The cricket thread

Heartfeltdawn · August 2018

quarky said:

"Mr Stokes told the jury he "stepped in" to defend two gay men who were being verbally abused, and these men have appeared on Good Morning Britain to thank him for his help as they felt threatened."

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/gay-couple-at-the-centre-of-ben-stokes-trial-thank-him-for-risking-everything/ar-BBLWZKb?ocid=spartanntp

Sounds like he is due a pat on the back, not a suspension doesn't it?

That is for the ECB Cricket Discipline Committee to decide.

Heartfeltdawn · August 2018

crunchman said:

Heartfeltdawn said:

He wouldn't last 10 minutes in St Pauls.

Should be fun to see how the ECB disrepute charge goes.

Given that he's already missed the Ashes, and some of this series, I would have thought that they shouldn't be dishing out any additional punishment on top.

Missing the Ashes after being charged was the right call as he was being investigated by the police.

When the incident took place, Stokes was the vice captain of the ODI side. In those circumstances, being out at the small hours in the middle of an ODI series is seriously fucking stupid, especially when you have previous form for being sent home from a Lions tour for late night drinking. Ben Duckett got chucked for far less than Stokes has done. It wouldn't surprise me if he is kept out of the winter squads, no bad thing considering we have the World Cup next year.

I did read that the ECB couldn't get the CDC involved prior to the court case because that may have prejudiced the outcome of that case. So the ECB had to wait for the court case to end before addressing the cricketing charge of disrepute.

sixstringsupplies · August 2018

Steve Harmison was saying on talksport yesterday that if he is punished by the ECB , the PCA will be all over them.

If there was any inclination they would punish him, why on earth did he play the first test of the series, or the ODI's v New Zealand and earlier this summer. Either state outright you are not considered for selection until the trial is finished, and then we do our internal code of conduct review, or pick him. They picked him. The PCA will jump on that.

I wouldn't pick him for this test anyway as it happens. Woakes got a ton, Curran is playing really well and Pope needs more than 1 innings to prove his credentials. Win the series, give Stokes a week to get his head straight then pick him for the next test and rest Broad.

They wouldn't...or shouldn't add him to the squad if they are then to turn around and punish/ban him.

Fretwired · August 2018

sixstringsupplies said:

I wouldn't pick him for this test anyway as it happens. Woakes got a ton, Curran is playing really well and Pope needs more than 1 innings to prove his credentials. Win the series, give Stokes a week to get his head straight then pick him for the next test and rest Broad.

They wouldn't...or shouldn't add him to the squad if they are then to turn around and punish/ban him.

I agree with this .. he'll have been out partying after the court case.

Heartfeltdawn · August 2018

sixstringsupplies said:

Steve Harmison was saying on talksport yesterday that if he is punished by the ECB , the PCA will be all over them.

If there was any inclination they would punish him, why on earth did he play the first test of the series, or the ODI's v New Zealand and earlier this summer. Either state outright you are not considered for selection until the trial is finished, and then we do our internal code of conduct review, or pick him. They picked him. The PCA will jump on that.

I wouldn't pick him for this test anyway as it happens. Woakes got a ton, Curran is playing really well and Pope needs more than 1 innings to prove his credentials. Win the series, give Stokes a week to get his head straight then pick him for the next test and rest Broad.

They wouldn't...or shouldn't add him to the squad if they are then to turn around and punish/ban him.

They didn't pick him for Australia because he was still under investigation. It would have made no sense to pick him, fly him out there, and then fly him back if the police wanted to talk to him.

Once the investigation was finished and he received a charge, then he was free to play up until the trial began. Had the ECB not considered him before the trial, then Stokes may well have had a case for lose of earnings when he was still innocent until proven guilty. As he was proven innocent, an earlier ban might well have left the ECB liable to a claim.

Remember also that it involves more than one England player. From December last year in the Indie:

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/cricket/ashes/alex-hales-ben-stokes-england-ashes-bristol-incident-australia-a8090626.html

"What complicates the matter is that Hales is being treated as a witness in the Stokes case. Because of this, the ECB’s independent Cricket Discipline Commission has delayed the start of any internal disciplinary process until after the Stokes case has concluded, in order to avoid prejudicing any potential criminal trial.

Thus, the CDC will decide on the fates of both Stokes and Hales at the same time. And so Stokes is not guaranteed to be cleared for selection even if charges against him are dropped, for the CDC could yet decide to impose their own sanction that would prevent him from featuring in the current Ashes series."

I don't know what legal counsel Harmison has received but I would anticipate that it's not going to have been as thorough as that received by the ECB. As fucking terrible as the ECB have been in the past and will be in the future with the Load of 100 Balls competition, I think they've actually got things right with Stokes. The minute he was charged, that case took precedence but that did not mean that internal cricket disciplinary matters evaporated into nothingness.

