The cricket thread

RandallFlagg

Bat on to tea boys...take it 1/2 hour at a time and forget the scoreboard, just stay in.

At least get us into day 4 so I have can dream overnight! But, I fear wickets will come for Aus after tea.

crunchman

RandallFlagg said:

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.

Think Roy and Denly need to go.

It's not just mentality with Roy.  He just doesn't have the technique for a test opener.  He closes the face and plays across the line. He's got quite a few leading edges, and missed a few as well.  He also doesn't move his feet.  It was a good ball that got him today, but he didn't move his feet at all.

Denly is more mentality than technique.  He just keeps playing shots he shouldn't.  In this innings he's missed three or four airy drives outside the off stump that he should have been leaving.  If he was younger, he might be worth persisting with, but he's 32.  I can't see him fixing that at this point in his career.

Roy has the talent to come back, but he needs to work out a technique for the long game, and he needs to do that outside of the test team.  The problem is that he never gets to play red ball cricket for Surrey because of the structure of the county game, as @Heartfeltdawn has pointed out.

I'd probably drop Buttler as well.  As I said above, he's averaging 10.8 in this series.  Foakes would have done better than that, and he would improve the wicket keeping position as well.  Bairstow is probably worth a place as a specialist batsman.  It's not like there are many other alternatives.

scrumhalf

I'd be wary of blooding youngsters in a losing Ashes series, do you want their first exposure sure to test cricket to be in such circumstances?

As for the next skipper, is there anyone who has the sort of cricketing brain that Brearley or Vaughan had? Do we breed that sort of cricketer any more? 

RandallFlagg

crunchman said:

RandallFlagg said:

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.

Think Roy and Denly need to go.

It's not just mentality with Roy.  He just doesn't have the technique for a test opener.  He closes the face and plays across the line. He's got quite a few leading edges, and missed a few as well.  He also doesn't move his feet.  It was a good ball that got him today, but he didn't move his feet at all.

Denly is more mentality than technique.  He just keeps playing shots he shouldn't.  In this innings he's missed three or four airy drives outside the off stump that he should have been leaving.  If he was younger, he might be worth persisting with, but he's 32.  I can't see him fixing that at this point in his career.

Roy has the talent to come back, but he needs to work out a technique for the long game, and he needs to do that outside of the test team.  The problem is that he never gets to play red ball cricket for Surrey because of the structure of the county game, as @Heartfeltdawn has pointed out.

I'd probably drop Buttler as well.  As I said above, he's averaging 10.8 in this series.  Foakes would have done better than that, and he would improve the wicket keeping position as well.  Bairstow is probably worth a place as a specialist batsman.  It's not like there are many other alternatives.

In the probable outcome of England losing the Ashes I guess I don't disagree with changing up a few players to try out some options but I don't see merit in replacing Root as captain yet. Change up the management and coaching and let's see how they go over winter.

crunchman

Heartfeltdawn said:

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

In this side, he might get in for his batting! 

scrumhalf

Root and Denly ton up for the third wicket. Keep batting, boys, keep batting. 

RandallFlagg

scrumhalf said:

Root and Denly ton up for the third wicket. Keep batting, boys, keep batting. 

Yep, a gritty proper test partnership. bat on lads...

RandallFlagg

Is hope walking off with Denly?...one wicket often brings another.

scrumhalf

Bugger. 

crunchman

All depends on Root now.  Going to be difficult for Stokes against Lyon with the rough outside off stump, and I don't think the rest of them are capable making that number of runs.  Root has to go on.

RandallFlagg

214 runs required, 100 too many I reckon. If they'd at least levelled the score in first innings England would need less than 100 now with 2 days to go. Betfair has England down to 3.85, Aus still odds on at 1.35

A respectable performance today though but the new ball will see them off tomorrow short of target I reckon.

Heartfeltdawn

scrumhalf said:

I'd be wary of blooding youngsters in a losing Ashes series, do you want their first exposure sure to test cricket to be in such circumstances?

