The cricket thread

crunchman · March 2021

scrumhalf said:

I'm wondering what Bairstow offers the England team that Joe Denly doesn't.

He's a better fielder. He gives you some insurance if your keeper suffers a freak injury.

Denly is more likely to make runs at 3 though.

guitars4you · March 2021

crunchman said:

scrumhalf said:

I'm wondering what Bairstow offers the England team that Joe Denly doesn't.

He's a better fielder. He gives you some insurance if your keeper suffers a freak injury.

Denly is more likely to make runs at 3 though.

Not sure why only Bairstow is to be judged about what he offers - Does not help he had a decent knock in Sri Lanka - Then sent back home for a break and then brought back - Does not appear to be a logical process - You are either available and picked and part of the squad or not - Root has not had full access to his best team options for all matches - Will this apply to the 1 day team for Eoin in a few days time ?

Stuckfast · March 2021

The selection has been pretty odd throughout. Pull off a brilliant win in the first Test then make four changes for the second, then pick four seamers on a rank turner in the third, then go in a bowler light in the fourth. Archer picked twice even though he looked completely off the pace, Bess and Ali mucked about to the point of probably ending both their Test careers, Stone only played one Test even though he looked superb. Wonder if Ed Smith will put his hand up and admit he got it wrong.

I usually quite like Bairstow but he's been shocking in this series. And Pope is a keeper so we really don't need him for his reserve keeping skills.

Heartfeltdawn · March 2021

scrumhalf said:

I'm wondering what Bairstow offers the England team that Joe Denly doesn't.

Bairstow's last Test ton was in the final (3rd) Test in Sri Lanka in November 2018.

Since then: 14 Tests, 27 innings, 501 runs at an average of 20 with two half centuries and a top score of 52. Balls faced? Exactly 1000.

By contrast, Denly's entire career: 15 Tests, 28 innings, 827 runs at 29.53 with six half centuries and a top score of 94. Balls faced? 2086.

And this comes back to something I wrote when they dropped Denly. If you go by average, there's nothing impressive about him. But in Test cricket, if you get stuck in and you stay there and you have more gifted strokemakers around you, the balls you take up wear out an attack. Lots of talk in the press about Pietersen's brilliant innings in Mumbai in 2012 but you have to look at the start of that complete innings.

https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/england-tour-of-india-2012-13-565792/india-vs-england-2nd-test-565807/full-scorecard

Cook and Compton put on 66 for the first wicket in 31.4 overs. Nothing flashy but it sets a foundation. Also interesting to note that we won by ten wickets with Cook and Compton scoring 58 runs: been quite a while I fancy since an England opening pair put on half century stands in both innings.

scrumhalf · March 2021

Denly has stickability, and he's also a useful bowler.

There's no denying that India are the better team but you have to look at the state of county cricket, the feeder game foir the Test side, and wonder if it serves the national team at all.

Stuckfast · March 2021

I think it's the other way around. Arguably there's too much focus on identifying potential England players at a young age and fast-tracking them through the Lions setup, so that they become international players without having played much county cricket. The exception on this tour was Lawrence who came through the county scene in the old-fashioned way, and he's been one of the few success stories.

Heartfeltdawn · March 2021

Stuckfast said:

The selection has been pretty odd throughout. Pull off a brilliant win in the first Test then make four changes for the second, then pick four seamers on a rank turner in the third, then go in a bowler light in the fourth. Archer picked twice even though he looked completely off the pace, Bess and Ali mucked about to the point of probably ending both their Test careers, Stone only played one Test even though he looked superb. Wonder if Ed Smith will put his hand up and admit he got it wrong.

I usually quite like Bairstow but he's been shocking in this series. And Pope is a keeper so we really don't need him for his reserve keeping skills.

