Cricket (part dix)

Consider Clough's title winning side - weren't there just 12 players used all season? Nowadays every team will have used more than 12 players before the first game of the season is over.

MA has hit the nail on the head, but can I just add that sports scientists have exacerbated the trend. At the moment England have Archer, both Currans, Stone, Saqib and Fisher out with "stress fractures" and Woakes also missing. Back in the days of Trueman and Statham, I don't imagine anybody had even heard of stress fractures, let lone diagnosed one. Send today's sports scientist back to the 50's and 60's and they would probably have stopped Trueman, Statham et al from bowling together with many others.

the more you fine tune a bosy, the more likely it is to fail, but also the more you look for problems, the more likely you are to find them. If todays palyers just turned up at the pavilion after a good fry up, turned their arm over a couple of times and got on with playing, there would be far fewer on the physio's bench IM sure

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoff Parkstone

Consider Clough's title winning side - weren't there just 12 players used all season? Nowadays every team will have used more than 12 players before the first game of the season is over.

MA has hit the nail on the head, but can I just add that sports scientists have exacerbated the trend. At the moment England have Archer, both Currans, Stone, Saqib and Fisher out with "stress fractures" and Woakes also missing. Back in the days of Trueman and Statham, I don't imagine anybody had even heard of stress fractures, let lone diagnosed one. Send today's sports scientist back to the 50's and 60's and they would probably have stopped Trueman, Statham et al from bowling together with many others.

the more you fine tune a bosy, the more likely it is to fail, but also the more you look for problems, the more likely you are to find them. If todays palyers just turned up at the pavilion after a good fry up, turned their arm over a couple of times and got on with playing, there would be far fewer on the physio's bench IM sure

---

All fair points...although the point about Anderson and Broad still stands and their fitness records - particularly Jimmy’s - remain exemplary.

I wonder if modern day rugby - both RL and RU - is an exception to your comments about modern day athletes/players. It’s a game I played more of and at a higher level than any other, but I look at the size of the modern players and the collisions and doubt I’d bother these days.
Cleaner game these days but a lot more physical imo.

Struggling to remember a time when any side has gone from the hopelessness of 46-7 at lunch on the first day to being in complete command by the sixth session on day 2. Only England could allow that.
Only encouraging aspect has been the performance of Potts with the ball...worse than that...with the passing of Shane Warne and the retirement of Bumble, Sky’s coverage is nothing short of tedious. Pietersen may have been a fine batsman but imo he’s a bloody awful commentator.

We've lost Mikey, Bumble, Botham and Warner and it's England playing.
enough said!!

49-3!!!
Suspect it’s white smoke time as far as Ollie Pope is concerned...probably be replaced by Harry Brook.
Up to the old guard...Root, Bairstow and Stokes now.

Broad still our best bowler though.

Who’da thought at close on day 2.
Great comeback from Broad, Stokes, Foakes and, above all, Root.
Well done...stick or twist for Trent Bridge?

Probably stick. But I'd either bring Brook in for Bairstow, or for Pope with Bairstow moving up to 3

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoff Parkstone

Probably stick. But I'd either bring Brook in for Bairstow, or for Pope with Bairstow moving up to 3

---

Yep...my thoughts too. Odd that Pope had such a poor match but was probably responsible for the game changing moment with that run out of de Grandhomme. Leech for Parkinson if recovered?

Not for me, no. I'd have given Parky a go before Leach before the concussion