The cricket thread

scrumhalf · June 2021

No matter how you arrange it we seem to be determined not to pass 100 without losing at least three wickets.

guitars4you · June 2021

Teetonetal said:

crunchman said:

Heartfeltdawn said:

guitars4you said:

Over rate - See England had a 40% match fee fine for slow over rate - I'm sure the management know that with no effective spinner that a slow over rate would be the case before the day starts - Especially if you are not taking wickets - I know DRS has an impact on the overs bowled but that can be taken into account, ditto weather

However it is now time, for an international, response to this slow over rate - Fines are a waste of time - Can't always guarantee good weather to bowl the required overs at 6.30 or 7pm - IMO it has to be a punishment that has an impact on the pitch - So runs to be added for overs not bowled, to be called 'slow over rate extras' - Option 1 is a fixed amount say 4 runs per overs not bowled - Option 2 is probably better in that you take the battings teams scoring rate for that day and then times this by overs not bowled and add this amount as 'slow over rate extras'

Granted if both teams bat during the day - Any shortfall of overs not bowled has to be accounted for to the guilty party and both teams if required - Again you have to look at the full day, as for instance spinners will be used far less on the first 2 sessions on an opening day of the match - ie up to lunch and up to tea might not make 30 overs each session, but a final session with a spinner/or two, might claw back sometime, so this can be taken into account for 'slow over rate extras' to be added at the end of the day - Or do you punish any team for not bowling 30 overs in any one session with 'slow over rate extra's' per session

Either way, forget the fine and put runs on the board as required with 'slow over rate extra's '

Fines do not work. Runs being added to the opposition score has a certain contrivance to it in my opinion because there are some sides who might feel "Fuck it, I'm happy going to a slower rate and giving up 20 runs". Imagine a scenario with bad weather predicted in the fifth day. A side could slow the over rate down in order to secure a draw because of bad weather and the penalty runs really couldn't be applied because the innings wasn't completed.

I'd target DRS reviews instead.

First innings: Side A bat, side B bowl. Over rate for completed innings is under 14 overs per hour. Match referee decides this is down to bowling Side B time wasting rather than batting side A wasting time. Bowling side lose two reviews when it is their turn to bat and have one review for that innings.

Second innings: Side B bat. They start with one DRS review as a batting side. Side A bowl and the innings is completed with an over rate of 15 overs per hour. No DRS penalty applies to Side A.

Third innings: Side A bat. Over rate is 14 overs per hour. This is caused by an injury to a batsman requiring lengthy treatment. Side B are therefore not punished with any DRS reviews.

Fourth innings: Side B bat and start with three reviews.

Now innings four needs slight tweak of the rules. If a bowling side is contriving to slow down the over rate in order to stop the batting side winning (hello the West Indies in 1990 against England) and they do not meet the required rate, then you need some system of punishment that carries over to the next Test. It's at this point where penalty runs could apply. Alternatively, you could have a DRS punishment that carries over to the next Test.

Why focus on the reviews? Because it's carrot and stick time. No side would want to, say, bat in India when they've only got 1 review for their innings and the other side has a full bank of three to use.

Jeremy Coney suggested removing a fielder from the fielding side until they had caught up with the over rate the other day. If you got too far behind, remove a second fielder.

A much better idea.

Yes an option to consider - but a captain, will order his bowlers to bowl wide of off, or even down the leg side, so as not to concede runs whilst down to 10 players, so they don't concede runs - Not seen as a wide option in test match cricket

Heartfeltdawn · June 2021

crunchman said:

Jeremy Coney suggested removing a fielder from the fielding side until they had caught up with the over rate the other day. If you got too far behind, remove a second fielder.

Teetonetal said:
A much better idea.

I thought it was a shit idea when he voiced it and it's a shit idea still.

-Remove a fielder = more gaps. If batters start working it into those, then you might end up with longer overs because of that reduced fielder and thus actually getting back to the required rate becomes a bit harder.

-If the over rate is proscribed as 15 per hour and you bowl 14 in the first hour... are you then punished for the next hour and rush through things until the end of the next hour where you've hit 15 overs per hour? Let's say you're an over down in the first session of play. You lose a fielder for the next hour after lunch. Tough luck on your spinner who didn't bowl before lunch and then comes on with reduced options.

