half century and didn't throw his wicket away. I heard Carberry go. Oh well, he'd blunted the new ball and been a valuable anchor in the innings. I heard Root go. I sighed. I heard Bell go. I laughed. I heard KP steady the ship.
I looked at the score when I woke up. This is a family show so I'll not share what I said.
They need shooting.

I made it until Bell went. or do I mean , I certainly wasn't .

LGTrotter wrote:I made it until Bell went. or do I mean , I certainly wasn't .

Yes yes. Enough. Anyone would think you weren't mad about him.
The thing is both Root (ro) and Bell (c) fell to Johnson. What on earth - what? - were they THINKING? I thought Stokes did ok. But nobody ever really truly gets in. Cook was in. But, as much as I'll say Carberry did an opener's job by seeing off the new ball, I think Cook needed him to be more active and rotating the strike more.
I don't know what we do now.

I know Root was chastised for a run out but I thought he was beaten by a brilliant bit of cricket from Johnson and there is no shame in that. England did need to keep the scoreboard moving. Cook seemed to have found a bit of his mojo. Carberry I am less sure about, however I think he needed support from the senior players, eg when Cook was around it didn't much matter that he never scored a run. Too many starts and not enough scores is my verdict on Carberry. Having said that I think that other batting matters are more pressing; where do we find a number 3 to replace Trott? He seems to have been the glue that held things together.

I am still of the opinion that Australia ain't all that, which sort of makes it worse.

LGTrotter wrote:where do we find a number 3 to replace Trott? He seems to have been the glue that held things together.

I said this about 477 pages ago and was derided for same.
I think Root should have known better than to run when he'd given the ball straight to MJ at mid-on. Surely it's lesson one?
We'll just have to mess around with our batting order until we get some new faces in the summer. I don't know that there's anybody else available for Sydney. I predict a very experimental squad lifted straight from the Lions for the Sri Lanka games at the beginning of the season.
But to go back to my mantra, we need a fast bowler.

EDIT: perhaps Trott will be available for the home season?

jdaw1 wrote:A question for the experts where did England go wrong? In particular, arrange the following in order from ‘wrongest’ to ‘least wrong’: •Â batting; •Â bowling; •Â fielding.

LGTrotter wrote:1)Batting
2)Batting
3)Batting

I’m convinced.

You are convinced on the basis of what is visible, that which is most immediately above the surface. But this not just about batting. Their batting is nothing remarkable. But they have Johnson. The only difference between Australia in our summer and Australia in theirs.

djewesbury wrote:The only difference between Australia in our summer and Australia in theirs.

Not true. In our summer Bell turned up more than once - you might remember a double-century? - and others put on good solid batting performances. In their summer Bell and others have been rubbish. Yes, Johnson has been remarkable, but most of the time he appears to be shooting fish in a barrel and the fish look like they are expecting to be shot.

I think the principle difference between our summer and their summer is confidence. Australia expected to be beaten in our summer and didn't have the confidence to push their game enough to win, which they almost did more than once. In this series England crumbled at the very beginning of the first test and haven't recovered. Australia's confidence is sky high and most of the English team have their chins nailed to their chests expecting to be blown away as soon as they take a risk. Time to man-up or go home and let some enthusiastic youngsters have a pop.

In response to your thoughts Derek I would say; yes, yes, yes and yes.

Daniel I think we shall just have to agree to disagree. Johnson has been the bowler to do the damage, even the anticipation of him seems to take wickets at the other end. But that is why Derek is right about shape up or ship out. Johnson bowls very short bursts and will take wickets but when he has been played properly he does not look so fearsome. He has exposed the England tail which for too long we have relied on to get us out of a hole. I think it is OK that 8,9 and 10 look terrified and get out cheap. Not so for those who are paid to bat. It's the batting. Yes the bowling has flaws, the fielding has been erratic and the plans seem to have been devised by a stump but; it's the batting.

The rest of the Australian attack has been humdrum at best, Why no runs against them? however their confidence is up and I do love arguing with you about this. And everything else.

This is chicken-and-egg stuff though; do we bat badly because they're bowling well? I will concede another major difference - I don't know the reason but Siddle is dramatically different. But it's the same thing.
Might it just be that each team plays to their own strengths at home?

Shape up and ship out is all very well. We've got one Test left and the only players available will be those in Aus for the ODIs or those playing grade cricket. I think at this stage we let it go, hope that Trott is available at home and look for a new number 2. Root returns to 6. The problem is not the team for next summer though, it's the touring team for winter.
We have a lot of meaningless pyjama cricket coming up: a non-Test tour of the Windies (what's the point?) and the World Cup. None of that is helpful.

djewesbury wrote:This is chicken-and-egg stuff though; do we bat badly because they're bowling well? I will concede another major difference - I don't know the reason but Siddle is dramatically different. But it's the same thing.
Might it just be that each team plays to their own strengths at home?

