Cricket

[kingbadger]

1 hour ago, TheGayTent said:

That’s a fair point about Pope and he’s also far from the finished article. My counter point re Lawrence is how many cheap boundaries he gets from playing on a tiny pitch week in week out? 

Yes, agree to some extent. However Root is just not going anywhere from his position at 4, so the conversation is a pointless one. The only time I see that potentially changing is when Root is no longer the captain. Would a new captain/coach combo have the balls to say to England’s best ever batsman that if Root wants to play he has to play at 3? 

I remember that well and being excited by both Hameed and Jennings. However, I’m pretty sure I made a comment on this very thread that may have involved the words swallow and summer! 

Wood is crap at Lords, maybe they’ll go with Mahmood? 

It’s a real shame Woakes is still a few weeks away from fitness. 

The issue with Moeen is that India only have 1 left hander in their top and middle order? 

I feel like any benefit to Chelmsford being small is negated by the fact that the pitch isn't exactly the greatest in fairness!

Not sure I'd refer to Root as being our best ever batsmen but that's an entirely different conversation to have altogether! 

Glad they've picked Mahmood, jury is still very much out on him I think so be good to see how he fares. I'm still not convinced he is the express, hit the deck kind of bowler he's been made out to be but I think he certainly has potential to be a good overseas option as his action suggests he should be able to get the ball reversing nicely. 

Imagine India's batting lineup will be unchanged so only Pant/Jadeja as lefties for Moeen to bowl at. Assume Ashwin comes in now for Thakur as I can't see them going in with Pant and Jadeja at 6/7 then 4 bowlers who can't really hold a bat between them. Rahane must be running on the last fumes of the goodwill left over from the Australia series, another poor return and I can see him being dropped.

[TheGayTent]

1 hour ago, kingbadger said:

Not sure I'd refer to Root as being our best ever batsmen but that's an entirely different conversation to have altogether!

Unless you’re going back 50 years or more you’re going to struggle to make a case otherwise. 

[kingbadger]

2 hours ago, TheGayTent said:

Unless you’re going back 50 years or more you’re going to struggle to make a case otherwise. 

In terms of someone who never hid themselves down the order, think the case can easily be made that Sir Alastair Cook holds that position as it stands. Not saying Root can't take the mantle at some point, but he needs to play a fare few more match winning innings and boost that conversion rate up before I think you could consider that. 

Assuming we're talking solely about test match cricket, of course. 

[TheGayTent]

1 hour ago, kingbadger said:

In terms of someone who never hid themselves down the order, think the case can easily be made that Sir Alastair Cook holds that position as it stands.
 

Cook deserves all the accolades that came his way. Whilst him and Root are very different players in terms of style and technique, and not least batting position, Root is by far and away the better player. Cook had the luxury of playing in better teams than Root, Root’s average is better both overall and as captain. Barring fitness issues Root will overtake Cook’s runs record and his hundreds scored. 

1 hour ago, kingbadger said:

Assuming we're talking solely about test match cricket, of course. 

Also a very big factor. Root plays all formats and excels in all formats.

6000 ODI runs averaging 50 and won a World Cup averaging over 60 in the tournament. Something Cook could only dream of. 

Bizarrely, of the two, I always preferred watching Cook. I even went to Chelmsford just to watch him the season before last solely because I couldn’t bear the idea after that day at oval that I wouldn’t see him bat ever again. I can’t see me doing that with Root (even if he were to go back to county cricket after retiring - which I also don’t see).

Root is still the better batsman though. 

Edited August 11, 2021 by TheGayTent

[kaosmark2]

9 hours ago, TheGayTent said:

Don’t think there’s anything controversial in this…except Lawrence at 3….!

It's pretty much based on lack of a better option in the squad. I do think Crawley has a future at 3 for England, but his form is atrocious, and I think he'll develop better outside the side again. I'm less sure that's the case for Sibley, but does it hurt him/Hameed to bat 3? If you're not pushing an opener down, or sticking with Crawley, you're pushing someone up. I think of the middle order players, Lawrence has most to gain, and least to lose, both personally and for the long-term structure of the team.

Gutting that Broad is out for the rest of the series, and very concerning about Anderson. Excited to see Mahmood, and really hope he gets the nod over COverton

[kaosmark2]

3 hours ago, kingbadger said:

In terms of someone who never hid themselves down the order, think the case can easily be made that Sir Alastair Cook holds that position as it stands. Not saying Root can't take the mantle at some point, but he needs to play a fare few more match winning innings and boost that conversion rate up before I think you could consider that. 

Assuming we're talking solely about test match cricket, of course. 