-If batsmen start fucking about timewasting and the bowling side go under the rate, then someone needs to adjudicate who was responsible for the failure to bowl overs on time. It's the sort of decision that sides would demand the right to appeal, which then takes time to get in and you'd end up with something similar to endurance racing where team appeals can go on for lap after lap. We'd be moving into the territory of sides refusing to play because they view the adjudication as shit.

-If over rate isn't met because of batsmen timewasting, then presumably you'd dock the a fielder when they bowled for an hour.

With a DRS review or two going because of a slow over rate, sides only need one or two decisions to go against them that they can't then review to understand that they need to get a move on.

Heartfeltdawn · June 2021

guitars4you said:
Yes an option to consider - but a captain, will order his bowlers to bowl wide of off, or even down the leg side, so as not to concede runs whilst down to 10 players, so they don't concede runs - Not seen as a wide option in test match cricket

It would lead to some grossly contrived cricket. If that was the result because one side was 1 over behind the rate in the first hour, it would turn the game into a farce.

jpfamps · June 2021

guitars4you said:

Yes an option to consider - but a captain, will order his bowlers to bowl wide of off, or even down the leg side, so as not to concede runs whilst down to 10 players, so they don't concede runs - Not seen as a wide option in test match cricket

Actaully I like to see more leg-side deliveries called wides in test cricket.

You never see anybody hitting them, so in my view they qualify as wides under the wording of the laws.

Heartfeltdawn · June 2021

scrumhalf said:

No matter how you arrange it we seem to be determined not to pass 100 without losing at least three wickets.

I left home at 0 for 47. I should have put some money down on wickets to fall before I got back.

Sibley's booked in for the rest of the summer but Crawley has got the footwork of Ann Widdecombe at the minute. Time to find a new number 3. Perhaps they'll give Bracey a shot against India if he gets some runs here as an outright batsman.

Teetonetal · June 2021

Heartfeltdawn said:

crunchman said:

Jeremy Coney suggested removing a fielder from the fielding side until they had caught up with the over rate the other day. If you got too far behind, remove a second fielder.

Teetonetal said:
A much better idea.

I thought it was a shit idea when he voiced it and it's a shit idea still.

-Remove a fielder = more gaps. If batters start working it into those, then you might end up with longer overs because of that reduced fielder and thus actually getting back to the required rate becomes a bit harder.

-If the over rate is proscribed as 15 per hour and you bowl 14 in the first hour... are you then punished for the next hour and rush through things until the end of the next hour where you've hit 15 overs per hour? Let's say you're an over down in the first session of play. You lose a fielder for the next hour after lunch. Tough luck on your spinner who didn't bowl before lunch and then comes on with reduced options.

-If batsmen start fucking about timewasting and the bowling side go under the rate, then someone needs to adjudicate who was responsible for the failure to bowl overs on time. It's the sort of decision that sides would demand the right to appeal, which then takes time to get in and you'd end up with something similar to endurance racing where team appeals can go on for lap after lap. We'd be moving into the territory of sides refusing to play because they view the adjudication as shit.

-If over rate isn't met because of batsmen timewasting, then presumably you'd dock the a fielder when they bowled for an hour.

With a DRS review or two going because of a slow over rate, sides only need one or two decisions to go against them that they can't then review to understand that they need to get a move on.

Given how often teams Spaff reviews on dodgy LBW umpires call decisions, I wonder if DRS docking would really be an incentive?

scrumhalf · June 2021

Why do we get slow over rates? there are enough ICC analysts around to find one to work oout what's going on.

- Batsmen faffing around. Penalise the batting team by penalising them the runs scored in the most heavily-scored overs.

- DRS. Add the time on to the scheduled day's play. Nobody should lose out, especially if it's one of those that require repeated playbacks.

- Captains repeatedly making micro-adjustments to the field. The umpires have the power to stop this, they just don't.

- Bowlers taking too long. Treat it the same as running on the wicket. Informal warning, formal warning, out of the attack.

