What a gift in the cricket.
Miss catch, miss stumps twice after dropping the ball and then an over throw to give them the win.
Idiot!

agreed!

seconded

oranje boom!

thirded

Why Anderson was not saved I will never understand.

Fourthded!!! 8)

if you think it was down to one over at the end of the game, you know nothing about cricket.
it was lost by the pedestrian run scoring by england

He still had a chance to close it out. But yes, Englad took ages to fire up!

I reckon Miss Catch and Miss Stumps need a damned good spanking!!

I was there as well.

CaptainFlashheart – Member

I was there as well.

Obviously your fault then CFH

Very Harsh

7 runs required off the last over in 20-20 and it’s the bowlers fault england lost?

3 tough chances and no backing up.

Very good bowling imo

Fifthed.

Come on, you can’t seriously blame Broad for losing that one?

Yes he missed a couple of chances to win it, but when your batsmen only hit 60 runs in the second half of the innings, with just 13 runs off the last two overs FFS, that’s where you can really lay the blame! 🙄

That’s one of the things with Twenty20, it levels the playing field a bit and does make for more exciting contests… it’s not really cricket I don’t think, but it’s a good sport in it’s own right 😀

I’m not sure why England were bowling round the wicket though.

Right arm bowler bowling round the wicket removes the possibility of a LBW, bowled, caught behind and is relying on the batsmen missing the ball.The wicket keeper can’t stand up as well. I can’t see how it is effective in the slightest. Makes for pretty ineffective bowling. I don’t blame Broad at all, it was a strategy decision made by the coaching team.

Broad is one of the most outstanding players we have at the mo….the loss was not down to him…..

Steve-Austin “I’m not sure why England were bowling round the wicket though” – It makes it more difficult to play the ball to the on (leg) side (hence you can load the fielding positions on the off side). Additionally it almost impossible to bowl a wide – anything behind the legs, even if it almost hits the leg stump would be given as a wide and that is more likey bowling over the wicket

No doubt Broad had a rush of blood re. the overthows and must carry some responsibility, however the game shouldn’t have been in the balance at that stage and that was down to the England batsmen.

catches win matches…

It makes it more difficult to play the ball to the on (leg) side (hence you can load the fielding positions on the off side). Additionally it almost impossible to bowl a wide – anything behind the legs, even if it almost hits the leg stump would be given as a wide and that is more likey bowling over the wicket

It makes it more difficult to play the ball to the on (leg) side (hence you can load the fielding positions on the off side). Additionally it almost impossible to bowl a wide – anything behind the legs, even if it almost hits the leg stump would be given as a wide and that is more likey bowling over the wicket

yes i agree it makes it hard to bowl a leg side wide. i knew that, and i suppose i agree that you can have more fielders on the off side, BUT you lose the possibility of lbw, caught behind and a bowled. the general idea is to take wickets. Broad and Anderson are both strike bowlers. both bowl fast, straight and both get a lot of wickets either bowled, lbw and caught behind. the strategy to bowl round the wicket makes them toothless tigers. England may have restricted the amount of leg side runs, but they didn’t take enough wickets!!! catches win matches is the oft used phrase. i never saw “defensive bowling wins matches” They made a strategic mistake in the bowling.
not to mention the complacent batting.

20-20 cricket?

Is that like rounders with one hand, one bounce?

one hand, one bounce?

That raised quite a laugh when someone in the crowd yelled “ONE HAND, ONE BOUNCE!” as a ball dropped just short of the fielder!

Around the wicket definitely has pros and cons. In normal circumstances you can load the field on the offside and prevent boundaries. However in this case 6 singles was enough for England to not win the game, hence boundaries were largely irrelevant. We needed dot balls and with Holland going to run anything that basically meant a wicket – and while we missed a hard C&B and direct hit run outs we basically ruled ourselves out of bowled / lbw.

2 other things interested me.

Foster, clearly the best keeper in the country was prepared to stand up, even bowling rtw. Incredibly hard but makes the run to the wk impossible and potentially allows a run out without a direct hit. Very hard to do but he was prepared to, and you could set 3rd man fine in case it gets through.

Second – decision seems to have been made that if there was a chance of a run out and a straight win, England would risk it. If Broad had held the ball, would have been a tie and a one over slog-off. Surely we’d back ourselves in that? It seems inconceivable that decision wasn’t taken already (ie it wasn’t left to Broad to decide in the heat of the moment – when I skippered at Club level that kind of decision would have been taken before the ball was bowled). So OK, the decision was made that we’d go straight for the win, but was that the right one?

Well, he made up for it yesterday!