Considering he's batted a not insignificant amount in the top 3, despite his natural style being that of a test 4/5, I think he's done brilliantly and not "hid" at all. Tendulkar, Kohli, Pietersen, ABDV, Michael Clarke, Bell, all batted most of their career at 4 and 5. Kallis averaged a whole 12 runs higher at 4 than 3. Considering half his career has been batting in England during a decade where the general average in the country has been below 30, even if you only include the top 7/8, I think he's done amazingly to average around 50. That low average is partially due to the brilliance of Anderson/Broad/Woakes, and our own other batsmen being poor in that time, but I still think it's indicative of how much he stands out.

Cook is an absolutely outstanding player and deserves to be considered one of the greatest test match openers of all time, but for all the reasons TGT has said and more, Root is better.

[kingbadger]

2 hours ago, TheGayTent said:

Cook deserves all the accolades that came his way. Whilst him and Root are very different players in terms of style and technique, and not least batting position, Root is by far and away the better player. Cook had the luxury of playing in better teams than Root, Root’s average is better both overall and as captain. Barring fitness issues Root will overtake Cook’s runs record and his hundreds scored. 

Also a very big factor. Root plays all formats and excels in all formats.

6000 ODI runs averaging 50 and won a World Cup averaging over 60 in the tournament. Something Cook could only dream of. 

Bizarrely, of the two, I always preferred watching Cook. I even went to Chelmsford just to watch him the season before last solely because I couldn’t bear the idea after that day at oval that I wouldn’t see him bat ever again. I can’t see me doing that with Root (even if he were to go back to county cricket after retiring - which I also don’t see).

Root is still the better batsman though. 

Not entirely sure on what basis Root playing with lesser players has in terms of their batting prowess? I'd be more amenable to the argument if Root batted at 3. As it is he hides himself down the order. I have no doubt that Cook would have easily averaged more than Root had he batted at 4 or below for the majority of his career, especially with being such a good player of spin. I'd put Root and KP at an equal for me in terms of the modern era middle order players. Root for me has never quite fulfilled his potential as a player - he's not been someone to properly punish a team and his conversion rate shows that. He's often found ways to get to 50/60 without breaking a sweat then ended up snicking a wide one whilst trying to run it down to third man. He was neck and neck with Williamson/Kohli/Smith in the conversation of the best player in the world a few years back, however hasn't quite kicked on like the others have. 

If you're giving kudos for batting in a poor team, then Thorpe and (specialist batsman) Stewart are up there too. Especially given the strength of test match attacks in the 90s/early 00s batting on much lesser wickets. 

[kaosmark2]

1 minute ago, kingbadger said:

He was neck and neck with Williamson/Kohli/Smith in the conversation of the best player in the world a few years back, however hasn't quite kicked on like the others have.

I've already said what I think of the word "hid", but while I agree his numbers regressed in comparison to those 3, Kohli hasn't scored a century since 2019 despite his home batting being on much more favourable batting pitches in India, and Smith openly said his ban gave him a break that enabled him to become a better player, and also plays more on batting-friendly pitches.

Centuries also aren't the whole story, while the landmark is a simple (and largely effective) way of measuring decisive innings, India won in Australia off Pant scoring 80s and 90s, and a number of Root 70s/80s have been at least as decisive as say, his double hundreds in Sri Lanka earlier this year. 

[kingbadger]

9 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

Cook is an absolutely outstanding player and deserves to be considered one of the greatest test match openers of all time, but for all the reasons TGT has said and more, Root is better.

See this is what rings volumes for me - Cook can be deservedly considered a GOAT opener, yet Root doesn't even make the cut in a current World XI. 

Root averages only in the high 30s when batting at 3, and as you've said yourself this isn't an insignifant sample size either. This tells me his game isn't quite as good as Cook's - it's a full 8 runs lower than Cook averages batting in the top two, if we're talking pure statistics. 

[TheGayTent]

1 hour ago, kingbadger said:

Not entirely sure on what basis Root playing with lesser players has in terms of their batting prowess?
 

Wow…where to start?!

If you can’t see that scoring a hundred when you’re team are constantly 20-2 and not 0-0…and the difference between knowing if you fail there’s Strauss, Trott, KP, Bell, Collingwood following who all average 40+ behind you, versus a couple of swingers who may get 20 then you don’t understand pressure. 

1 hour ago, kingbadger said:

I'd be more amenable to the argument if Root batted at 3. As it is he hides himself down the order. I have no doubt that Cook would have easily averaged more than Root had he batted at 4 or below for the majority of his career, especially with being such a good player of spin.
 

Cook play 4?! Haha now I know you’re on a wind up! 

1 hour ago, kingbadger said:

I'd put Root and KP at an equal for me in terms of the modern era middle order players. Root for me has never quite fulfilled his potential as a player - he's not been someone to properly punish a team and his conversion rate shows that. He's often found ways to get to 50/60 without breaking a sweat then ended up snicking a wide one whilst trying to run it down to third man. He was neck and neck with Williamson/Kohli/Smith in the conversation of the best player in the world a few years back, however hasn't quite kicked on like the others have. 
 