If they come in at the start of a series which is ultimately a failure, then that failure is shared by them. Coming in with a series lost means a very clean slate and time to focus on your own game. It makes more sense to blood them now to me than to hold them back and to wait for weaker opponents like a Bangladesh or a Zimbabwe to bring them in, give them a false sense of where they are as players, and then let them get tanked playing against one of the big boys. 

A player like KP can come in against the best in the world and succeed. Others will come in, not really succeed at first, and work it out. Take the two debutants in this match for England for instance: 

https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/16616/scorecard/63526/west-indies-vs-england-1st-test-england-tour-of-west-indies-1989-90

The problem with England has been bringing people in and then not developing them. Consider this:

-from 2000 to 2009, England gave debuts to players 601 to 645. 44 players. 22 of them didn't reach double figures in Tests. Of that 22, 4 of them were outright batsmen. Those guys were Owais Shah, Ed Smith, Ian Ward, and Usman Afzaal. 

Some of those players who debuted: Strauss, Trescothick, Pietersen, Bell, 

From 2010 to now we've gone from 646 to 693. 47 players. 30 have played in 9 Tests or under (this figure includes the like of Archer and Stone so far). Number of outright batsmen here: 13. Some will carry on, Burns is on 9 for instance, Denly may make double figures.

What that shows is establishing yourself in the side is so much harder than it was previously. You expect bowlers to be well represented in the 'single figure Test caps' column because of injuries and a horses for courses policy. But when the number of batsmen who have come in and not reached double figures is so much greater than the previous decade, you have to ask why these players didn't kick on. Names like Carberry, Denly, Ben Duckett, Samit Patel, and most obviously Haseeb Hameed. 

Whether it is the coaching or the structure of domestic cricket, we simply have not been developing players as well as we have done previously, be it from county coming into international cricket, and when they are in international cricket. 

NB: had a bit more stat time on my hands so I shall compartmentalise: 

1980s: 484 to 541: 58 players debuted. 32 didn't make double figures. 15 were batsmen  Those who remember the 1980s know how many bowlers we lost due to injury and quite a few batsmen like Tony Lloyd to injury.

1990s: 542 to 600: 59 players. 22 didn't make double figures. 8 were outright batsmen.

2000s: 601 to 645. 44 players debuted. 22 didn't reach double figures. 4 were batsmen. 

2010s: 646 to 693. 47 players debuted. 30 haven't reached double figures. 13 are batsmen. 

So we can see how great the churn in the 1980s was, mostly thanks to the West Indies and the Australians. The churn did reduce in the 90s but central contracts coming in for 2000 had an undoubted effect. 

Heartfeltdawn

RandallFlagg said:

214 runs required, 100 too many I reckon. If they'd at least levelled the score in first innings England would need less than 100 now with 2 days to go. Betfair has England down to 3.85, Aus still odds on at 1.35

A respectable performance today though but the new ball will see them off tomorrow short of target I reckon.

We've saved some pride today. People have been praising Archer and Cummins with the raw pace but equal credit should go to Hazlewood for the spell that claimed Denly. 

scrumhalf

Well, I would have put money on us not playing tomorrow so well done.

It's possible, but unlikely. The new ball will be crucial. 

earwighoney

Heartfeltdawn said: 

If they come in at the start of a series which is ultimately a failure, then that failure is shared by them. Coming in with a series lost means a very clean slate and time to focus on your own game. It makes more sense to blood them now to me than to hold them back and to wait for weaker opponents like a Bangladesh or a Zimbabwe to bring them in, give them a false sense of where they are as players, and then let them get tanked playing against one of the big boys. 

A player like KP can come in against the best in the world and succeed. Others will come in, not really succeed at first, and work it out. Take the two debutants in this match for England for instance: 

https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/16616/scorecard/63526/west-indies-vs-england-1st-test-england-tour-of-west-indies-1989-90

The problem with England has been bringing people in and then not developing them. Consider this:

-from 2000 to 2009, England gave debuts to players 601 to 645. 44 players. 22 of them didn't reach double figures in Tests. Of that 22, 4 of them were outright batsmen. Those guys were Owais Shah, Ed Smith, Ian Ward, and Usman Afzaal. 