Selection was always going to be odd with the rest window situation. It's ben compounded by a number of other factors. The more I read about the Bess situation, the more it reminds me of Trescothick pulling out of the 2006 India tour and everything that happened afterwards. If Bess is suffering from some emotional issues then it would explain why his bowling has disintegrated, and why the management asked Moeen to stay despite the pre-agreed window of departure. might also explain why Moeen got thrown under the bus whilst management have been somewhat protective of Bess over the last month (DB was considered OK to give a press conference in the 1st Test. Been less visible since).

Vaughan has been chuntering on about the young players struggling for England and how they're not good enough. Well Vaughany, explain Shubman Gill then. He finished the series off with a run of 0 14 11 15* 0 in the series after a good start in Test cricket. For these young players, whether it's Crawley, Sibley, or Gill, they're being asked to go to foreign climes when their own techniques are still developing, they get fuck all practice games, they live in the bubble, and it all mounts up. When you look at the series averages and Kohli's averaging 31, Pujara 22, Gill 19, and Rahane 18, then the inexperienced England kids don't look anywhere near as bad as MV suggests.

https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/records/averages/batting_bowling_by_team.html?id=13809;team=1;type=series

This has really felt like a tour where Covid has had an impact. It gave both batsmen and slow bowlers close to no preparation last summer for a winter tour because of the broken up FC fixture list. The SL tour gave us false hope because of how poor the Lankans are at the minute. Our own selection process was stymied by the rest period concept and possibly issues around Bess. The need for FC reform is palpable both in when games are played and how they are played but that won't change this year. We need to make decisions on selection and stick to them. We have a lead spinner now, someone who has shown he's got the mental bottle for Test cricket.

1
2
Number 3: I'm going all out for Zak Crawley here.
Root
Stokes
Buttler. He bats. Time to deliver and to deliver regularly.
Foakes. He keeps and bats.
Woakes or Broad
Anderson (rotates around with Woakes and Broad).
Stone or Wood
Leach

Bairstow is done for good. Archer needs to bowl and show he can stay fit. Rory Burns may well be done as well. Openers... fuck knows right now.

Heartfeltdawn · March 2021

scrumhalf said:

Denly has stickability, and he's also a useful bowler.

There's no denying that India are the better team but you have to look at the state of county cricket, the feeder game foir the Test side, and wonder if it serves the national team at all.

It doesn't. It was pushed to extremes pre-Covid and this season is still Covid-tweaked and also 100 fucked. The ECB is destroying our entire cricketing structure in pursuit of a new format which it hopes it can license out and become as financially powerful as the BBCI have become with the IPL.

Fuck Tom Harrison.

crunchman · March 2021

Bairstow should never have been brought back. He just doesn't have the technique for test cricket. Look how many times he's been bowled through the gate.

He made some runs in Sri Lanka, but he would have got found out in English conditions against New Zealand in May. At least his failure now means we shouldn't be carrying him as a passenger against NZ.

Even against Sri Lanka, it would have made far more sense to have given a youngster some experience in spinning conditions.

As @Heartfeltdawn has said, the lack of top order options is not good. I think Crawley is better at 3 than opening, but that leaves an even bigger problem at the top. Burns and Sibley look to be the least bad options (unless someone can talk Cook out of retirement).

Neill · March 2021

Stuckfast said:

The selection has been pretty odd throughout. Pull off a brilliant win in the first Test then make four changes for the second, then pick four seamers on a rank turner in the third, then go in a bowler light in the fourth. Archer picked twice even though he looked completely off the pace, Bess and Ali mucked about to the point of probably ending both their Test careers, Stone only played one Test even though he looked superb. Wonder if Ed Smith will put his hand up and admit he got it wrong.

I usually quite like Bairstow but he's been shocking in this series. And Pope is a keeper so we really don't need him for his reserve keeping skills.

Understatement of the year. In particular Ollie Stone must be feeling pretty cheesed off, bowls his heart out and looked like the most hostile bowler on either team then gets cast aside. Archer's whole demeanour suggests he's really not that keen on test cricket but he's a shoo in - when fit. I don't get it. Stone is exactly what England need for Australia so why aren't they giving him experience at test level?

