The cricket thread

earwighoney

crunchman said:

earwighoney said:

 

Something else I'd like to add which you already addressed is the appointment of Ed Smith, which IMO is the issue of cronyism which seems to rotting English cricket. 

Genuinely I can't even think of any other sport where two of the highest ranked positions in the game have gone to people with absolutely no experience (Ed Smith & Andy Strauss) 

Aren't they both old boys of prestigious public schools?

They both played together at Middlesex. 

Heartfeltdawn

earwighoney said:

Great post. 

Something else I'd like to add which you already addressed is the appointment of Ed Smith, which IMO is the issue of cronyism which seems to rotting English cricket. 

Genuinely I can't even think of any other sport where two of the highest ranked positions in the game have gone to people with absolutely no experience (Ed Smith & Andy Strauss) 

I'll talk about Strauss and Smith in a bit but first you have to remember where the power is now, and the reminder is hereby prodivded by the ECB thrmselves: 

https://www.ecb.co.uk/about-us/about-the-ecb   

"A lifelong cricket fan, Colin has together with Tom Harrison overseen a period of success for the ECB since 2015. This includes significant governance reforms and the move toa fully independent and more diverse Board that is representative of the whole game. He also helped pave the way for The Hundred, ECB’s new and exciting 100-ball competition launching in 2020."

Graves became deputy chair in 2013 before ascending to the full throne in 2015. Harrison came in in early 2015, Strauss came later. The board changes to something more diverse and independent was there to wrest power away from some of the counties, the two most vocally critical of the ECB now being Somerset and Surrey (remember when Surrey won the CC and Graves pulled out of the trophy presentation? That shit speaks volumes). Think of the legal problems George Dobell, a passionate supporter of county cricket, has been having with the thin-skinned Graves. I can't recall any other cricket journalist ending up in Private Eye quite so often for doing nothing wrong. 

Strauss as captain wasn't remonstrative or in your face. In my view, he was brought in as the first director of cricket because those above him knew they wouldn't get any shit from him. Graves and Harrison have presided over the shambles of Durham being heavily punished whilst Glamorgan got away with absolute financial murder, the fallout of the fucking awful international match bidding process, the ruination of the first-class schedule, pushing T-Hun over established competitions, the complete failure to improve women's cricket domestically and internationally over the last four years (never has a World Cup Final win looked so shallow two years later), and the slide of the men's Test team. The Hundred is nothing more than a cash cow to help certain county clubs who blew their finances to shit on international cricket out of the monetary lavatory whilst hoping that they can market the franchise worldwide and coin it in there. 

I'd offer this up as a fairly chilling read into the thoughts of Harrison and Sanjay Patel, MD of T-Hun: 

http://www.sportspromedia.com/analysis/the-hundred-cricket-ecb-tom-harrison-patel-fortnite-t20

Lots in there I could comment on but Nick Hoult's tweet is worth greater investigation:

"Some figures from the Hundred briefing today: Current ticket buyers for professional cricket in England
are 94% white British, 82% male. Average age of ticket buyers is 50."

The way this was presented was in a "Eeek, we need to be more diverse!" way. But the wording is key: "Ticket buyers". If a father of three girls buys 4 tickets for himself and his offspring to attend an ODI game, then he counts as a ticket buyer. The girls don't. It's selective data picking which ultimately sounds damning about cricket ticket buyers when you strip context away. Whrn you put that next to the patronising shit about T-Hun attracting women and kids during the summer holidays... blah. Sexist old bastards I can deal with: bastards chasing money by claiming they're some regime for diversity change are worse. 

So yeah.. Strauss had his problem elements in the ECB but the buck stops at the very top. 

Heartfeltdawn

@earwighoney ;

And as for Ed Smith... jack of all trades, master of fuck all. Dude can write a book, I'll say that, but he's classic too many fingers in too many pies, too little specific success. I laughed my balls off at that Cricinfo article he plagiarised from the Economist. As for our win in Sri Lanka that was put down to Smith's brave pioneering selection...