That last point is true, it is always hard to win in Australia and our bowling attack looks great in English conditions.

I do not think that your opinions should be ignored, they should be ridiculed and derided first.

I'm going out now so you can take your time in composing a riposte which has Julian's hand hovering over his green pen, but not quite reaching for it.

You are a nannyjack and a pipsqueak.
More follows.

LGTrotter wrote:In response to your thoughts Derek I would say; yes, yes, yes and yes.

I am available for the role of President of the Selection Committee if required.

DRT wrote:

LGTrotter wrote:In response to your thoughts Derek I would say; yes, yes, yes and yes.

I am available for the role of President of the Selection Committee if required.

Oh get a Board Room you two.

djewesbury wrote:Shape up and ship out is all very well. We've got one Test left and the only players available will be those in Aus for the ODIs or those playing grade cricket. I think at this stage we let it go, hope that Trott is available at home and look for a new number 2.

As Owen isn't here to step-up I think a youngster (me) should seize the moment and have a go.

I disagree with Daniel. This test series has gone. The fourth test is likely to be another defeat. Letting the fifth test go the same way without experimenting is a waste of valuable time.

Daniel's "let it go" statement suggests that 5-0 is now expected and acceptable, which is a reasonable conclusion to come to given recent performances. But why lose the final test by going through the motions rather than taking the opportunity to blood some new bucks, especially if they are already in the country? Better to lose with those youngsters having gained some experience on the big stage than allowing a bunch of has-beens humiliate themselves again.

The senior players who have not performed should be man enough to admit it, step aside, and encourage their young team mates to gain some experience. They don't have to retire, they just need to recognise the situation for what it is, look at the big picture and do the right thing. Some honesty from the selectors and management could help this: "We have lost the series badly so have decided to use the fifth test as a means of experimenting with some new ideas and allowing some new players to gain experience". It doesn't need to include the words dropped, sacked or retired.

As a final reminder: I disagree with Daniel.

Sigh.
A Test Match in Australia at the end of a dead rubber, when the senior players are fed up and offering no leadership, is a terrible place to give someone their first cap. If they play badly (as they most likely will) they'll be marked by it and we'll be back to 1989. Fiddling around whimsically with fantasy teams ("let's try Carruthers with the gloves!") achieves nothing.
This will take time. It will be complicated. It may be that there are some players who didn't play well who are worth persevering with and others who have had their time. But that isn't the priority in Sydney. I'm not saying we forget about it, but playing the Under-13 XI is not a good plan.
Sometimes sticking with what is not working makes more sense than coming up with bright ideas.
As for Lemuel Gengulphus ("there is some raw work pulled at the font from time to time"), I'll deal with you later. If at all.

[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=69547#p69547]Here[/url] djewesbury wrote:You are a nannyjack and a pipsqueak.

I thoroughly approve of these insults  even if they are typical of a jejune pediculous troglodyte such as yourself.

PS: my dictionary doesn’t have ‘nannyjack’. Please sir, !?

(Yes, I know. Glove thrown down. Glove picked up. It’s going to be messy.)

jdaw1 wrote:

[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=69547#p69547]Here[/url] djewesbury wrote:You are a nannyjack and a pipsqueak.

I thoroughly approve of these insults even if they are typical of a jejune pediculous troglodyte such as yourself.

PS: my dictionary doesn’t have ‘nannyjack’. Please sir, !?

(Yes, I know. Glove thrown down. Glove picked up. It’s going to be messy.)

Jejune. A wonderful word. Best used by Woody Allen in Love and Death.
Nannyjack. A made-up word. But quite wonderfully evoking Owen at his whinnying, bleating, apron-bothering very worst.

Entertainingly insulting is fine. From which you stray.

jdaw1 wrote:Entertainingly insulting is fine. From which you stray.

He has locked our relationship into these mutually dependent subject positions. I find myself drawn in by his bloodlust.
It's too much, I can't live like this any more, the shame is hard to bear, I want to change. I admit it.
I want things to go back to the way they were, exchanging the names of apples and recalling the ports that Lord Peter drank. It's too late though. Everything has changed.

DRT wrote:

djewesbury wrote:Shape up and ship out is all very well. We've got one Test left and the only players available will be those in Aus for the ODIs or those playing grade cricket. I think at this stage we let it go, hope that Trott is available at home and look for a new number 2.