The Bairstow thing is all about playing him as a batsman. Everyone knows he wants to keep wicket and playing Foakes creates an imbalance in the team because he has to bat low down the order - having Bairstow in as wicketkeeper/batsman creates more space for bowling options. Geoff Boycott has being ranting on about this for ages but he's right.

Goodness know what is going on in Ed Smith's head, and it would be a travesty if all the attention is heaped on England's batting when the team selection in three matches was fundamentally wrong.

.

scrumhalf · March 2021

If Crawley bats at 3 then, given how things have been in recent years, he'll be as good as opening half the time.

Heartfeltdawn · March 2021

crunchman said:

Bairstow should never have been brought back. He just doesn't have the technique for test cricket. Look how many times he's been bowled through the gate.

Bairstow: bowled 34 times out of 123 dismissals.

Cook: bowled 35 times out of 275 dismissals.

Rather emphasises the point.

Neill said:
Understatement of the year. In particular Ollie Stone must be feeling pretty cheesed off, bowls his heart out and looked like the most hostile bowler on either team then gets cast aside. Archer's whole demeanour suggests he's really not that keen on test cricket but he's a shoo in - when fit. I don't get it. Stone is exactly what England need for Australia so why aren't they giving him experience at test level?

The Bairstow thing is all about playing him as a batsman. Everyone knows he wants to keep wicket and playing Foakes creates an imbalance in the team because he has to bat low down the order - having Bairstow in as wicketkeeper/batsman creates more space for bowling options. Geoff Boycott has being ranting on about this for ages but he's right.

Goodness know what is going on in Ed Smith's head, and it would be a travesty if all the attention is heaped on England's batting when the team selection in three matches was fundamentally wrong.

Stone would have a lot more Test experience if his fitness record were better. Him not playing in the successive Tests: not a huge issue really. Archer was ahead of him in the pecking order and Stone played when he was injured. I suspect England will pick him this summer. Woakes with his home record is a no-brainer so we will operate with a rotation policy around three bowlers: Woakes, Anderson mixing with Broad, Stone with Archer and Wood, Stokes in there too. Outside of those I don't there is anyone saying "Pick me ahead of those five". Olly Robinson is a bowler I like a lot, Jamie Overton would have to be a real bolter if he's going to get to Australia, and Craig Overton seems to be a permanent replacement bowler than a first pick.

Bairstow as a keeper: the dude averages 47 in ODI cricket. Giving up the gloves hasn't affected him at ODI level. Without the gloves, he averages a shade more. One ton in 14 games with the gloves, 9 tons in 69 games without them. If you average 43 in FC cricket, 47 in ODI cricket, and you're averaging 20 in Tests since Jan 2019 then it's fuck all to do with wanting the gloves and everything about technique failure.

If he wants the gloves, then he needs to show he can match the others guys behind the stumps and he can score more runs than them. This winter he hasn't made that case. Also worth remembering that Ben Foakes went two years between Test matches (Windies 2019 to India 2021). At the point of his last Test match 23 Jan 2019, he was averaging over 40 and had a Test century to his name. That two-year absence from the mirror is very close to the time period I detailed above for Bairstow where YJB did close to sod all with the bat.

What we need to do with Foakes is to find out how good a Test batsman he is now and could be. It may well be worth putting him up the order in the manner of a Sangakkarra for a series to see how good he is because we've not really learnt much about him this winter when he's been going in when we're deep in the shit and the tail falls apart. If he bats 6 against NZ and we have Buttler and Woakes coming behind him rather than him batting 7 and getting the tail, how will he react to being given more opportunity to succeed?

scrumhalf · March 2021

Heartfeltdawn said:

Stone would have a lot more Test experience if his fitness record were better. Him not playing in the successive Tests: not a huge issue really. Archer was ahead of him in the pecking order and Stone played when he was injured. I suspect England will pick him this summer. Woakes with his home record is a no-brainer so we will operate with a rotation policy around three bowlers: Woakes, Anderson mixing with Broad, Stone with Archer and Wood, Stokes in there too. Outside of those I don't there is anyone saying "Pick me ahead of those five". Olly Robinson is a bowler I like a lot, Jamie Overton would have to be a real bolter if he's going to get to Australia, and Craig Overton seems to be a permanent replacement bowler than a first pick.