Heartfeltdawn · June 2021

Teetonetal said:
Given how often teams Spaff reviews on dodgy LBW umpires call decisions, I wonder if DRS docking would really be an incentive?

If you go into a bowling innings in India knowing you've got three reviews in the first 80 overs, then you can afford to spaff. If you have one, you can't go for the review in hope because you might need it later on for something that is obviously wrong like an umpire thinking the batsman has nicked it into the pads for an LBW and you know he hasn't.

Remember Australia at Headingley in 2019? Threw away their last review on Leach being LBW to Cummins (miles outside off), didn't have a review in the bag when Lyon didn't get Stokes LBW. Restricting reviews has the possibility to create dilemmas beforehand with future consequences). Same with batting as well. Think of Shane Watson batting. He uses up the review, he's out, rest of the side can't use it.

Ultimately if a side being docked a DRS review for slow overrates then has a batsman sawn off by a bad decision that they can't review because of their slow overrate, they only have themselves to blame.

Heartfeltdawn · June 2021

scrumhalf said:

Why do we get slow over rates? there are enough ICC analysts around to find one to work oout what's going on.

- Batsmen faffing around. Penalise the batting team by penalising them the runs scored in the most heavily-scored overs.
- DRS. Add the time on to the scheduled day's play. Nobody should lose out, especially if it's one of those that require repeated playbacks.
- Captains repeatedly making micro-adjustments to the field. The umpires have the power to stop this, they just don't.
- Bowlers taking too long. Treat it the same as running on the wicket. Informal warning, formal warning, out of the attack.

First we need to find an overrate that is the yardstick. It might well be 14 overs an hour.

Then it's time to analyse all the other faff. Interesting point for reference. Windies-South Africa match right now, Bonner bounced on the helmet, SA ask for the review so I got the stopwatch out. Two minutes for the decision, 15 seconds to decide, plus Bonner had to undergo a concussion check. Whole thing took over five minutes. As the over also had a wicket in it, the whole over took ten minutes.

Also: this game started at 10am. Bang on 11am, 13.2 overs bowled. 2 wickets down, 31 runs, one DRS review, one concussion check. So the bits of non cricket (batsmen back and forth from the crease, DRS, etc) took ten minutes of that first hour.

Stuckfast · June 2021

This has got to be the worst England batting line-up since the 1990s. Has every single wicket now fallen to a ball that should have been left alone?

sixstringsupplies · June 2021

^It is appalling isn't it? Never have I seen such a dishevelled look of a batsman than Bracey after that dismissal.

Feel for the guy but the reality is he shouldn't be in the team at all (this is not down to his ability, but I really disagree with the ECB / management resting Stokes/Woakes/Curran and Buttler/Bairstow for the sake of T20 cricket.

Anyway, watching on Sky and listening on the radio, the atmosphere seems absolutely electric, I really can't wait to dive in and experience it on Saturday!

I am not in the Hollies stand....but I am, ehem....a typical Hollies stand spectator. Lots of beer and sun, I expect to wake up on Sunday with a sore head and red like a lobster.

I just hope this match goes to a third day...I'm sure it will.

scrumhalf · June 2021

That's the influence of one-day cricket for you. Building an innings, knowing when to play and when to leave, it's not currency in the one-day game.

Listening to Dennis Amiss on TMS at tea I couldn't help but wonder what he thinks about the current state of our batting.

But I'm sure everything will turn out fine, the Hundred will save the game and give us the upper hand in the Ashes.

Heartfeltdawn · June 2021

Stuckfast said:

This has got to be the worst England batting line-up since the 1990s. Has every single wicket now fallen to a ball that should have been left alone?

I'm not going to call it the worst line up since the 90s but it's the most misfiring all over the place top 7 for ages. 2 has no fluency, 3 is bang out of form, Root..., Pope is another who hasn't grabbed his chance, and Bracey looks like an absolute bag of nerves. In some ways, it's harder for him to go in at 7 than to go 2 or 3. Imagine being in that dressing room after a first Test duck. Lose three quick wickets, the collapse is on, skipper comes back quick... and then you've got to go out there. At least opening up, you aren't sat there listening to all this shit going on.

