Cricket

[kaosmark2]

21 minutes ago, Gromite said:

Our fielding is becoming a bit of an issue, can't be dropping two relatively straightforward slip catches against top sides.

Worth mentioning that it would have been Stokes instead of Sibley for the first drop had he been playing, and i like to think he would have taken it.

Stokes has a 75% slip catching rate, he catches some blinders but he's not that reliable. 

[TheGayTent]

6 hours ago, kaosmark2 said:

Stokes has a 75% slip catching rate, he catches some blinders but he's not that reliable. 

Yes - dropped 16 out of the last 52 according to Zaltzman

[kingbadger]

How good are Essex? Another victory snatched from the jaws of defeat. I think I read somewhere we've lost 8 of our last 61 matches since the start of the 2016 season, incorporating a Div 2 title and two Championships in that period. 

[TheGayTent]

Beautiful Zak, beautiful. Hopefully a launchpad to more of the same for a long time to come. 

[kingbadger]

On 8/21/2020 at 4:57 PM, TheGayTent said:

Beautiful Zak, beautiful. Hopefully a launchpad to more of the same for a long time to come. 

He certainly looks the part. Reminds me of when Vaughan/Trescothick were picked early in their career despite an ordinary first-class average. Oozes class and appears to have a mature head on young shoulders. 

Buttler's performances have justified his place for the time being, but would be great to see him turn this into an extended run of form. His test career seems to have been a case of fits and starts, if he can come good for a long period then it could become crucial given the top 3 are likely to be relatively inexperienced players for the foreseeable future. 

For now it seems like the batting line up has fallen into place once Stokes comes back in. That being said I'm wary of how Sibley and Burns will go in India up against Ashwin and Jadeja. Will be interesting to see how they look for the bowlers to line up, you'd assume Bess and Leach will start as the two frontline spinners. However the two specialist seam places are interesting. Do they go with one of Wood and Archer paired with an all rounder to strengthen the batting? Or stick with Bess at 8 and pick your two best seamers according to conditions? 

[kaosmark2]

2 hours ago, kingbadger said:

For now it seems like the batting line up has fallen into place once Stokes comes back in. That being said I'm wary of how Sibley and Burns will go in India up against Ashwin and Jadeja. Will be interesting to see how they look for the bowlers to line up, you'd assume Bess and Leach will start as the two frontline spinners. However the two specialist seam places are interesting. Do they go with one of Wood and Archer paired with an all rounder to strengthen the batting? Or stick with Bess at 8 and pick your two best seamers according to conditions? 

I'm pretty sure they'll pick Bess, but I'd go Moeen, Wood/Archer, Broad/Anderson, Leach in India. UAE would be a different matter, based on our last tours there I'd probably only go with one spinner.

I don't think you should pick 8-11 based on batting ability, as long as at least one of them can bat a bit.

[TheGayTent]

16 hours ago, kaosmark2 said:

I don't think you should pick 8-11 based on batting ability, as long as at least one of them can bat a bit.

Batting shouldn’t come into it at all. If that is a consideration then you haven’t got 1-6 right, and that is where you need to make a change. 

[TheGayTent]

18 hours ago, kingbadger said:

He certainly looks the part. Reminds me of when Vaughan/Trescothick were picked early in their career despite an ordinary first-class average. Oozes class and appears to have a mature head on young shoulders. 

For all the stick Smith has (sometimes justifiably) taken, he should also be acknowledged when he’s made a good call. 

[kaosmark2]

7 hours ago, TheGayTent said:

Batting shouldn’t come into it at all. If that is a consideration then you haven’t got 1-6 right, and that is where you need to make a change. 

There's extremes at both ends. You have things like the current Pakistan attack, where Yasir is the only one who can even touch a bat without getting out, and lower order runs are useful. On the flipside I always disliked how Bresnan was picked fairly consistently for England over the greater wicket-taking threat of Finn, supposedly because of his batting even when there was Broad + Swann.

To win matches, you need to take 20 wickets, and you need to score enough runs to give you a chance to do so. Having one of your bowlers able to whack some runs or stick around so a batsman can gives a nice benefit, but I'd always prioritise getting enough wickets in the attack.

[TheGayTent]

1 hour ago, kaosmark2 said:

There's extremes at both ends. You have things like the current Pakistan attack, where Yasir is the only one who can even touch a bat without getting out, and lower order runs are useful. On the flipside I always disliked how Bresnan was picked fairly consistently for England over the greater wicket-taking threat of Finn, supposedly because of his batting even when there was Broad + Swann.

I think it was more the runs conceded and lack of control that caused Finn‘s downfall, not because Bresnan averaged higher with the bat. 

 

[TheGayTent]

Leaning you beautiful man !