No members of the Curran clan?

Heartfeltdawn · March 2021

scrumhalf said:

Heartfeltdawn said:

Stone would have a lot more Test experience if his fitness record were better. Him not playing in the successive Tests: not a huge issue really. Archer was ahead of him in the pecking order and Stone played when he was injured. I suspect England will pick him this summer. Woakes with his home record is a no-brainer so we will operate with a rotation policy around three bowlers: Woakes, Anderson mixing with Broad, Stone with Archer and Wood, Stokes in there too. Outside of those I don't there is anyone saying "Pick me ahead of those five". Olly Robinson is a bowler I like a lot, Jamie Overton would have to be a real bolter if he's going to get to Australia, and Craig Overton seems to be a permanent replacement bowler than a first pick.

No members of the Curran clan?

Certainly not Tom.

I really like SC and people used to my boring spiel might recall I wanted him as a batting opener and bowling option this winter on the basis that our openers might be shit and neither would contribute anything with the ball. Imagine the Test just finished. We'd have lost nothing with him opening with Sibley and Crawley going in at 3 and we'd have gained an extra seamer. So maybe that opening gap I had above should be partly filled with SC. There is no point picking an opener for the sake of it if there are no openers demanding to be in that Test role so let's get SC in there opening. And because I've had a couple of lunchtime birthday drinks at home, let's bring Alex Hales back for even more laughter. We have nothing to lose so let's go for it.

Now as much as I like him, my focus above was on finding a seam attack for Australia. Sam Curran doesn't get in ahead of the two oldies in terms of consistency and experience, he's not the leading bowling all rounder when you have Woakes and Stokes around, and he's not the outright paceman who will challenge Stone, Archer, and Wood.

Hales (not stoned)
Curran (S)
Crawley
Root
Stokes
Foakes
Buttler
Woakes or Broad
Anderson
Stone or Wood or Archer
Leach

crunchman · March 2021

Neill said:

Stuckfast said:

The selection has been pretty odd throughout. Pull off a brilliant win in the first Test then make four changes for the second, then pick four seamers on a rank turner in the third, then go in a bowler light in the fourth. Archer picked twice even though he looked completely off the pace, Bess and Ali mucked about to the point of probably ending both their Test careers, Stone only played one Test even though he looked superb. Wonder if Ed Smith will put his hand up and admit he got it wrong.

I usually quite like Bairstow but he's been shocking in this series. And Pope is a keeper so we really don't need him for his reserve keeping skills.

Understatement of the year. In particular Ollie Stone must be feeling pretty cheesed off, bowls his heart out and looked like the most hostile bowler on either team then gets cast aside. Archer's whole demeanour suggests he's really not that keen on test cricket but he's a shoo in - when fit. I don't get it. Stone is exactly what England need for Australia so why aren't they giving him experience at test level?

The Bairstow thing is all about playing him as a batsman. Everyone knows he wants to keep wicket and playing Foakes creates an imbalance in the team because he has to bat low down the order - having Bairstow in as wicketkeeper/batsman creates more space for bowling options. Geoff Boycott has being ranting on about this for ages but he's right.

Goodness know what is going on in Ed Smith's head, and it would be a travesty if all the attention is heaped on England's batting when the team selection in three matches was fundamentally wrong.

.

Foakes is a good batsman. I'm pretty sure he has averaged 50 for a first class season at some point in recent years. Heartfeltdawn is right that he needs to be given a run at test level to see what he can do. At the moment he looks a composed at the crease and competent than Bairstow. Since May 2018, Bairstow has averaged 23 in test cricket. Foakes is averaging 31 in his career so far.