Let's say I had a few discussions on Twitter with some cricket journalists over that one. All seemed to herald it as stunning, as if beating a Sri Lanka team who had lost two of the greatest batsmen in Test history in a short space of time and who had never recovered from losing their premier off spinner was akin to thrashing the Invincibles. Sceptical old me said that there were severe cracks. Look at that side who won the 2nd Test and therefore the series:

https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/18602/scorecard/1140386/sri-lanka-vs-england-2nd-test-eng-in-sl-2018-19

Six of them aren't currently playing for England at Headingley for one reason or another. By contrast the 2nd and final Test against Bangladesh in 2005 saw a side turn out who suffered two changes by the time the Ashes rolled around (Giles in for Batty, KP in for Thorpe). 

https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/14831/scorecard/210366/england-vs-bangladesh-2nd-test-bangladesh-tour-of-england-2005

It is a perplexing quirk that folk herald England's approach to the 50 over game as right because "They finally selected one day players and told them to play in a one day way" yet we are now in the position for Test cricket where one day players can be selected and asked to play in a Test way without any thought as to whether they can actually do it. 

scrumhalf

Heartfeltdawn said:

They finally selected one day players and told them to play in a one day way" yet we are now in the position for Test cricket where one day players can be selected and asked to play in a Test way without any thought as to whether they can actually do it. 

I'm not sure they've been asked to play in a Test way. Surely the first rule of Test cricket is not to be out. As Boycott says, you can't score runs from the pavillion.

We are in the bizarre position of having lots of money flowing around, but ill-directed.

The Hundred is an almost unbelievably crap idea.

1) Let's miss out huge swathes of the country who won't want to travel for hours to see a game.

2) Let's have five-ball overs so that the in-between-overs delays for field settings and general lolloping around, which accounts for much of the delay in the current game, stay exactly the same.

3) Let's play a format that nobody else plays. Our one-day cricket was spectacularly successful when we had domestic no 50-over that we should repeat the exercise.

As for our chances today, I don't know what the odds are but has anyone asked Dennis Lillee and Rod Marsh if it's worth a punt?

iseverynamegone

Via Twitter -

Australia batting in this series

Smith & Labuschagne: 591 runs @ 98.50

Everyone else: 876 @ 15.92#Ashes

.... again , I’ll have a go at 4 in Aussie line up ....

Heartfeltdawn

scrumhalf said:

I'm not sure they've been asked to play in a Test way. Surely the first rule of Test cricket is not to be out. As Boycott says, you can't score runs from the pavillion.

By virtue of being picked, you are being asked to play in a Test way or, at the very least, in a different way to how you would in a 50 over competition. It's why Rashid failed so badly at Test level. It's easier to get wickets against one day batsmen looking to take you on. At Test level, those who are patient won't go for it because they know there's a half tracker coming along very soon. 

There is a perceived way to play in Tests. It's why people talked of Chris Woakes opening. It's why people used to get pissed at KP getting out playing some fucking awful shot. Even with the glut of limited overs shite, the perceived way is to be more defensive and patient. The like of Gayle, Sehwag, and Warner at Test level are still somewhat freakish in a world where the Smiths and Williamsons look supreme. 

Jason Roy would have to be a plank to think that he can go in as a Test match opener playing as he does in 50 over cricket. 

RandallFlagg

scrumhalf said:

As for our chances today, I don't know what the odds are but has anyone asked Dennis Lillee and Rod Marsh if it's worth a punt?

Currently, on Betfair Exchange, Australia are massively odds on at 1.18 (2/11) to win and England better than I would expect at 6.2 (5/1) to win. The draw is 599/1 

RandallFlagg

3% of required runs in the bank for no wickets. I would imagine there are huge sighs of relief in the England lunch room, it's clearly in the bag and the afternoon will be a walk in the park.

scrumhalf

Oh fuck, here we go again. 15-2. Both openers gone.

Will we beat the first innings score? 

camf

RandallFlagg said:

3% of required runs in the bank for no wickets. I would imagine there are huge sighs of relief in the England lunch room, it's clearly in the bag and the afternoon will be a walk in the park.