You also have to consider the fallout of the Australian ball tampering scandal. Cricket Australia were quite rightly fucking hard on those players who are suspended. We have to follow that approach. Stokes was not guilty of a criminal offence but he may well be guilty of breaking internal rules. As said earlier, you have to ask what the fuck an England vice captain is doing out on the piss in the small hours during the middle of a series when he has been warned previously about late night drinking when representing England.

Funkfingers · August 2018

Heartfeltdawn said:
you have to ask what an England vice captain is doing out on the piss in the small hours during the middle of a series when he has been warned previously about late night drinking when representing England.

Probably attempting to out-Pod Dave Podmore.

guitars4you · August 2018

To drop Curran for Stokes is a very bad choice - What has Curran done wrong to be dropped - MOM on the 1st test - wickets in the 2nd - A very bad choice and one of the worst I ever seen

I'd actually rest Stokes for the next match regardless - But if you had to bring him back, then maybe Pope, but still unfair, probably Butler as has done nothing in the series so far, but either way a bad shout - Hope Stokes has a bad match and I even hope England loose based on this decision alone

He might have been found not guilty by the court, but still a drunken yob out on a bender and scrapping as well - Why was he putting himself in such a position ? - No sympathy from me

sixstringsupplies · August 2018

guitars4you said:
I even hope England loose based on this decision alone

bit extreme! I always want England to win....but I must admit I was looking forward to getting up tomorrow and watching Curran bowl....not now!

i agree it was a terrible decision and I wonder what it will do to Curran's confidence. I wonder whose decision it was....Root? Ed Smith? Bayliss? I would have rested Stokes, won the series with the same team and then "rotated" Broad for the next match to get Stokes back in if it is deemed necessary that he plays.

He is a top cricketer...can see why they want him back in the team.

Now though, it would seem pretty ridiculous to punish him after this test (As planned) if he is playing.

Teetonetal · August 2018

I imagine bringing stokes in was always the aim. The actual decision was Curran vs Woakes. To be honest the 3 of them have all played well so in a sporting sense it's a good problem to have.

IMO this is the stronger lineup.

Heartfeltdawn · August 2018

Stokes is a strange one to me. I think he's underachieved at Test level considering his ability.

Consider his record after 43 Tests to that of Flintoff:

Stokes: 2606 runs at 34.28, 6 centuries. 104 wickets at 32.97.

Flintoff: 2139 runs @ 32.40, 4 centuries. 101 wickets at 35.66.

Stokes has way more batting ability than Flintoff and has the edge with the ball. His start in Test cricket was much better than Fred's was. But he's not wiping Fred's stats out of the park when Fred faced better opposition (SA, India, and Australia were all better back then than they are now).

I wouldn't have dropped Curran for Stokes.

scrumhalf · August 2018

Not a good afternoon session, especially having put India in.

Heartfeltdawn · August 2018

The Stokes over Curran decision looks worse by the session...

One stat from TMS sums us up now: Between 1938 and 2016 England were never bowled out in a session. It is the third time in last two years it has happened.

Heartfeltdawn · August 2018

That really is a remarkable stat. I'm 40 and my first England memory was being trashed by the Windies in 1984. Since then we've had England sides of varying quality but to lose 10 wickets in a session in a shade over 26 overs... that really is shit.

scrumhalf · August 2018

Poor decision at the toss, poor decision to pick Stokes over Curran, some poor shots when batting and bowling not full enough.

Bah!

crunchman · August 2018

Heartfeltdawn said:

That really is a remarkable stat. I'm 40 and my first England memory was being trashed by the Windies in 1984. Since then we've had England sides of varying quality but to lose 10 wickets in a session in a shade over 26 overs... that really is shit.

I'm 49 and my first real England memory is Windies in 1976.

I've never known such inept batting.

guitars4you · August 2018

crunchman said:

Heartfeltdawn said:

That really is a remarkable stat. I'm 40 and my first England memory was being trashed by the Windies in 1984. Since then we've had England sides of varying quality but to lose 10 wickets in a session in a shade over 26 overs... that really is shit.

I'm 49 and my first real England memory is Windies in 1976.

that is one of my early memories as well - certainly regarding loosing a series so heavily - can't recall one specific match but recall the whole overall hot summer and defeat after defeat

guitars4you · August 2018

will make the series interesting now - assuming 2 v 1 in a few days time

Yes the wrong choice to start of with bringing in Stokes for Curran - possible other options but certainly not Curran - What has the young lad done to deserve it - Plus left arm swing is a good option compared to what was on offer elsewhere - Then to be so far behind after putting in India - At the time one commentator questioned the decision, on the basis that as we are 2 nil up we should bat first to put down a dominate marker

But for the decision alone of Stokes v Curran I said before the match started that I hope we loose and looks like that will be the case - I hope we still win the series - But it all feels so wrong to me this decision

earwighoney · August 2018

Heartfeltdawn said:

The Stokes over Curran decision looks worse by the session...