Not being as good as 3 of the world’s best evers, does not have any effect on whether he’s England’s best ever. 

1 hour ago, kingbadger said:

If you're giving kudos for batting in a poor team, then Thorpe and (specialist batsman) Stewart are up there too. Especially given the strength of test match attacks in the 90s/early 00s batting on much lesser wickets. 

Both do get plenty of kudos. However Root’s already got 5 more hundreds than Thorpe ever did despite only playing 6 more tests, has the best part of 2000 extra runs and averages more despite being the captain Thorpe never was. Similarly Stewart was pure class but didn’t even average 40 - he’s been passed by Root in terms of runs scored despite playing in 30 less matches. 
 

Seriously, if you’re going to troll at least throw in a Hammond, Hutton, Barrington or Hobbs! 

[TheGayTent]

1 hour ago, kingbadger said:

See this is what rings volumes for me - Cook can be deservedly considered a GOAT opener,

Of English openers? 

[kingbadger]

29 minutes ago, TheGayTent said:

Of English openers? 

I was just quoting Mark's words back to him, he said Cook was a GOAT opener, not me! 

[kingbadger]

35 minutes ago, TheGayTent said:

Wow…where to start?!

If you can’t see that scoring a hundred when you’re team are constantly 20-2 and not 0-0…and the difference between knowing if you fail there’s Strauss, Trott, KP, Bell, Collingwood following who all average 40+ behind you, versus a couple of swingers who may get 20 then you don’t understand pressure. 

Cook play 4?! Haha now I know you’re on a wind up! 

Not being as good as 3 of the world’s best evers, does not have any effect on whether he’s England’s best ever. 

Both do get plenty of kudos. However Root’s already got 5 more hundreds than Thorpe ever did despite only playing 6 more tests, has the best part of 2000 extra runs and averages more despite being the captain Thorpe never was. Similarly Stewart was pure class but didn’t even average 40 - he’s been passed by Root in terms of runs scored despite playing in 30 less matches. 
 

Seriously, if you’re going to troll at least throw in a Hammond, Hutton, Barrington or Hobbs! 

I meant Cook has been there for the majority of Root's career, so you can't say Root has that pressure without saying Cook did too. Not to mention Cook spending half his career with a revolving door of partners and having to deal with that pressure. 

Why couldn't Cook bat 4 if he wished? The fundamentals are exactly the same, except you've got much less chance of coming up against the moving ball. We'll never know how much more Cook would have scored without having to face up to the new ball each innings. I think it goes without saying Cook was/is a fine player of spin so that wouldn't cause an issue. 

Oh I'm not comparing Root to Stewart/Thorpe, just making a point about how you weigh up who averages what - for instance does averaging 45 in the 90s given the strength of the attacks round the world back then mean it's better than averaging 50 now? 

There's just so many variables you can add to the mix where statistics are involved. The fact both players have made runs wherever they've been in the world proves their class. Again we're really arguing chalk v cheese here I feel, but the whole breadth of the conversation shows why cricket is the pinnacle of sport for me. 

After all this I think I've decided Trescothick is the greatest player I've seen in my lifetime anyway so this argument has now been rendered completely moot! 

[TheGayTent]

Sounds like Hameed in for Crawley

[kingbadger]

Bairstow getting another run in the team by stealth then. 

In fairness Crawley always had to give way. You can't average 11 in 7 tests at the outset of your career and get away with it. Wonder if Hameed gets a score they'll move him up to open and drop Sibley.

Deckchairs on the Titanic spring to mind!

Interesting to hear them talk about the schedule and how fucked it is but nobody brings up the fact The Hundred is absolute nonsense. 

[TheGayTent]

Am not surprised Lawrence has gone - he was competing with all rounders and specialist batsmen. Gone even though Pope isn’t fit enough for 5 days. 

3 minutes ago, kingbadger said:

Interesting to hear them talk about the schedule and how fucked it is but nobody brings up the fact The Hundred is absolute nonsense. 

 

There was quite a long discussion about that very issue on the switch hit podcast. 

[kingbadger]

11 minutes ago, TheGayTent said:

Am not surprised Lawrence has gone - he was competing with all rounders and specialist batsmen. Gone even though Pope isn’t fit enough for 5 days. 

There was quite a long discussion about that very issue on the switch hit podcast. 

I'm not surprised either, would have given him another go and left Bairstow out. Another failure and Pope comes back in for him. We're not going to find out anymore about Bairstow that we don't already know and I assume unless he gets a big score here then Pope comes back in for him anyway. 