It's shit but we've seen worse.

https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/new-zealand-tour-of-england-1999-62074/england-vs-new-zealand-4th-test-63844/full-scorecard

crunchman · June 2021

Heartfeltdawn said:

Stuckfast said:

This has got to be the worst England batting line-up since the 1990s. Has every single wicket now fallen to a ball that should have been left alone?

I'm not going to call it the worst line up since the 90s but it's the most misfiring all over the place top 7 for ages. 2 has no fluency, 3 is bang out of form, Root..., Pope is another who hasn't grabbed his chance, and Bracey looks like an absolute bag of nerves. In some ways, it's harder for him to go in at 7 than to go 2 or 3. Imagine being in that dressing room after a first Test duck. Lose three quick wickets, the collapse is on, skipper comes back quick... and then you've got to go out there. At least opening up, you aren't sat there listening to all this shit going on.

It's shit but we've seen worse.

https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/new-zealand-tour-of-england-1999-62074/england-vs-new-zealand-4th-test-63844/full-scorecard

Having someone who knows which end of the bat is which at 9 does help.

222 for 7 would have been 230 all out with Mullally, Tufnell, and Giddins at 9, 10, and 11. Wood is a distinct upgrade on that.

Heartfeltdawn · June 2021

Oh yeah, tails in those days were proper tails. None of this batting lark back then.

Stuckfast · June 2021

Heartfeltdawn said:

It's shit but we've seen worse.

https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/new-zealand-tour-of-england-1999-62074/england-vs-new-zealand-4th-test-63844/full-scorecard

That was a pretty good top six! Barring Root for Maddy you'd pick most of them ahead of the current lot.

crunchman · June 2021

Stuckfast said:

Heartfeltdawn said:

It's shit but we've seen worse.

https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/new-zealand-tour-of-england-1999-62074/england-vs-new-zealand-4th-test-63844/full-scorecard

That was a pretty good top six! Barring Root for Maddy you'd pick most of them ahead of the current lot.

I think Atherton was really struggling with his back by that point in time. From 1998 onwards he averaged 32.7, compared with 40.6 before that. With an opening partnership of Maddy and a crippled Atherton, the middle order was exposed. Not a lot of margin for error with that long a tail.

sev112 · June 2021

That 1999 batting line up (Maddy excepted, who I liked a lot and hoped he do better given a better chance) reminds me very much of the Engkand football team generation of Beckam, Gerrard, Lampard etc.

That was 5 batsmen who could have dominated test cricket for years. Each in their individual ways were significant test players, Ramps perhaps slightly less, but if I remember whikst he didn’t make lots of hundreds her usually made runs ?
funny game isn’t it.

I was looking at who to add to it in place of Maddy. Perhaps Butcher was injured or out of form temporarily, as he was a good test opener, maybe not top notch, but good over a reasonably long period ?

crunchman · June 2021

sev112 said:

That 1999 batting line up (Maddy excepted, who I liked a lot and hoped he do better given a better chance) reminds me very much of the Engkand football team generation of Beckam, Gerrard, Lampard etc.
That was 5 batsmen who could have dominated test cricket for years. Each in their individual ways were significant test players, Ramps perhaps slightly less, but if I remember whikst he didn’t make lots of hundreds her usually made runs ?
funny game isn’t it.

I was looking at who to add to it in place of Maddy. Perhaps Butcher was injured or out of form temporarily, as he was a good test opener, maybe not top notch, but good over a reasonably long period ?

The big problem with that 1999 team was the bowling. Alan Mullally and Ed Giddins weren't going to strike fear into anyone.

Stuckfast · June 2021

crunchman said: Alan Mullally and Ed Giddins weren't going to strike fear into anyone.

... except England fans.

crunchman · June 2021

Stuckfast said:

crunchman said: Alan Mullally and Ed Giddins weren't going to strike fear into anyone.

... except England fans.

Giddins main claim to fame has to be one the classic sledges when a bowler asked for a snort leg when came into bat.

Heartfeltdawn · June 2021

Stuckfast said:

That was a pretty good top six! Barring Root for Maddy you'd pick most of them ahead of the current lot.