Whatever the merits of their batting, Bairstow is not a great keeper. If Bairstow had been keeping in this series instead of Foakes, then India would probably have benefited from another 100 byes and 3 or 4 missed chances through the course of the series. Even if Bairstow was a better batsman than Foakes, which he isn;t on current form, you do have to take the keeping into account. Given Buttler's improvement as a keeper, Bairstow isn't even our second best keeper any more. If he wants a place in the side, he needs to sort his technique and earn it as a batsman.

Heartfeltdawn · March 2021

crunchman said:

Since May 2018, Bairstow has averaged 23 in test cricket. Foakes is averaging 31 in his career so far.

And since May 2018 Buttler has averaged 36 with two centuries. So he's ahead of Bairstow with bat and gloves, Foakes is ahead of them both with the gloves and needs to prove himself with the bat, and Bairstow's done absolutely nothing to demonstrate that he should be there as a batsman-keeper.

I think Bairstow will call time on Tests before too long. He gave up his Big Bash contract for the Sri Lanka tour and he does have a point about the contracts. It's asking a lot for a player with no red-ball contract to give up franchise cricket in order to come into a Test series.

Stuckfast · March 2021

Re the idea of Sam Curran opening the batting, I've sometimes wondered whether Woakes could be an option in that role. He's a good bat with a pretty sound and orthodox technique and he can build an innings.

It's a real shame how David Willey's career has gone. When he first emerged in county cricket he was a genuine all-rounder who played all formats. Then he moved to Yorkshire and became a white-ball specialist and his batting went to pot. With better handling I think he could have been a better Sam Curran.

guitars4you · March 2021

Totally forgot about Sam Curran - I'm a fan of his but he doesn't appear to get a consistent run - Why was he not part of the squad

Heartfeltdawn · March 2021

guitars4you said:

Totally forgot about Sam Curran - I'm a fan of his but he doesn't appear to get a consistent run - Why was he not part of the squad

Rest problems. Massive problems getting him to Ahmedabad so they released him from the Tests and told him to come over for the slog cricket later. If he hadn't gone home after SL and missed the first two Tests, then with his IPL commitments and everything else he'd have spent a ridiculous amount of time in bubbles.

Stuckfast said:

Re the idea of Sam Curran opening the batting, I've sometimes wondered whether Woakes could be an option in that role. He's a good bat with a pretty sound and orthodox technique and he can build an innings.

Either one would do. For some reason, I always fancy Curran to play the quicker bowlers better for some reason. Dunno why! But I'd be happy with either one opening. When we have such a dearth of quality openers, then we lose nowt with the bat and gain everything by having an extra seamer. Also makes me think of Andrew Hall doing it in India for SA.

https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/luke-alfred-on-andrew-hall-the-makeshift-opener-who-batted-and-batted-924033

sev112 · March 2021

Stuckfast said:

Re the idea of Sam Curran opening the batting, I've sometimes wondered whether Woakes could be an option in that role. He's a good bat with a pretty sound and orthodox technique and he can build an innings.

It's a real shame how David Willey's career has gone. When he first emerged in county cricket he was a genuine all-rounder who played all formats. Then he moved to Yorkshire and became a white-ball specialist and his batting went to pot. With better handling I think he could have been a better Sam Curran.

No no no no no

im a big supporter of Woakes
but he bats well when bowlers are tired, not fresh with a new ball

Stuckfast · March 2021

Remind we again who we have available who does bat well when the bowlers are fresh with a new ball?

crunchman · March 2021

Stuckfast said:

Remind we again who we have available who does bat well when the bowlers are fresh with a new ball?

Jack Leach?

Gassage · March 2021

Desperately saddening to hear of the passing of Joey Benjamin, someone I grew up with and have known 39 years.

A more kind, gentle, patient human you would never meet…….say those who knew him in the 2000’s but in the 80's and 90’s he was a fantastic fast-med bowler, skilful and brutally competitive.

He got sacked by Warwickshire, thrown on the scrapheap and he hardly wanted to play in the Bham League, but Surrey signed him and he ended up playing for England.