One stat from TMS sums us up now: Between 1938 and 2016 England were never bowled out in a session. It is the third time in last two years it has happened.

For whatever reasons, test match cricket in English conditions over the last few years seems to create these kind of performances.

Today's performance in this series isn't an isolated incident, India in the first innings at Lords had their huge disaster and in the series against Pakistan earlier this year there were two very one sided test matches where pretty much from the first ball bowled there was little doubt to the outcome of the test match.

IMO, this has been happening in English conditions for a few years now as well - the 3-2 Ashes a few years ago was a prime example where there were 5 very one sided test matches.

crunchman · August 2018

earwighoney said:

Heartfeltdawn said:

The Stokes over Curran decision looks worse by the session...

One stat from TMS sums us up now: Between 1938 and 2016 England were never bowled out in a session. It is the third time in last two years it has happened.

For whatever reasons, test match cricket in English conditions over the last few years seems to create these kind of performances.

Today's performance in this series isn't an isolated incident, India in the first innings at Lords had their huge disaster and in the series against Pakistan earlier this year there were two very one sided test matches where pretty much from the first ball bowled there was little doubt to the outcome of the test match.

IMO, this has been happening in English conditions for a few years now as well - the 3-2 Ashes a few years ago was a prime example where there were 5 very one sided test matches.

I don't think batsmen are willing to leave the ball like they used to. If you go back in time, most top order test batsmen would leave anything outside off stump in conditions like these, and force the bowlers to stray onto their legs. They just don't have that patience any more - or possibly the judgement about what they can leave. They just don't practice it enough. They end up playing at stuff they shouldn't.

At the same time, bowlers do seem to be getting more swing. All of the fast bowlers England have used in this series have swung the ball quite prodigiously at times. I don't remember that being the case in decades gone by. Unless the balls have changed, I wonder if video analysis has helped them improve their techniques.

scrumhalf · August 2018

Remember how they laughed when people said that too much one-day cricket would be detrimental to test match batting?

Heartfeltdawn · August 2018

earwighoney said:
For whatever reasons, test match cricket in English conditions over the last few years seems to create these kind of performances.

Today's performance in this series isn't an isolated incident, India in the first innings at Lords had their huge disaster and in the series against Pakistan earlier this year there were two very one sided test matches where pretty much from the first ball bowled there was little doubt to the outcome of the test match.

IMO, this has been happening in English conditions for a few years now as well - the 3-2 Ashes a few years ago was a prime example where there were 5 very one sided test matches.

Back in the day, Australia would generally succeed in England because a) they like everyone else had tour schedules that allowed for warm-up games against gentle opposition before ramping things up and b) so many of their players from first choice to second string played county cricket. Someone like Michael Hussey played a number of seasons before making his Test debut and then you had people like Stuart Law playing in England for years. Most of the West Indies played county cricket as well. Increasingly you see Test players coming out on A tours to gain experience of English conditions before a Test series.

crunchman said:
I don't think batsmen are willing to leave the ball like they used to. If you go back in time, most top order test batsmen would leave anything outside off stump in conditions like these, and force the bowlers to stray onto their legs. They just don't have that patience any more - or possibly the judgement about what they can leave. They just don't practice it enough. They end up playing at stuff they shouldn't.

At the same time, bowlers do seem to be getting more swing. All of the fast bowlers England have used in this series have swung the ball quite prodigiously at times. I don't remember that being the case in decades gone by. Unless the balls have changed, I wonder if video analysis has helped them improve their techniques.

This. The art of the non shot is vital in Test cricket, letting the ball pass through, but one day batting does not really allow for this. It's always push push push. Keaton Jennings today is a perfect case. Bumrah's bowling over the wicket, wide on the crease. The ball is way short of a length outside of leg stump, it's going across him, it's not swinging in one bit. Jennings ends up nicking it to the keeper and the body is horrific. He's on the crease, no real weight shift back or forward, the front foot is pointing at mid off, the back foot pointing at extra cover, and he's bringing the bat across the ball with the face going toward extra cover.

One other thing: if you push at the ball rather than dead bat it, then an edge with these larger bats will carry. Watching more of the old footage from the 1960's I posted up between England-Australia, a lot of edges don't carry. The modern bat design helps strokeplay with the big middle and light pickup but one wonders if the design doesn't facilitate defensive play.