Well, you certainly are something of a soothsaying genius. Any chance of some lottery number predictions to follow?  

Moominpapa

@RandallFlagg Which is going down faster, the English wickets or your Jack Daniels?

scrumhalf

Denly decides not to get them in singles but headers. 

crunchman

Denly looking as convincing as Tony Blair's smile

Heartfeltdawn

@RandallFlagg to continue your CHameleons thread, what track shall we give this game for England's performance? 

Singing Rule Britannia (While The Walls Close In) or In Shreds? 

And a question for everyone: who on earth will be the next captain? I can't see Root surviving after two failed Ashes campaigns yet I haven't really thought of who next. 

crunchman

Heartfeltdawn said:

And a question for everyone: who on earth will be the next captain? I can't see Root surviving after two failed Ashes campaigns. 

Who is actually sure of their place in the side?

Stokes is, and he's the vice-captain.  The danger with a bowler as captain is that they often tend to either bowl themselves too much (like Flintoff).  It might be a bit soon after Bristol for Stokes as well.

Apart from Stokes it's difficult to think of anyone.

Heartfeltdawn

crunchman said:

Who is actually sure of their place in the side?

Stokes is, and he's the vice-captain.  The danger with a bowler as captain is that they often tend to either bowl themselves too much (like Flintoff).  It might be a bit soon after Bristol for Stokes as well.

Apart from Stokes it's difficult to think of anyone.

I'd be worried about any all-rounder as captain, let alone one like Stokes with a really questionable history when it comes to discipline. Outside of Ray Illingworth, I'm not pulling out many successful all-round captains for England but plenty of failures (Chris Cowdrey, take a bow). 

crunchman

Heartfeltdawn said:

crunchman said:

Who is actually sure of their place in the side?

Stokes is, and he's the vice-captain.  The danger with a bowler as captain is that they often tend to either bowl themselves too much (like Flintoff).  It might be a bit soon after Bristol for Stokes as well.

Apart from Stokes it's difficult to think of anyone.

I'd be worried about any all-rounder as captain, let alone one like Stokes with a really questionable history when it comes to discipline. Outside of Ray Illingworth, I'm not pulling out many successful all-round captains for England but plenty of failures (Chris Cowdrey, take a bow). 

Don't disagree, but is there a batsman apart from Root who is sure of his place?

Sticking with Root may be the least bad option - but then it's affecting his batting.  He averages 12 less as captain than in the ranks.

RandallFlagg

Moominpapa said:

@RandallFlagg Which is going down faster, the English wickets or your Jack Daniels?

Oh ye of little faith, England only need 301 more

RandallFlagg

Heartfeltdawn said:

@RandallFlagg to continue your CHameleons thread, what track shall we give this game for England's performance? 

Singing Rule Britannia (While The Walls Close In) or In Shreds? 

And a question for everyone: who on earth will be the next captain? I can't see Root surviving after two failed Ashes campaigns yet I haven't really thought of who next. 

‘Tears’ at the moment, could be ‘Dust To Dust (Return Of The Roughnecks) if there's a miracle. The John Peel session version obviously.

As for the captain question. Personally I don't see merit in changing the players much, it's the mentality and tactics that need attention so the Management & Coaching setup needs some attention in my opinion.

Heartfeltdawn

crunchman said:

Don't disagree, but is there a batsman apart from Root who is sure of his place?

Sticking with Root may be the least bad option - but then it's affecting his batting.  He averages 12 less as captain than in the ranks.

Perhaps we need to look at the opposition skipper's situation. He's not the leading keeper-batsman in Australia, he's not tearing it up with the bat, yet he has captained a side under massive scrutiny for the actions of its former captain and VC and he may go back to Australia with that precious urn. Australia picked a man they thought could lead a team in terms of behaviour primarily rather than runs or wickets. Perhaps it's the most radical Australian captaincy decision for decades. 

Also pertinent to remember that perhaps our greatest captain was never going to get into the side with his batting alone...

http://www.thecricketmonthly.com/story/1170348/the-mind-of-mike-brearley