From 2010 to now we've gone from 646 to 693. 47 players. 30 have played in 9 Tests or under (this figure includes the like of Archer and Stone so far). Number of outright batsmen here: 13. Some will carry on, Burns is on 9 for instance, Denly may make double figures.

What that shows is establishing yourself in the side is so much harder than it was previously. You expect bowlers to be well represented in the 'single figure Test caps' column because of injuries and a horses for courses policy. But when the number of batsmen who have come in and not reached double figures is so much greater than the previous decade, you have to ask why these players didn't kick on. Names like Carberry, Denly, Ben Duckett, Samit Patel, and most obviously Haseeb Hameed. 

Whether it is the coaching or the structure of domestic cricket, we simply have not been developing players as well as we have done previously, be it from county coming into international cricket, and when they are in international cricket. 

A really great post. 

Do you remember when Morgan was in the test team and under Andy Flower he developed a really, really weird batting technique with the weird crouch?  Even in white ball cricket, it took him a while to recover from the Andy Flower era.  Maybe not the best example of a player struggling to adapt to test cricket but there have been a number of players who have come been selected and it seemed they were coached by the international set up detrimentally. 

Some of the selections were baffling ones at best, Ben Duckett as a test opener in particular.  

Heartfeltdawn

earwighoney said:

A really great post. 

Do you remember when Morgan was in the test team and under Andy Flower he developed a really, really weird batting technique with the weird crouch?  Even in white ball cricket, it took him a while to recover from the Andy Flower era.  Maybe not the best example of a player struggling to adapt to test cricket but there have been a number of players who have come been selected and it seemed they were coached by the international set up detrimentally. 

Some of the selections were baffling ones at best, Ben Duckett as a test opener in particular.  

Thanks. That little edit I made on the bottom comparing the 80s through to the 2010s really does show the problems we have. One factor I didn't consider: the number of players who reached 100+ caps. 

1980s: 1 (Atherton)
1990s: 2 (Stewart and Thorpe, Hussain was on 96)
2000s: 6 (Strauss, KP, Bell, Broad, Anderson, Cook)
2010s: 0 (Root leads the way on 83)

Why does this matter for the churn figures above? Well, because if you have people who debut in the 2000s who play for over 100 Tests, that restricts the places in the team in the 2010s. If you have established 100+ cap players, then that should actually help reduce the overall churn. So we see in the 2000s that fewer players debuted and that the number of batsmen who didn't make double figure caps was reduced. That corresponds to the number of batsmen in that decade who ended up reaching 100+ caps. The more players you get established, the less your churn will be in the future. 

Well. When you look at those who debuted this decade and the caps they've won, it's pretty damn scary. 

Re. the caoaching: Flower wasn't a great coach at all. I think he was rather lucky to inherit a very good core of players and I suspect you'll find some future autobiographies in the future that give Peter Moores a lot more credit than he's received in some circles.

Within the Bayliss era, there's so much that is odd. Why did Nick Compton feel like an outsider in the England dressing room? How did Zafar Ansari go from Test cricketer to get me the fuck away from cricket so quickly? How has the slow bowling situation been so badly handled for so long? How many mistakes do keeper batsmen have to make before we get a decent gloveman? Why was Gary Ballance put on the scrapheap averaging 37 yet James fucking Vince got chance after chance? 

There are players who can sum up an era. Hick and Ramprakash summed up their era: so much talent, handled so badly. 

Within this era, it's Haseeb Hameed and Mason Crane. The former is looking for a new club, the latter looks utterly fucked. When I saw him last month, he was bowling like a man who has lost his action, who is adjusting to something new, and consequently has all the rhythm of me drumming whilst having a seizure. 

earwighoney

Heartfeltdawn said:

Within the Bayliss era, there's so much that is odd. Why did Nick Compton feel like an outsider in the England dressing room? How did Zafar Ansari go from Test cricketer to get me the fuck away from cricket so quickly? How has the slow bowling situation been so badly handled for so long? How many mistakes do keeper batsmen have to make before we get a decent gloveman? Why was Gary Ballance put on the scrapheap averaging 37 yet James fucking Vince got chance after chance? 

