The cricket thread

Stuckfast

Yes this NZ team punches so far above their weight it's unbelievable. If they've used these two tests as an audition for selection for the WTC final, pretty much everyone has put their hand up.

sev112

Heartfeltdawn said:

sev112 said:

I feel quite depressed today, but I am old and I have seen England collapse many times before.  

But I don’t quite get today why we collapsed against a good attach but what seems to be a docile pitch with a little bit of seam and swing.

personally (grumpy old man) I don’t like waggling unorthodox batting styles, although I do like both Burns and Sibley, I think because I think they are mentally strong.  they both show signs of good stuff

id be interested in peoples’ thoughts on who might be better batting at the moment. Personally I would drop Pope and Crawley and say go back to wherever and get your form back.

We're at such a low level right now with the openers that even moderate success is translated into something more. After his dreadful fifty at Lords in a dead match and scratching around in the first innings here, you had articles coming out calling Sibley a cult hero. Mentally strong, the right stuff for Tests, that kind of thing... and yet he's averaging 31. You sometimes get this thing with some players that they stay around not because of what they do on the pitch but how they do it. They're perceived as being the right stuff for Tests, having the right mental approach. So Sibbers scores his rubbish 50, he gets his 35, and then back to failing but he's secured a little spot as being the right kind of chaps for the trenches in people's minds. It happened in the winter, his half century against Sri Lanka erased the abject failures of the previous innings, and his 87 on an absolute Indian road in the First Test gives him a bit of credit in the bank that glosses over the big failures. I'd say Dominic Bess was another like this because he's a busy fielder, offers something with the bat, and this approach makes some favour him over Leach. It's different for Crawley because he's been dismissed on the drive more than the defensive snick. Getting out on the attack is perceived as being worse than the defensive snick. I remember that attitude in the days pre-Fletcher being about and it's odd to see it coming back in again in these times.

The runup to this series made a lot of a previous Eng-NZ series where we did attack and it set the template for how things would be. In this one, we've gone the other way. We've opted for conservative pitches because our batting is shit. We've gone for conservative selection (tons of batting, unbalance the bowlers). We're out of ideas and Root's innings yesterday really sums it up. 

If you look at the Championship averages as a form guide for who might come in, I wouldn't bother. You've got Pope, Burns, and Lawrence in the top 15. So the choice is whether you drop them and continue the merry-go-round or whether you stick with them probably through to the end of the Ashes. There's no point having a wholesale clearout now. You may as well do it after we've been destroyed this winter. 

Interesting, thanks for your thoughts .

Heartfeltdawn

Gassage said:

WTC Match:

Considering New Zealand's tiny cricket resource versus the behemoth powerhouse of India and the biggest player base and financial support in the world, NZ are champs already in my eyes.

Absolute respect to the greatest sporting nation on the planet. India have c. 3000 times the player participation that NZ have.

That is staggering.

What NZ keeps doing is very impressive and going by Twitter today there's loads of commentary about why we can't do it.

One aspect is that the NZ schedule is so much better for the players than the English one. Consider the three big batters with England, NZ, and India and when they debuted and how many they've played. All three have had absences at times for injuries and births but none to my recollection have missed major periods through injury (a year or so for instance) 
 

KW      November 2010 = 10 years, 7 months        84 Tests (roughly 7.8 Tests per year)
VK       June 2011 = 10 years                               91 Tests (9.1 Tests per year)
JR       December 2012 = 8 years six months        105 Tests (12.3 Tests per year)

Readers may be interested to read this from the past:

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/sep/26/four-tests-in-18-months-new-zealands-schedule-a-harbinger-of-what-is-to-come

If NZ had our schedule, it would test them in the same way that a side doing well in the Premier League then gets stuffed the next season and loses league form because it hasn't got the squad to cope with more matches like the Europa League.   Conversely, India might be able to cope with our schedule because they have got the squad as they ably demonstrated in Australia. That financial power has been turned into a squad base that has backup/reserve seamers the selectors couldn't have dreamt of in 1990. 