[kingbadger]

On 8/24/2020 at 10:13 AM, TheGayTent said:

Batting shouldn’t come into it at all. If that is a consideration then you haven’t got 1-6 right, and that is where you need to make a change. 

There's a reason though the game has moved on and you no longer have guys like Caddick batting at 8. As the game has evolved so has the importance of lower order runs, you can see how that's been borne out in the last 15 years with Broad (pre face-smash), Bresnan, Woakes, Ali etc. It's probably a natural development in terms of players now improving and expanding another skill alongside their bowling however it does stick out like a sore thumb when 8-11 are all non-batsmen, such as Shah batting at 8 for Pakistan. 

[kingbadger]

On 8/24/2020 at 6:41 PM, TheGayTent said:

I think it was more the runs conceded and lack of control that caused Finn‘s downfall, not because Bresnan averaged higher with the bat. 

 

Bresnan was a class bowler himself, prior to those elbow injuries. He certainly warranted a place in the team purely on the merit of his bowling, was accurate, moved it both ways with the new and old ball and whilst not express was consistently 85mph+ and bowled a heavy ball.

[kaosmark2]

Bresnan deserved to be in and around the team. He was a good bowler. I do think there were a lot of other bowlers of similar quality who got less time than they deserved, and Bresnan's batting ability was quoted as a reason at times.

Some of them offered something different (Finn, Tremlett), others got more movement (Onions).

I'm probably too harsh on Bresnan generally, I just preferred watching the other bowlers who were on the fringes around the time he was playing regularly, and I really disliked that the batting argument was even brought up when a 4-man attack was being played.

[TheGayTent]

4 hours ago, kingbadger said:

Bresnan was a class bowler himself, prior to those elbow injuries. He certainly warranted a place in the team purely on the merit of his bowling, was accurate, moved it both ways with the new and old ball and whilst not express was consistently 85mph+ and bowled a heavy ball.

Finn took 14 wickets in his 3 ashes tests in 10/11. The trouble was he was going at more than 4 an over. 
 

This “problem” was exacerbated by the fact they lost their most economical bowler to injury causing him to miss the last 3 tests.

Bresnan was brought in to give Strauss control - he did that by going at a smidgen over 2.5 (and took wickets). 

[TheGayTent]

5 hours ago, kingbadger said:

There's a reason though the game has moved on and you no longer have guys like Caddick batting at 8. As the game has evolved so has the importance of lower order runs, you can see how that's been borne out in the last 15 years with Broad (pre face-smash), Bresnan, Woakes, Ali etc. It's probably a natural development in terms of players now improving and expanding another skill alongside their bowling however it does stick out like a sore thumb when 8-11 are all non-batsmen, such as Shah batting at 8 for Pakistan. 

This is a widely peddled myth that simply isn’t true the vast majority of the time.
Firstly, lower order runs have always been important when necessary. That’s no more true today than it was in previous eras. 

Headingley ‘81 wouldn’t have happened but for Graham Dilley. Yet Dilley most often batted 11 and wasn’t in the side for any other reason than to assist in taking 20 opposition wickets. 

9.9 times out of 10 if you’re picking between two bowlers in a test match you’re picking between them based on their ability to take wickets. There’s always other considerations - maybe the wicket, fitness levels, left/right combinations (especially dependent on who your spinner is), weather etc. Whether you average 10 more runs than the other is almost always completely irrelevant. 
 

Why? Firstly, if the batting differential is that great, it’s unlikely they’re the others bowlers equal at wicket taking - as simply speaking, there aren’t that many test level all rounders. Secondly, as I mentioned previously, if you’re that deeply concerned with runs at 8,9,10,11 then you’re batting line up isn’t performing. When that happens usually the correct answer is to make a change in the batting line up. How many times do we have a conversation about picking a bowler because he can average 25 with the bat when the team is regularly posting first innings scores of 350+? The answer is never for good reason....
 

Finally, just to go back to the point you made about Caddick. It’s a great point - it perfectly highlights a period when we were shit in terms of strength in depth. We had Caddick and Gough and not much at first/second change. Which meant line ups were tweaked in an attempt to cover weaknesses elsewhere - which is rarely successful - as that England side regularly showed. 
 

Caddick batted more than 2/3rds of his career at 10/11 - I.e. nothing has changed in this regard between that era and now - it was the exception not the rule then, it’s still the exception rather than the rule now. Then players were occasionally incorrectly moved around just as they are now. Similarly it wasn’t right to promote Moeen up the order in this era to cover deficiencies elsewhere. 
 

Take it to the logical conclusion and you’d pick a bowling line up of Stokes, Moeen, Woakes, Curran and drop Archer, Broad, Anderson....? 

Edited September 22, 2020 by TheGayTent

[kaosmark2]

Great to see a county red ball game live on the BBC again.