Within this era, it's Haseeb Hameed and Mason Crane. The former is looking for a new club, the latter looks utterly fucked. When I saw him last month, he was bowling like a man who has lost his action, who is adjusting to something new, and consequently has all the rhythm of me drumming whilst having a seizure. 

Some more great points, and there's no chance I can address all of them. 

I'm in agreement about the Bayliss era being an odd one.  I've sometimes had suspicions the cliques in the dressing room seem to create an atmosphere which isn't the best, especially in test cricket - but it seems to be absent in white ball cricket (no Broad or Anderson, Swann & Prior before that).

Ansari is a very curious case.  To add to your point of players who made less than 9 test caps, it seems very odd there are a few players aside from making 9 caps seem to almost be out of cricket altogether, Ansari being one and it looks like Hameed could be another. 

Mason Crane had a few stress fractures of the back.  If you look at the Australian players who have had them (Pattinson, Cummins) they manage to get them back, the English players however seem to be truly fucked in comparison. 

Another player who's had an incredible decline considering the promise he initially showed is Steven Finn.  

Peter Moores seems to be a good guy, who generally seems to get a lot out of his players.  Last season he seemed to get a lot of the Notts team, especially in white ball cricket.  Samit Patel (or Samit Fatel as me and my friend like to refer him to) had a cracking year last year, I thought it was a shame he didn't get a recall. 

scrumhalf

Aussies pick players who are playing well and have the mental fortitude to survive test cricket. We pick players who... sorry, I really can't work it out.

Do we pick players too early? As a Kent fan I worry about Crawley's name being mentioned all of the time. He's had a couple of years of cricket, he's not ready. He'll come from playing for the Lions to being thrown to them. But the county championship is being whittled down to accommodate more and more one day cricket and is being shunted into little blocks of fixtures instead of ebing played across the summer.

It pains me to say it but are we approaching the time when we need regional cricket, with fewer regions rather than the number of counties we have now, and with strict regulations about overseas players.

UnclePsychosis

Thing is, its all very well cricket fans complaining that not enough county cricket is played---but until cricket fans turn up to watch domestic test cricket in decent numbers it will be the shorter forms that dominate. He who pays the piper, etc. etc. 

Heartfeltdawn

earwighoney said:

Some more great points, and there's no chance I can address all of them. 

I'm in agreement about the Bayliss era being an odd one.  I've sometimes had suspicions the cliques in the dressing room seem to create an atmosphere which isn't the best, especially in test cricket - but it seems to be absent in white ball cricket (no Broad or Anderson, Swann & Prior before that).

Ansari is a very curious case.  To add to your point of players who made less than 9 test caps, it seems very odd there are a few players aside from making 9 caps seem to almost be out of cricket altogether, Ansari being one and it looks like Hameed could be another. 

Mason Crane had a few stress fractures of the back.  If you look at the Australian players who have had them (Pattinson, Cummins) they manage to get them back, the English players however seem to be truly fucked in comparison. 

Another player who's had an incredible decline considering the promise he initially showed is Steven Finn.  

Peter Moores seems to be a good guy, who generally seems to get a lot out of his players.  Last season he seemed to get a lot of the Notts team, especially in white ball cricket.  Samit Patel (or Samit Fatel as me and my friend like to refer him to) had a cracking year last year, I thought it was a shame he didn't get a recall. 

I quite agree on the lack of clique in the white ball dressing room. it's one of the differences with the Test team. When a tour begins, the ODI/T20 squad will have players only for those games. The Test squad spend far more time together.

I had a look at the number of debuting players in ODI cricket for England this decade: 

2010s: caps 214 to 254. So 40 players came in... so less churn than the Test side. Blimey, who'd have thought that? Does this imply that you will get a greater chance to establish yourself in the ODI side than you would in the Test side? When you look at Jason Roy's cumulative ODI average, it wasn't until his 21st innings in his 22nd match to really nail down his spot in terms of output of runs. It's been an upward curve since. 

Will he get a similar opportunity in Test cricket spread over ten Tests and 20 innings?