So we've got the nuttiest schedule around, we're playing two five match series, and our squad depth is, having seen the inexperienced Kiwis play so well in the Second Test, lower than NZ, lower than India, and lower than our winter opponents. 

crunchman

For me the big problem isn't the number of tests though.  It's the amount of utterly meaningless one day fixtures.  Alastair Cook played 161 tests in thirteen and half years.  That's around 12 a year.   Maybe that's slightly too many, but for me it's not the big problem.  It is the number of one day games that is the problem, and going off around the world to play in domestic T20 leagues.

Edit: got my sums wrong.  Cook played his tests in 12 and half years not 13 and a half.  That works out at 12.9 per year.

Heartfeltdawn

crunchman said:

For me the big problem isn't the number of tests though.  It's the amount of utterly meaningless one day fixtures.  Alastair Cook played 161 tests in thirteen and half years.  That's around 12 a year.   Maybe that's slightly too many, but for me it's not the big problem.  It is the number of one day games that is the problem, and going off around the world to play in domestic T20 leagues.

Edit: got my sums wrong.  Cook played his tests in 12 and half years not 13 and a half.  That works out at 12.9 per year.

12.9 Tests is manageable if you're not a regular three-format player which Cook wasn't (4 T20s and he left ODI cricket four years before he finished at Test level). The three I focused on are or were in Root's case. You think the ODI games are useless: the management would argue our diet of meaningless ODI games helped us become the best in the world so perhaps not so meaningless. 

The domestic T20 leagues: the Kiwis can do it and folk like Williamson and Kohli can do it and play three-formats because their international schedule allows for it. If an English player does it, then they're up against it. So the number of Tests we play is a problem if you're going to have other commitments and it's also a problem if you have a ruling body who are introducing another bloody format this summer. So we could argue as to which format demands more love and which should be kicked in the arse. The bottom line across both of our arguments is a schedule too packed in, and that is where looking at Williamson and Kohli's workload compared to Root's is important. 

Our Test performances are showing that something has to give. The international and IPL calendar is fucking domestic FC cricket with an obvious effect on the Test side. The move to focus on short-form cricket has had a corresponding uplift with the World Cup win and the likelihood of doing well in the World T20. So perhaps it's not even a question of schedule but a question of priorities. The ECB chose to prioritise short-form cricket whilst introducing another short form. 

scrumhalf

The ECB were clear about prioritising one day cricket but you have to wonder why those not involved in the biff-bang internationally cannot play a decent defensive stroke.

Is there something in the coaching that prevents them from thinking "oh, it's a red ball, I can hang around for a bit and choose which strokes to play?

Heartfeltdawn

scrumhalf said:

The ECB were clear about prioritising one day cricket but you have to wonder why those not involved in the biff-bang internationally cannot play a decent defensive stroke.

Is there something in the coaching that prevents them from thinking "oh, it's a red ball, I can hang around for a bit and choose which strokes to play?

I'd suggest that some players end up not so much with bad habits but a combination of techniques. The person to look at is Jonny Bairstow. He started off as a kid learning a traditional technique. In order to get better at white ball cricket, a batsman generally learns how to open up the body in order to facilitate the more powerful higher scoring strokes. This he did incredibly well and his white ball form has been astounding. His ODI stats and from 2017 it's absolute dynamite. 

https://i.imgur.com/J0Updrj.png

His best Test year was 2016. After that, there is a corresponding slide in returns. 

https://i.imgur.com/4fz8t2d.png

So ODI form = great, Test form starts to sink. That's the change of technique and approach. In his Test career from 2017 onwards, the stats show what supporters saw: more vulnerable to the pitched up moving ball, bowled more, LBW more. For all the talk of spin over the winter, since 2017 he has rarely been bowled by a spinner. Quicker guys pitching it up, yes. 

Tests to the end of 2016: 38 Tests, 2435 runs, 65 innings (6 NO), average of 41.27, SR of 55.04, 3 centuries. 

Tests from 2017 onwards: 36 Tests, 1762 runs 66 innings (2 NO), average of 27.53, SR of 54.43, 3 centuries. Last Test ton was November 2018. 

A shift in technique and approach and the end result is that YJB found it harder to keep the good balls out. 

scrumhalf

One good season apart, his test record is nothng to write home about, never averaging above 35.

Here's Nasser, in a bit of a Chris Waddle moment:

Heartfeltdawn

scrumhalf said:

One good season apart, his test record is nothng to write home about, never averaging above 35.