[st dan]

All going very well - not too sure what we’ll take away from this series other than much needed confidence for a number of players (old and new), and more practice of facing spin on the subcontinent, as this is a truly awful Sri Lanka side.

Not the most thrilling viewing at all, particularly after the exciting series  we had over the summer, but it’s some test match cricket so I won’t be complaining!

Edited January 15, 2021 by st dan

[kaosmark2]

After that amazing game at Headingley where Mo and Jimmy nearly rescued it after a Mathews masterclass it's sad to see Sri Lanka so inept. I think they have about 4 players who'd make the 22 or whatever it is full touring party we've got out there, and that's if Mendis weren't in 4 ducks form.... 

I'm just hoping that a pretty 40 then getting out 2nd over of the day isn't enough for Bairstow to get a spot back long term. He can't bat against balls that swing towards his stumps! 

Edited January 15, 2021 by kaosmark2

[TheGayTent]

1 hour ago, kaosmark2 said:

 

I'm just hoping that a pretty 40 then getting out 2nd over of the day isn't enough for Bairstow to get a spot back long term. He can't bat against balls that swing towards his stumps! 

Shouldn’t matter much in Oz

[Homer]

An England collapse is prob what this game needs anyway

[kaosmark2]

8 hours ago, Homer said:

An England collapse is prob what this game needs anyway

Apart from the first hour, the entire day went Sri Lanka's way and its still hugely in England's favour. 

Bess is still bowling tripe this game, not looking anywhere near as good as he did in South Africa. Wonder if he's still filling about that run out! 

[sirjonnyp]

I've just about recovered from the India Australia series. India have always been my number two behind England, so Monday was an absolute delight. Aside from the times I was at nets or playing in a match, I saw pretty much every ball of the series. After Adelaide I was questioning my decision to forgo going to the in-laws for Christmas in favour of going to the G on Boxing Day solo, but I should never have doubted. 

There's been a lot of reaction over the last week, for me the series was the best in my lifetime that I've actually followed apart from the 2005 Ashes. Purely in terms of narrative, it's almost the perfect comeback / underdog story. 

As I was trying to explain to a young, excitable (and a bit naïve) 14 year old Aussie obsessive while we were waiting to bat a few weeks ago, no one outside of Australia actually likes the Australian team, because for most people over the age of 20, they have always been nasty, brutish, arrogant and dominating bullies, so it's good to see them lose. My opinion that Wade, Head and Burns shouldn't be anywhere near the test side also didn't go down well. 

I suspect that Paine will still be there as captain for the Ashes, will be interesting to see if they are bold enough to make big changes elsewhere. Outside of Smith, Cummins and Hazlewood, this iteration of the Aussie team (2019 onwards) is very ordinary - even excluding Smith is questionable given his form post 2019 Ashes at home. Marnus was the leading run scorer, but he rode his luck a lot for the scores he made in Melbourne and Sydney. It wasn't until the Gabba that he actually looked in control of a lot of his shots and I suspect that England's bowlers will have learned a lot about the reckless shots he was playing. 

On a different note, I don't think anyone in 2003 would have believed that James Anderson would be taking a double wicket maiden abroad 18 years later. 

[TheGayTent]

3 hours ago, sirjonnyp said:

On a different note, I don't think anyone in 2003 would have believed that James Anderson would be taking a double wicket maiden abroad 18 years later. 

Amen.

I first saw him live in a test match at lords back in 2003, I think against South Africa. For sure he could bowl wicket taking deliveries but my overriding memory is of a bowler who had a complete lack of control. It was impossible for him to bowl 6 balls in the same area in one over. He couldn’t apply any pressure to batsmen who were constantly able to easily rotate the strike, and hit boundaries. I could not see what the fuss was about. 
 

I didn’t see him again for another 4 years and it’s fair to say I had a negative opinion of him and wasn’t afraid to vocalise that opinion amongst friends prior to a test against India. 
 

On a flat oval pitch we watched India bat all day and England toil in the field - and Anderson went for plenty. Economy wise I’m pretty sure his figures were worse than when I’d first seen him 4 years before. He was going for runs but there were plenty of mitigating factors - there was no swing, and the pitch was flat. Plus India were a very good side (Dravid, Ganguly, Tendulkar, Laxman etc). 
 

So despite the bare numbers, watching him Anderson actually went up in my estimation. That said, I didn’t for one second think I’d still be watching him nearly 14 years later. 
 

Super impressive bowler, super impressive man, who selfishly I hope continues long enough for COVID to fuck off and allow me to see him one last time before he retires. News out of Oz is not looking good though 😞

[Homer]

This could be a good watch. 164 to win. Might be beyond our batsmen, especially as all our spinners were turning it.