As Owen isn't here to step-up I think a youngster (me) should seize the moment and have a go.

I well remember your double hundred against a world eleven. And the devastation caused by your 'wrong 'un' is still is spoken of with a shudder by Australian youth.

djewesbury wrote:But quite wonderfully evoking Owen at his whinnying, bleating, apron-bothering very worst.

What does the word 'projection' mean to you?
I'm sorry I know I shouldn't, I shall respond like Carberry from now on. I still think it's a sexual chemistry thing for me and the great and magnificent Daniel.

See? He's playing me like a puppet.

I have just been to consult my local prophet in a cave (who once played against Nasser, admittedly he was hopelessly outclassed and Nasser was 12) and his opinion was broadly that of Derek's; namely ditch the excess baggage and try out some young 'uns, telling them to do what they like but have some fun. I have some reservations about trying out a new spinner now though. Monty has to go though. That fielding...

LGTrotter wrote:local prophet!Derek

I suppose if the cap fits

DRT wrote:

LGTrotter wrote:You are on fire! Are you any good with horse racing? What do you think of Sprinter Sacre at Kempton?

No chance. Bumped its knee on the way into the horsebox this evening and my sources tell me the jockey is under instruction not to try.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/horse-racing/25535267
Now this is getting a bit wierd.

Gentleman, start your engines!

How many over will it take before we have a winner of the fourth test?

DRT says 64.

DRT wrote:Gentleman, start your engines!

How many over will it take before we have a winner of the fourth test?

DRT says 64.

Lord, that's well into the evening session.
DJ says 43.

DRT wrote:Gentleman, start your engines!

How many over will it take before we have a winner of the fourth test?

DRT says 64.

Did you consult the oracle or only the entrails of a bird?

As you are the man that put the curse on Sprinter Sacre I must guess sixty-five.

LGTrotter wrote:Did you consult the oracle or only the entrails of a bird?

I read it in the crust of whatever I am drinking that evening.

djewesbury wrote:Lord, that's well into the evening session.

Seriously, it has just been some lucky guessing. There is no need to call me Lord.

DRT wrote:

LGTrotter wrote:Did you consult the oracle or only the entrails of a bird?

I read it in the crust of whatever I am drinking that evening.

I note that like all good fortune tellers you do not suggest who actually will win. But I have seen a swarm of bees among our standards. A mighty nation will fall!

Just to be clear, my guess was 64 overs into day 4, not 64 overs into the Australian 2nd innings.

Is it true that we can’t catch?

jdaw1 wrote:Is it true that we can’t catch?

No. Now 64-1.

jdaw1 wrote:Is it true that we can’t catch?

England fielding has taken a dip recently, but when teams are on a losing streak they drop catches, get on the wrong end of umpires decisions,everything. Which is what is happening to England right now.

LGTrotter wrote:

jdaw1 wrote:Is it true that we can’t catch?

England fielding has taken a dip recently, but when teams are on a losing streak they drop catches, get on the wrong end of umpires decisions,everything. Which is what is happening to England right now.

Earlier, DRT wrote:

djewesbury wrote:Australia's confidence is sky high and most of the English team have their chins nailed to their chests expecting to be blown away

We are not disagreeing here. It is difficult to catch a ball coming from the sky with your chin nailed to your chest.

DRT wrote:Just to be clear, my guess was 64 overs into day 4, not 64 overs into the Australian 2nd innings.

27 overs bowled by lunch and only 86 runs required. Run rate is 4.2 and needs to fall to 2.3 for my guess to win.

I think this one is Daniel's.

How long does lunch last?

Didn't see that till lunch was over. 40 mins.

Just learned something interesting about Jeeves from Vic Marks.

Ed Smith is a bit of a worry.

LGTrotter wrote:Just learned something interesting about Jeeves from Vic Marks.

Percy Jeeves?

DRT wrote:

LGTrotter wrote:Just learned something interesting about Jeeves from Vic Marks.

Percy Jeeves?

The very chap.

Smith is better than Vaughan any day.

LGTrotter wrote:

DRT wrote:

LGTrotter wrote:Just learned something interesting about Jeeves from Vic Marks.

Percy Jeeves?

The very chap.

Thought so. No more to be said

I'm sure Daniel already knows.

Sorry to interrupt the excitement of England capitulating but I thought you should know I have just had my first mince pie of the festive season. A Sainsbury's Taste the Difference, and you really could.

djewesbury wrote:Smith is better than Vaughan any day.

Oh yes. But I did enjoy Ed trying to explain to Boycott how to uppercut Johnson. Boycott sounded like a large machine into which a stone had fallen.