People understand swing far better now from a bowling perspective, both conventional and reverse swing. The importance of wrist position is really understood. Anderson's always had that great position but you can see it in Broad since the Ashes debacle, how he's gone and worked at this and it has proven very positive.

Heartfeltdawn · August 2018

scrumhalf said:

Remember how they laughed when people said that too much one-day cricket would be detrimental to test match batting?

I laughed. I also said it'd be detrimental to Test match bowling as well.

The anti-Cook crowd were out in force after his dismissal. He is past his best, no doubt, but he's still second highest run scorer in this innings and he's facing the new ball.

crunchman · August 2018

Heartfeltdawn said:

The anti-Cook crowd were out in force after his dismissal. He is past his best, no doubt, but he's still second highest run scorer in this innings and he's facing the new ball.

Cook's past record does give him some credit in the bank. He's proved he can do it at this level and he's still only 33.

Look at someone like Adam Voges for Australia. He made his test debut at 35, and averaged 61.9 in the 20 tests he played. Gooch is another example. His best years were when he was around 37 or 38. They are probably the exceptions but it's too soon to say Cook is washed up. I think bowlers have worked him out a bit now, and his stats have been padded by lots of double centuries on pitches where it wasn't doing much, but at the moment he's still worth his place in the team. It's not like there are any young openers bashing the door down.

Talking of older players, Ian Bell would probably improve the batting line up in the short term. He looks back to his best this season.

crunchman · August 2018

Bairstow has broken his finger. That opens up a spot in the team for the next test. Who do you bring in?

My preference would be Foakes. Buttler is not a good keeper.

I suspect they will give the gloves to Buttler though, and there will be dropped catches and/or missed stumpings.

If they do give the gloves to Buttler, then which batsman comes in?

guitars4you · August 2018

crunchman said:

Bairstow has broken his finger. That opens up a spot in the team for the next test. Who do you bring in?
My preference would be Foakes. Buttler is not a good keeper.
I suspect they will give the gloves to Buttler though, and there will be dropped catches and/or missed stumpings.
If they do give the gloves to Buttler, then which batsman comes in?

I reckon Butler which will leave the door open for Curran - easy way for them to repair the mess they created

scrumhalf · August 2018

guitars4you said:

I reckon Butler which will leave the door open for Curran - easy way for them to repair the mess they created

Maybe, but that's too logical.

We need to get some proper test match batting going, the "old" way of not hitting the ball unless you have to. If they can still be there at lunchtime on day five I'll be amazed. I fear, however, that we won't make it to stumps tomorrow.

sixstringsupplies · August 2018

2 day battle to save the test...over by tea tomorrow.
if it goes to the 5th day, I’d be amazed.

i can’t blame Root for winning the toss and bowling first...England bowlers have dominated India in the last 2 tests, exposed their poor technique against swing bowling, cloudy conditions on the first morning and at Trent Bridge, where England’s two front line bowlers have dominated. India batted very well, and England didn’t.

bowlkng attack looking very one dimensional this game (Curran would’ve mixed it up a bit)

Rashid looks a bit average...there is a hit me ball every over.

Heartfeltdawn · August 2018

So if Foakes came in...

On July 23rd Foakes batted against Notts, scoring 0 from 3 balls. His next FC innings was yesterday, scoring 12 against Lancashire.

In between those knocks, he's had 5 T20 innings of varying levels of success. His longest innings from July 23rd has been 39 balls for 59 against Gloucestershire.

So perfect preparation for playing innings of length against the best Test side in the world.

Stuckfast · August 2018

It was a crazy decision to drop Curran, and why are we playing a leg-spinner on seamer-friendly wickets? Unless the next test is being played on a dustbowl, Moeen has to come in for Rashid, Curran for Bairstow, and probably also Rory Burns for Jennings who looks very out of nick.

Pope is a keeper isn't he? Is he better than Buttler?

sixstringsupplies · August 2018

Stuckfast said:

It was a crazy decision to drop Curran, and why are we playing a leg-spinner on seamer-friendly wickets? Unless the next test is being played on a dustbowl, Moeen has to come in for Rashid, Curran for Bairstow, and probably also Rory Burns for Jennings who looks very out of nick.

Pope is a keeper isn't he? Is he better than Buttler?

Pope can keep, but don’t think he is as good as Butler and don’t think he has kept wicked at first class level yet.

personally I wouldn’t go back to Ali...played plenty of matches and his record is pretty average. Unless you play him purely as a batsman (Ali for Bairstow) because to be fair to Ali he has always batted low down with the tail, which is why is batting average isn’t the best.

Curran for Rashid, bring in a specialist batsman for bairstow....I’m going for Ian Bell. Lol!

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

In this Discussion

Become a Subscriber!

The cricket thread

Comments