We crossed swords many times. latterly when he was pro'ing for Bromley and then Reigate, and we played together quite a few times.

One day, we were playing for Staffordshire away and the skip and I had just played each other Old Hill v Wolves so the skip (David Banks) was driving us to the hotel and we were picking Joey up on the Hagley Rd in Brum.

We pull up by the roadside and Joey is just standing there in his legendary denim dungarees next to a plastic Tesco bag with his 'Ian Mason' handmade bowling boots poking out the top. Banksy rolls down the window and "says where’s your kit Joey ?"

He just pulled out a toothbrush from his top pocket and giggles- “Travelling light, man “ !!

RIP Benji, old foe. We are all saddened and you'll be so greatly missed by all of us.

Gassage · March 2021

crunchman · March 2021

Sad news

rocktron · March 2021

The Monster Bat Incident of 1771 - The Event After Which Rules Were Made on Bat Size

https://i.imgur.com/GPrqUWr.jpg

I was watching a video of David Warner's Gray-Nicolls "Kaboom" cricket bat, and did a search on Monster Bats. This hilarious article came up:-

https://www.sportskeeda.com/cricket/monster-bat-incident-event-rules-bat-size

In recent times, October 2017, the ICC changed the regulations on cricket bat size which outlawed the Monster Bats. They claim that Monster Bats were heavily weighted (?) against the bowler with too many sixes being easily hit, and they wanted to create a level playing field, so to speak.

I think that the Monster Bats should, at least, be permitted for T20 cricket, if not test cricket. The spectators love the huge sixes. T20 is the form of the game which is ideal for these Monster Bats.

Here are two interesting articles concerning the outlawing of the Monster Bats:-

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-02/rules-governing-cricket-bat-size-a-waste-of-time/9113018

https://www.itsjustcricket.news/cricket-bat-size-restrictions-will-actually-make-difference/

crunchman · March 2021

They need more restrictions on the bats. You still see mishits going for 6. That's wrong.

40mm at the edges is still too deep. The bats we had when I was young were nowhere near that deep. I just measured my old bat, and it's only around 20mm.

I've seen suggestions of a minimum press on bats, but that would be difficult, if not impossible, to enforce.

The great players will still hit sixes with old style bats, but it will require skill and timing. That makes for a much better game than seeing top edges fly for six.

sev112 · March 2021

I think they should be allowed, as long as the bowlers are allowed to throw the ball (no beakers or bouncers tho)

the whole approach to batting and equipment has changed out of all scale in the past 25 years. Whereas bowlers are still doing what they did 250 years ago (ish).

I still fail to see why a bowler should not be able to bowl the ball by throwing

Gassage · March 2021

crunchman said:

They need more restrictions on the bats. You still see mishits going for 6. That's wrong.

40mm at the edges is still too deep. The bats we had when I was young were nowhere near that deep. I just measured my old bat, and it's only around 20mm.

I've seen suggestions of a minimum press on bats, but that would be difficult, if not impossible, to enforce.

The great players will still hit sixes with old style bats, but it will require skill and timing. That makes for a much better game than seeing top edges fly for six.

The volume of the bat makes no difference.

Force= mass x acceleration.

Bats are lighter these days than 25 yrs ago

crunchman · March 2021

Gassage said:

crunchman said:

They need more restrictions on the bats. You still see mishits going for 6. That's wrong.

40mm at the edges is still too deep. The bats we had when I was young were nowhere near that deep. I just measured my old bat, and it's only around 20mm.

I've seen suggestions of a minimum press on bats, but that would be difficult, if not impossible, to enforce.

The great players will still hit sixes with old style bats, but it will require skill and timing. That makes for a much better game than seeing top edges fly for six.

The volume of the bat makes no difference.

Force= mass x acceleration.

Bats are lighter these days than 25 yrs ago

It's not as simple as that. If a bat is thicker it will be stiffer.

They are more lightly pressed now, so you get less mass but greater stiffness because of the greater thickness.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

In this Discussion

Become a Subscriber!

The cricket thread

Comments