Atherton was struggling badly as Crunch says, Maddy as an opener = no way, Stewart at 5 with the gloves is the shit top 6 version of Stewart, and Ramps at home averaged 24. So I'd happily take Thorpe and Hussain from that top six as they played for this team.

Stewie would be in my top six as a batsman alone, not as he was there in 1999 hence me not picking him. When you go back through his career, it reinforces how fucking stupid repeated coaches were. When batting at 1 or 2 and not keeping, he averaged 45. All positions in the top order without the gloves, he was averaging 47.70. Put that against other openers of the time and their average. Slater and Taylor, 42 and 43. Haynes and Greenidge, 42 and 44. Graham Gooch, 42. People talk about many players being mismanaged and treated like shit in the 90s. Hick, Tufnell, Ramprakash, Lewis, Devon Malcolm, but Stewart too suffered from insane management. You take a guy who could and should have been our top order pivot, the one guy everyone could have revolved around, and you dump both the gloves and the captaincy on him. We pissed away a genuine absolutely stone cold great in Stewart to my mind. He's still got a bloody good record: it should have been better.

We had the batting in the 1990s. We simply didn't use it well. The 1990 series against West Indies, Stewart and Hussain debuted. Atherton debuted a year earlier. Robin Smith and Allan Lamb were in the side. Gooch was leading and opening. On paper, we had some experienced guys who were good, we had some good young players who didn't hit the high performance levels in the West Indies but showed they had some character, and we damn well nearly won against the best in the business.

And we did this all with Wayne Larkins opening.

We then come back to England, a three Test series against NZ, and then the First Test against India, the match Gooch hits his famous 333. Hussain and Stewart have gone, Gower comes back again, and John Morris has somehow jumped up the rankings. After going through the brutality of the winter against the West Indies quicks, the easier more sedate fare of India was denied. We had no development policy in place and we kept going back to the old guard.

There's an interview or two with Alan Mullally talking about some of the madness. One aspect was him saying how he once went 27 playing days in a row for club and country. So our batting and bowling were shit in those days but the whole system was a fucking mess pre-Fletcher and pre-central contracts. Fletcher coming in made the County Championship a priority as the springboard to international cricket. It's fair to say that all the T20 stuff, IPL, T100 contracts have destroyed that structure that was built up and we're now seeing the consequences of it: top order batsmen who can't stop playing away from their body who are desperately out of form and don't have any cricket other than 20 over slaps with which to find it.

Heartfeltdawn · June 2021

crunchman said:

The big problem with that 1999 team was the bowling. Alan Mullally and Ed Giddins weren't going to strike fear into anyone.

Giddins was a greentop bowler. Mullally ultimately fell into the mismanaged category like many others and some of the comments he has made about senior management are consistent with what others have said.

The 1990s were the era of next level shit management. I mean, christ, I'm focusing on the start of the 1990s and bloody Illingworth had yet to come in then!

Gassage · June 2021

@Heartfeltdawn ;
Just one point- Larkins at his best, was utterly destructive.

Heartfeltdawn · June 2021

Gassage said:

@Heartfeltdawn ;
Just one point- Larkins at his best, was utterly destructive.

Agreed, he really could destroy attacks at county level but it didn't get translated into major Test success. Again like many others, you look at his Test career and you see this pattern of coming in and then going out of the side. In his case, in and out over 1980 and 1981, out of the side through his own decision to go on a rebel tour, and then back again for 1990 to the West Indies, out again for the 1990 summer, in again for Australia 90/91... the pinball selection policies of the 1990s were quite something.

Heartfeltdawn · June 2021

Comedy note of the day: Stuart Broad is still 18 runs short of matching Graeme Hick for Test runs.

https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/records/batting/most_runs_career.html?class=1;id=1;type=team

Stuckfast · June 2021

Yes to be fair to Mullally and co, the workloads on Test bowlers before we had central contracts were insane. Gus Fraser was another who could have had a much better England career if he'd been looked after.

crunchman · June 2021

At this rate, we won't have to choose between cricket and football tomorrow afternoon.

scrumhalf · June 2021

What a load of old pony.

Really poor.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

In this Discussion

Become a Subscriber!

The cricket thread

Comments