From Newsgroup: uk.sport.cricket

Well that came as a surprise - not the resignation so much as the timing
of it. You'd have expected that, if he was going to resign, it would
have been either after he was suspended for the second Test or else at
the end of the summer after the series against Pakistan.

I don't think that Harry Brook is really ready for the Test captaincy
yet, but I can't see Joe Root being willing to act as a stop-gap for a
second time; doing it for one Test is one thing, doing it for a series
or more would be a lot more demanding. I don't suppose the way that the
Oval Test went would have exactly encouraged. Also, even allowing for
how weakened England were for that game, the way he captained didn't
exactly suggest that he was the right man for the job.

There don't seem to be any other captaincy candidates in the current
England side. Outside the Engtland team, Haseeb Hameed has been very
successful leading Nottinghamshire and has been scoring well. But even
though he seems a less defensive batsman than he was earlier in his
career, it's hard to see England bringing him back to open in place of
Gay, certainly not while McCullum is still coach. (Though it could be
that McCullum might be forced out before long.)
--
John Hall

"The covers of this book are too far apart."
Ambrose Bierce (1842-1914)
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.sport.cricket

In spite of yesterday having been the first day of Wimbledon, as well as
the football World Cup continuing, the first seven pages of my paper's
sports section this morning were devoted to England's woes. I suppose
nothing is more newsworthy than abject failure.

In complete contrast, in the "100 years ago" feature they reprinted the
report on the final day's play in the Lord's Test between England and Australia, during which England were able to declare at 475-3, though
they couldn't force a win. In that match, England's batting order began
Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Woolley and Hendren, arguably the strongest top four
we have ever had.
--
John Hall

"The covers of this book are too far apart."
Ambrose Bierce (1842-1914)
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.sport.cricket

On 1/07/2026 3:03 am, John Hall wrote:

In spite of yesterday having been the first day of Wimbledon, as well as
the football World Cup continuing, the first seven pages of my paper's
sports section this morning were devoted to England's woes. I suppose
nothing is more newsworthy than abject failure.

In complete contrast, in the "100 years ago" feature they reprinted the report on the final day's play in the Lord's Test between England and Australia, during which England were able to declare at 475-3, though
they couldn't force a win. In that match, England's batting order began Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Woolley and Hendren, arguably the strongest top four
we have ever had.

475-3 .... a pretty decent effort in any innings let alone on the last
day of a test!
--
Daniel70
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.sport.cricket

In article <1125ocg$2k55u$1@dont-email.me>, Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> writes

On 1/07/2026 3:03 am, John Hall wrote:

In spite of yesterday having been the first day of Wimbledon, as well as
the football World Cup continuing, the first seven pages of my paper's
sports section this morning were devoted to England's woes. I suppose
nothing is more newsworthy than abject failure.

In complete contrast, in the "100 years ago" feature they reprinted the
report on the final day's play in the Lord's Test between England and
Australia, during which England were able to declare at 475-3, though
they couldn't force a win. In that match, England's batting order began
Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Woolley and Hendren, arguably the strongest top four
we have ever had.

475-3 .... a pretty decent effort in any innings let alone on the last
day of a test!

Well a lot of the runs would have been scored on the previous evening.
And I'm pretty sure that it was a three-day Test, so they needed to get
a move on to have any hope of forcing a result. As it was, the first
four Tests in the series were all draws, so I think it was agreed that
the fifth Test at The Oval should be "timeless", and England famously
won it. After that, it had become clear that the pitches in England had
become too good for batting to make 3-day Tests against Australia
sensible, and the length was increased to four days. (It wouldn't become
five days till after WW2. In Australia between the wars, all the Tests
were "timeless".)
--
John Hall

"The covers of this book are too far apart."
Ambrose Bierce (1842-1914)
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.sport.cricket

On 02/07/2026 16:42, John Hall wrote:

In article <1125ocg$2k55u$1@dont-email.me>, Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> writes

On 1/07/2026 3:03 am, John Hall wrote:

In spite of yesterday having been the first day of Wimbledon, as well as >>> the football World Cup continuing, the first seven pages of my paper's
sports section this morning were devoted to England's woes. I suppose
nothing is more newsworthy than abject failure.

In complete contrast, in the "100 years ago" feature they reprinted the
report on the final day's play in the Lord's Test between England and
Australia, during which England were able to declare at 475-3, though
they couldn't force a win. In that match, England's batting order began
Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Woolley and Hendren, arguably the strongest top four
we have ever had.

475-3 .... a pretty decent effort in any innings let alone on the last
day of a test!

Well a lot of the runs would have been scored on the previous evening.
And I'm pretty sure that it was a three-day Test, so they needed to get
a move on to have any hope of forcing a result.

297-2 overnight. That was in reply to Australia's 383. England declared
at lunch after facing 52 overs in 2.5 hours in the morning session, then bowled 88 overs in 3.75 hours (assuming that tea was 15 minutes, as
lunch was 45). These days they often don't get 88 overs into a 6.5-hour day.

https://www.sportstats.com.au/zArchive/1920s/1926EA/1926EA2bbb1.pdf7
--
David North
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.sport.cricket

On Fri, 3 Jul 2026 08:01:37 +0100, David North
<nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

On 02/07/2026 16:42, John Hall wrote:

In article <1125ocg$2k55u$1@dont-email.me>, Daniel70
<daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> writes

On 1/07/2026 3:03 am, John Hall wrote:

In spite of yesterday having been the first day of Wimbledon, as well as >>>> the football World Cup continuing, the first seven pages of my paper's >>>> sports section this morning were devoted to England's woes. I suppose
nothing is more newsworthy than abject failure.

In complete contrast, in the "100 years ago" feature they reprinted the >>>> report on the final day's play in the Lord's Test between England and
Australia, during which England were able to declare at 475-3, though
they couldn't force a win. In that match, England's batting order began >>>> Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Woolley and Hendren, arguably the strongest top four >>>> we have ever had.

475-3 .... a pretty decent effort in any innings let alone on the last
day of a test!

Well a lot of the runs would have been scored on the previous evening.
And I'm pretty sure that it was a three-day Test, so they needed to get
a move on to have any hope of forcing a result.

297-2 overnight. That was in reply to Australia's 383. England declared
at lunch after facing 52 overs in 2.5 hours in the morning session, then >bowled 88 overs in 3.75 hours (assuming that tea was 15 minutes, as
lunch was 45). These days they often don't get 88 overs into a 6.5-hour day.

https://www.sportstats.com.au/zArchive/1920s/1926EA/1926EA2bbb1.pdf7

I remember when the local 50 over regulations introduced the final
over had to be started no more than 3 hr 15 min from the first ball.
One club Victoria cc had new sight screens and a left right batting
partnership left them 9 overs short at the cut off. The penalty was 6
runs per over.

max.it
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2