Untrue as his cumulative average shows. 

His record from debut to the end of 2016 In Test cricket when playing as a batsman only or as designated wicketkeeper:

38 Tests, 2435 runs at 41.27. 

His record from his debut to the end of 2016 when playing as a wicketkeeper only:

21 Tests, 1682 runs, average of 50.96

His overall record when playing as designated keeper:

48 Tests, 3028 runs, average of 37.85. 

Some comparisons with other wicketkeepers:

http://www.howstat.com/cricket/statistics/WicketKeeping/WicketKeepingMostRuns.asp

So it does reinforce that we actually had someone performing well in Test cricket up to the end of 2016. When 2017 comes around, his ODI figures absolutely took off whilst his Test figures started to slump badly. 

crunchman

He might have been batting well to that point, but he was never a good keeper.

Heartfeltdawn

crunchman said:

He might have been batting well to that point, but he was never a good keeper.

Neither was the other guy in contention and the other guy wasn't batting at Bairstow's level at the time. As we were dead set on a keeper batsman, at the time he was the best candidate without being the best gloveman. 

crunchman

Is it purely the change in his technique that has caused his issues, or is it just that bowlers have worked him out?  Or a bit of both?

sixstringsupplies

Some comments from me after spending the day in the sun on Saturday and witnessing the 122-9.

It was my first test for a while, I forget, having watched so much on TV, that you get a completely different perspective watching it live.

We were sat at fine leg/mid off boundary.

I can see why they pick Crawley - he really does look an elegant batsman in the flesh. Hits it really hard without trying. Looks graceful. I said “Crawley looking good” to my mate, only to see him dismissed next ball!

The crowd were giving Bracey a hard time with his wicket keeping. When he got his first run it was the biggest cheer of the day. Sums it up really.

Oh, and some piss head on the morning train from Wolverhampton (8:45am!) with his cans of Stella, apparently, is mates with several of the Worcestershire players (academy and first team) and apparently, Ollie Robinson will never play for England while Joe Root is captain and Anderson is playing. They don’t want him anywhere near the team. Complete hearsay so take with a bunch of salt.

Personally I think England should just concentrate on playing test cricket.

Good day out though! Now hoping, depending on COVID and my partner’s holiday plans, to get tickets for Saturday at Trent Bridge vs India in early August.  

Heartfeltdawn

crunchman said:

Is it purely the change in his technique that has caused his issues, or is it just that bowlers have worked him out?  Or a bit of both?

It's a chain really. The technique change has made him more vulnerable to the pitched up ball from the seamers. With media as it is now, that chink in the defence became known quickly. You also have the issue with the gloves being taken from him. Strikes me that he was given a clear brief for ODI cricket (you're a batsman) that he didn't get for Test cricket. 

The shame about it for me is just what I've prattled on about before. In YJP and Buttler, we have two guys who are not outstanding keepers but are outstanding batsmen. At Test level, they should be in that side and averaging 40+ as batsmen outright. Australia got obsessed with finding an allrounder to rival Flintoff and made stupid decisions and stupid selections. Likewise, we got obsessed with having our own Gilchrist which led to us making stupid decisions. 

Heartfeltdawn

sixstringsupplies said:

Oh, and some piss head on the morning train from Wolverhampton (8:45am!) with his cans of Stella, apparently, is mates with several of the Worcestershire players (academy and first team) and apparently, Ollie Robinson will never play for England while Joe Root is captain and Anderson is playing. They don’t want him anywhere near the team. Complete hearsay so take with a bunch of salt.

if that is true, then I look forward to Ollie playing next year then after we've been caned by Australia and Root resigns the captaincy and Anderson ends his career. 

Should have asked the guy if Root and co have any issues with Joe Clarke making the England squad in the future if we're gonna get all moralistic now  actually, come to think about it, Tom Kohler-Cadmore was caught up in that stuff too. Root seems to be OK with him being in the Yorkshire side. 

crunchman

At this point in time, what Anderson thinks might not matter too much.  He looks like he might be done.  He only took 3 wickets in 2 tests against NZ.

