Posted by But complaining about it is even more unacceptable. If England didn’t have quite so many eggs in the basket marked ‘steady accuracy’ things might be rather different.
A truly fast bowler would be nice. A leg-spinner going for runs but making the occasional breakthrough would be handy. A bit more right-arm fast-medium over the wicket however is nothing more than equine floggery post mortem.
It’s not like they didn’t have warning. The first Test pitch was a flatty, while the 2009 tour saw three high-scoring draws, including one in which the Windies made 749-9. Such conditions don’t make for great cricket, but nor, arguably, does England’s current modus operandi with the ball.
And to make matters worse, we’ve just used two Latin phrases in one article. How much more boring could things be? The answer is none. None more boring.
Nil desperandum carborundum illegitimi.
Its all Greek & Latin to me…
Who are you calling a bastard?
Whomesoever mught be grinding you down, KC. 😉
OY, you lot:
De quibus dicitur – ergo adulteri hoc bastardus bastardus?
Anderson V-III-III-III
Jonathan Trott nihil.
According to Cricinfo, this is England’s first test win overseas since November 2012.
December 2012. Third Test v India.
My favourite part was when the Guardian whinged about Cook’s batting.
It’s a bit of a non-stat, that December 2012 one, considering that this is only the third overseas test series since December 2012, the other two being Kiwiland early in 2013 (all matches drawn) and the series we don;t talk about in the Winter of 2013/14.
The lack of overseas test cricket in all that time is the real shocker of a stat.
A sense of foreboding remains about the coming summer, though, especially given that last couple of overseas series results.
Still, yesterday was an unexpected treat; Daisy and I had resigned ourselves to a probable bore draw day for Day Five, after watching the final chapters of Day Four on Friday evening.
Stats are stats, Ged. It’s a fact that they hadn’t won overseas since December 2012. There’s no such thing as a non-stat. It’s the context and tone in which it is reported which can make it misleading.
So there.