I don't listen to podcasts but I might seek it out. I've got no interest in The Hundred, most of it due to the fact media objectivity (from BBC/Sky/papers etc) is completely censored because it just has to be the best thing since sliced bread. I've caught a couple of matches but just not for me. The fact they're all dressed as crisp packets really doesn't help. 

[TheGayTent]

12 minutes ago, kingbadger said:

I don't listen to podcasts but I might seek it out. I've got no interest in The Hundred, most of it due to the fact media objectivity (from BBC/Sky/papers etc) is completely censored because it just has to be the best thing since sliced bread. I've caught a couple of matches but just not for me. The fact they're all dressed as crisp packets really doesn't help. 

I haven’t watched a ball and don’t intend to despite it being I’m sure an entertaining game - it is cricket after all. 

I just can’t and won’t support something that is the start of the beginning of the end for county cricket as we know it. 

[kaosmark2]

Bairstow holding his place annoys me, and I'd have gone with Wood over Mahmood because of that poor Lords record, but I'm pretty happy with that team, it just looks better overall than any other this summer, possibly this year. Given that the selection issues are actual injuries, I'm much happier with this attempt at solving them than creating their own issues. 

[kingbadger]

Atherton's attempt at grilling this ECB exec is completely pointless given then elephant in the room is the lack of engagement from the public is due to the paywall behind professional cricket. Blaming Covid for the lack of county cricket at the height of summer, despite shoehorning in The Hundred is frankly ridiculous. Funny how he mentions the 50 over replacement squad as being a beacon for county cricket, when none of those players will now play any 50 over cricket whatsoever! Wish Atherton had asked him what the pathway now is to breaking into the 50 over side given we now only play the format as a 'developmental' competition. 

[kingbadger]

52 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

Bairstow holding his place annoys me, and I'd have gone with Wood over Mahmood because of that poor Lords record, but I'm pretty happy with that team, it just looks better overall than any other this summer, possibly this year. Given that the selection issues are actual injuries, I'm much happier with this attempt at solving them than creating their own issues. 

Not sure you can read too much into Wood's Lord's record. Might not be the best but his struggles were mainly when he first came on the scene and he's a different bowler with a different run up and focus now. 

Just think it's mental how we think we can bring the likes of him and Moeen into the side with zero FC cricket behind them and expect them to perform. 

[TheGayTent]

2 hours ago, kingbadger said:

Not sure you can read too much into Wood's Lord's record. Might not be the best but his struggles were mainly when he first came on the scene and he's a different bowler with a different run up and focus now. 
 

Disagree. Horses for courses. It’s a deck that McGrath, Gus Fraser, Woakes, Philander, etc have always done well on. Line and length, bit of movement off the seam, use the slope, hopefully get some help from overheads with swing. 
 

It’s never been a deck for express pace bowlers like Wood

2 hours ago, kingbadger said:

 

Just think it's mental how we think we can bring the likes of him and Moeen into the side with zero FC cricket behind them and expect them to perform. 

100% agree

[kingbadger]

24 minutes ago, TheGayTent said:

Disagree. Horses for courses. It’s a deck that McGrath, Gus Fraser, Woakes, Philander, etc have always done well on. Line and length, bit of movement off the seam, use the slope, hopefully get some help from overheads with swing. 

Which is why I'd gave gone with Overton as a Broad replacement, and would have picked Wood over Curran for the fourth seamer role as the change up from medium pace. Overton/Robinson at 8 and 9 would still leave us with enough batting. We can still have horses for courses and have Wood there as an alternative. 

[TheGayTent]

45 minutes ago, kingbadger said:

Which is why I'd gave gone with Overton as a Broad replacement, and would have picked Wood over Curran for the fourth seamer role as the change up from medium pace. Overton/Robinson at 8 and 9 would still leave us with enough batting. We can still have horses for courses and have Wood there as an alternative. 

I’d have kept Curran as he offers something different with his left arm and will give Moeen something to bowl into. 

That said, both Curran and Wood have been totally ineffective thus far - so either way, results not great. 

[kaosmark2]

10 hours ago, kingbadger said:

Not sure you can read too much into Wood's Lord's record. Might not be the best but his struggles were mainly when he first came on the scene and he's a different bowler with a different run up and focus now. 

Just think it's mental how we think we can bring the likes of him and Moeen into the side with zero FC cricket behind them and expect them to perform. 

I don't think Wood's Lords record reflects how good a bowler he is. Similarly, I do think it's indicatative of how the pitch doesn't suit him at all. I would play Mahmood over Wood for the simple reason that I don't think the other attributes that Wood brings over pace are relevant at Lords, and that's a fairly decent explanation of his mediocre record there. I also think his record in England overall is marred by him being overpicked for Lords pitches that are naturally unsuited to his game.