He might come good again, but I wouldn't put any money on it.  He's living on borrowed time as a fast bowler.  He's 39 next month.  The only fast bowler in living memory who was still playing at a high level at that age was Hadlee, who played his last test a couple of days after his 39th birthday.  Courtney Walsh didn't make it to 39, and I don't think anyone else has come close.  He might sneak past Kumble on the wickets list, but I'm not sure he'll make it to the end of the India series, let alone the Ashes.

sixstringsupplies

Heartfeltdawn said:

crunchman said:

Is it purely the change in his technique that has caused his issues, or is it just that bowlers have worked him out?  Or a bit of both?

It's a chain really. The technique change has made him more vulnerable to the pitched up ball from the seamers. With media as it is now, that chink in the defence became known quickly. You also have the issue with the gloves being taken from him. Strikes me that he was given a clear brief for ODI cricket (you're a batsman) that he didn't get for Test cricket. 

The shame about it for me is just what I've prattled on about before. In YJP and Buttler, we have two guys who are not outstanding keepers but are outstanding batsmen. At Test level, they should be in that side and averaging 40+ as batsmen outright. Australia got obsessed with finding an allrounder to rival Flintoff and made stupid decisions and stupid selections. Likewise, we got obsessed with having our own Gilchrist which led to us making stupid decisions. 

I remember those days when Australia kept trying to find a Flintoff. In hindsight, I think they found him in Shane Watson. He was a great player.

So @Heartfeltdawn you’d have Bairstow, Buttler and Foakes in your ideal test team then? 

I think they’ll give Sibley a break, bump Crawley up to open and bring back Bairstow or Malan to bat three. Personally would love Foakes to be keeper and bat 7 this summer and the Ashes but don’t think he’ll be fit and they’ll have Buttler ahead of him anyway. 

Stuckfast

crunchman said:

At this point in time, what Anderson thinks might not matter too much.  He looks like he might be done.  He only took 3 wickets in 2 tests against NZ.

He might come good again, but I wouldn't put any money on it.  He's living on borrowed time as a fast bowler.  He's 39 next month.  The only fast bowler in living memory who was still playing at a high level at that age was Hadlee, who played his last test a couple of days after his 39th birthday.  Courtney Walsh didn't make it to 39, and I don't think anyone else has come close.  He might sneak past Kumble on the wickets list, but I'm not sure he'll make it to the end of the India series, let alone the Ashes.

Seems a bit harsh to write him off on the basis of two Tests where, although England were outplayed in all departments, it was 90 percent the batting that let us down. Anderson bowled tidily enough if a tad short of a length, and I seem to remember he and Broad bowled a superb spell in tandem in the first Test. There are a few good fast-medium bowlers knocking at the door but I don't think any of them has the skills that Jimmy does. Think back to the first Test in India and his masterclass in reverse swing... who else could have done that? 

sixstringsupplies

If I was Jimmy I’d do the Alastair Cook and announce my retirement before the final test v India.

swansong, full house, chanting his name solidly for 5 days. Deserves the same legendary send-off. 

Can never write him off though. 

It was concerning how New Zealand swung the ball so much more. Sky Sports had stats that it was Jimmy’s least amount of swing for several years. 

Heartfeltdawn

sixstringsupplies said:

I remember those days when Australia kept trying to find a Flintoff. In hindsight, I think they found him in Shane Watson. He was a great player.

So @Heartfeltdawn you’d have Bairstow, Buttler and Foakes in your ideal test team then? 

I think they’ll give Sibley a break, bump Crawley up to open and bring back Bairstow or Malan to bat three. Personally would love Foakes to be keeper and bat 7 this summer and the Ashes but don’t think he’ll be fit and they’ll have Buttler ahead of him anyway. 

Watson should have focused on batting alone. Management wanted him to bat and be a first change bowler. Ended up with a guy whose overall record was less than two wickets a Test and a mid 30s average when he'd have been a bloody marvellous 45+ batsman and more than useful part-time bowler. 

I don't think YJB passes the technique evaluation for Test cricket right now. Buttler would be in there in my side as an outright batsman and I would pick Foakes. 

Funny to think that Bairstow and Malan both scored tons in Australia last time in the Third Test and made a big stand. Four years on, they're being talked of as comeback Test cricketers. Keeps pointing back to our inability to develop players once they've played a few Tests.