• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

England begging for a draw, Manchester, 27th July 2025

J

jaydesh

U19 12th Man
There was only one thing Jadeja and Sundar did wrong. And that was to bat the remaining 10 overs just to rub salt into the wounds for the petulant behavior of England. The Poms are lucky it wasn't Virat on strike. I think many of them (to single a few out, Stokes, Duckett, Crawley, and Harry Brook, among others) have lost any respect they gained after their good sportsmanship at Lords.

I think this is the latest of the whole obsession from the English on spirit of cricket. It stems from a mindset that they have the monopoly over the quaint, simplistic traditions and norms, hence their audacity to be the moral arbiter. Many tend to focus too much on sentiments rather than ruthlessly winning, simply because they fear it rocks the boat too much, or disrupts the formalities with extra baggage. In essence, they are just too English at times, in the sense that they have a sense of fear of standing out from their supposed age old customs. But when the time has come for them to show grace, they fail to do so. It sort of reeks a pearl clutching entitlement that someone can challenge them at their own game.

When Stokes was putting his hand out to Jadeja, he was clearly doing it in front of cameras just so he can play victim. And then he disrespects the achievements of the opposition by asking if they'll get tons off Harry Brook (as if it was the batter's decision to give the ball to the ever punchable lad). And then Crawley and Duckett are even more hilarious, acting as if staying another 5 overs is a deterrence to their ability to sustain. In other words, "we couldn't get your wickets because we have pathetic bowlers, we dropped catches, the groundsmen of our country set up pitches worse than Pakistan, so we're going to blame you for making us stand around longer".

Can't wait for the Australian bowlers to pepper this lot. Time for them to realize the world doesn't revolve around them. They have no bigger monopoly on cricket than anyone else.
 
Last edited:
GIMH

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
cnerd123 said:
View attachment 48947

Bit low effort but still works
Click to expand...
Honestly, this is the most illogical **** that you’re all saying. Accepting that the game was drawn does not somehow make the idea that Stokes plays to win redundant. It’s fkn idiotic to pretend otherwise.

If people want to go at him because he was sulky about the lack of shaking on it, no problem with that even though it all seems a bit of an overreaction to me. But pretending this means he no longer plays for a draw is just buffoonery of the highest order
 
Spark

Spark

Global Moderator
jaydesh said:
I think this is the latest of the whole obsession from the English on spirit of cricket. It stems from a mindset that they have the monopoly over the quaint, simplistic traditions and norms, hence their audacity to be the moral arbiter. Many tend to focus too much on sentiments rather than ruthlessly winning, simply because they fear it rocks the boat too much, or disrupts the formalities with extra baggage.
Click to expand...
What I don't get in this case is that surely the spirit of cricket is just to let them get their hundreds; it doesn't matter for the result so let the oppo bats have their moment in the sun, in the same vein as applauding them when they do get their hundreds and shaking their hands as they walk off to congratulate them. Really gives the whole thing an "any tool at hand" vibe otherwise.
 
GIMH

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
Son Of Coco said:
The English treat banter and cricket in the same manner - they love it if they are on top, but the toys come out of the pram pretty quickly if they are not.
Click to expand...
No toys out of the pram. If stuff is clever or funny then it’s all good. Most of the ‘humour’ in this thread is subpar.
 
GIMH

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
Changing tack slightly. I think we all agree that India were within their rights not to shake hands. Does anyone actually have a problem with the fact he then chose to bowl Harry Brook?

It all felt a bit silly and bizarre. But I think in terms of staying for the hundreds, and not bowling the frontline attack, both teams did what was best for them. So I don’t have that much issue with it even if it was cricket at its weirdest.
 
S

Silly Point 2.0

U19 12th Man
jaydesh said:
There was only one thing Jadeja and Sundar did wrong. And that was to bat the remaining 10 overs just to rub salt into the wounds for the petulant behavior of England. The Poms are lucky it wasn't Virat on strike. I think many of them (to single a few out, Stokes, Duckett, Crawley, and Harry Brook, among others) have lost any respect they gained after their good sportsmanship at Lords.

I think this is the latest of the whole obsession from the English on spirit of cricket. It stems from a mindset that they have the monopoly over the quaint, simplistic traditions and norms, hence their audacity to be the moral arbiter. Many tend to focus too much on sentiments rather than ruthlessly winning, simply because they fear it rocks the boat too much, or disrupts the formalities with extra baggage. In essence, they are just too English at times, in the sense that they have a sense of fear of standing out from their supposed age old customs. But when the time has come for them to show grace, they fail to do so. It sort of reeks a pearl clutching entitlement that someone can challenge them at their own game.

When Stokes was putting his hand out to Jadeja, he was clearly doing it in front of cameras just so he can play victim. And then he disrespects the achievements of the opposition by asking if they'll get tons off Harry Brook (as if it was the batter's decision to give the ball to the ever punchable Yorkshire pig). And then Crawley and Duckett are even more hilarious, acting as if staying another 5 overs is a deterrence to their ability to sustain. In other words, "we couldn't get your wickets because we have pathetic bowlers, we dropped catches, the groundsmen of our country set up pitches worse than Pakistan, so we're going to blame you for making us stand around longer".

Can't wait for the Australian bowlers to pepper this lot. Time for them to realize the world doesn't revolve around them. They have no bigger monopoly on cricket than anyone else.
Click to expand...
Utter drivel especially the "punchable Yorkshire pig" bit. **** off. Nowt will get done, but reported anyway. And another one on here blocked
 
honestbharani

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
GIMH said:
Changing tack slightly. I think we all agree that India were within their rights not to shake hands. Does anyone actually have a problem with the fact he then chose to bowl Harry Brook?

It all felt a bit silly and bizarre. But I think in terms of staying for the hundreds, and not bowling the frontline attack, both teams did what was best for them. So I don’t have that much issue with it even if it was cricket at its weirdest.
Click to expand...
Mate, I dont think anyone has a problem with Stokes first asking if the game can be done or deciding not bowl his main bowlers. Its the moral grandstanding in between the two events, and some post, which makes them feel like these guys are entitled prats who deserve all the dirt thrown at them and more.

And you know I have been a Stokes and Bazball fan for however long now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top