Cricket

[kaosmark2]

Besides, with so many inexperienced players in the squad and batting line up at the moment, it'd be surprising if they dropped one of their most experienced players.

This is the key bit in my eyes. I still think it's worth considering depending on how the tour of New Zealand goes though. If younger players bat well, Cook, Trott, KP, Prior is still enough experience, and Compton should have had 7 Tests under his belt by then. Seems enough experience to have 2 younger batsmen at 5 and 6.

[kaosmark2]

1st century of the year for Bell, highest score for Trott. I've been pretty critical of both of their form up to and through this series. Good to see them back in touch, even if not in a particularly high-pressure situ.

Hard to predict the team for the NZ tests. Clearly Cook, Trott, KP, Bell, Prior, Anderson and Swann, but all the other places are undecided. Compton's done pretty well in harsh conditions, and it'd be cruel to drop him, but Root was excellent and his favoured position is an opener. Bairstow, Root and Morgan must all be good shouts for number 6, with an outside chance of Taylor getting a recall. Conditions not being spin-friendly and Patel being generally crap must surely mean he'll be dropped from the Test squad permanently, so they might bring Taylor as another batsmen, but then they probably brought one more than they needed this tour, with Bell going home for the 2nd test. I'm hoping Bopara's little sulk and poor performances mean he's pretty much out of the running for a Test spot now, I don't think he's ever going to be good enough and he hasn't done himself any favours.

Bowler wise, I think Finn's established himself as the 2nd most dangerous seamer in other conditions. Bresnan doesn't look the same player since his operation, either bowling or batting-wise, and should probably drop below Onions in the pecking order. Anyone know how Tremlett's doing fitness wise as well? It's hard to see Broad not earning a recall if fit, as he was out of form before the home series against India and was stunning in then and continued being excellent until the SA series.

And I don't give a flying fuck about T20s.

[Ed209]

Tom Maynard case sounds like it was a rather tragic sequence of events with some particularly bad decisions made by Maynard. Not least to get in his car after being out on the raz.

Toxicology reports show he was at the least recreational, and possibly a habitual cocaine and MDMA user. Anyone know what the extent of drug testing is in first class cricket? I presume, if it does happen, it must cover recreation drugs..?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-21588586

Edited February 26, 2013 by Ed209

[TheGayTent]

Anyone know what the extent of drug testing is in first class cricket? I presume, if it does happen, it must cover recreation drugs..?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-21588586

Answer here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cricket/21588350

In summary random piss tests 3 times during the season on a match day. Likely only to pick up performance enhancing and not recreational drugs.

Edited February 26, 2013 by TheGayTent

[Gre]

Ed Giddens tested positive for coke back in the day didn't he? So the system has worked once at least.

Edit; although he was around the international scene at the time, so maybe that was ICC-sponsored testing.

Edited February 27, 2013 by Gre

[TheGayTent]

I've seen better lunch scores than 81-5...

[kaosmark2]

Disgraceful batting display. Bell played himself in then made a phenomenally stupid shot. KP and Root at least had decent balls to them but they weren't unplayable, just need sensible batting. Shocking from the openers.

I still reckon Compton should get the rest of this series to prove himself. Averaging 30 in India is respectable without being impressive, needs a century or two in this series though. 5 innings left I reckon.

[kaosmark2]

Finn and Anderson put on a very impressive partnership considering. Need 3 wickets tonight I reckon.

[TheGayTent]

I think it's a reflection of the schedule and nothing else.

[abdoujaparov]

I think it's a reflection of the schedule and nothing else.

Probably, but its still a disappointing performance

[TheGayTent]

Probably, but its still a disappointing performance

Yes.

With the rain washing out the first day though, it's still salvageable. Don't think we've won the first test of an overseas tour against anyone bar Bangladesh in the last decade?

We've had one warm up game against anything like decent opposition. No surprise we're undercooked as usual.

I'd still rather be in our position than Australia's...

[kaosmark2]

Better, but still not good

Have to try and bat time for the draw now.

[TheGayTent]

Excellent

[TheGayTent]

4 convicts sent home from India (where they're getting a trouncing) including Watson and Johnson...how amusing it is to see them in disarray!

[kaosmark2]

4 convicts sent home from India (where they're getting a trouncing) including Watson and Johnson...how amusing it is to see them in disarray!

I know!

Crazy reasoning though. Not turning in a presentation! Horrible mismanagement and absolutely hilarious. Watson considering retirement after it as well.

[TheGayTent]

Think those arguing Compton should be dropped down the order will be hushed for a while

[kaosmark2]

Why would anyone argue he should be dropped down the order?

India's not exactly the easiest place to score runs, but he showed the right mentality. He's filling his boots where he can.

But even if you didn't think he was an opener, surely that'd mean not a Test player? He's a top-order batsman, and if he can't do it there, why would he at 6?

[TheGayTent]

Why would anyone argue he should be dropped down the order?

India's not exactly the easiest place to score runs, but he showed the right mentality. He's filling his boots where he can.

But even if you didn't think he was an opener, surely that'd mean not a Test player? He's a top-order batsman, and if he can't do it there, why would he at 6?

Lots of people have argued he should drop down the order. He's never been a regular specialist opener at any time in his career to date. Whereas Joe Root has.

Plenty of test players couldn't open but were very successful lower down the order. It's not to say they're less talented, just have strengths in different areas.

Opener is a specialist role requiring less shot making ability and more obdurance, concentration, stubbornness etc. The job is to stay in, not particularly to score runs, and certainly not quickly in most circumstances. The job is to see off the new ball, take the shine off it, and allow the stroke makers and the attacking lower order batsmen to play their strokes facing a ball that's older, slower, and doing less through the air.

That's exactly why the man on the street and the experts/ex players have been discussing the subject since Strauss announced his retirement.

[kaosmark2]

Oh, I get that, but he's a number 3, which is still very much a top order position. Number 3 has to have nearly the same level of comfort as the openers at seeing off the new ball in case one fails, while ideally, also having the ability to up the run rate if the openers have succeeded. Compton being used to playing at 3 should be a reasonable opener, in the same way that Trott is, even if not a regular specialist. I'd argue he's probably got more experience at seeing off a new ball and the related concentration and accumulation than Root has with how long he's been in county cricket at 3.

[TheGayTent]

Hmm whilst I agree with some of what you say in terms of no. 3s are often forced to come in very early and therefore need more opener-esque qualities than say a no.6 it's also very clearly a different position.

Interesting you mention Trott. He plays at 3 and doesn't want to move, believing his game is not suited to open, or perhaps better suited to coming in on the fall of the first wicket.

Bradman, Ponting, and Dravid were all the same. It's not as simple as saying great no.3s make great openers because they're so close at the top of the order.

That's why, the discussions involving Root, Compton, and Trott have been had. No doubt they'll return when Compton goes through a tough patch...

That all said, I don't disagree with current policy - very much of the opinion, if it ain't broke...

[kaosmark2]

Emphasis on my use of the phrase 'should be a reasonable opener'. So far he looks to have gone beyond that.

There's a lot of great no. 4s who refuse to move as well. Dravid was more flexible than Tendulkar. KP's asserted that 4 is his position, Kallis hasn't moven't.

Trott's almost played as an extra opener. I don't see him as being able to impact on a game to the extent that greats like Ponting and Dravid could. He was brought in as Strauss started to fail more often. IMO, long-term, England need at least one of their top 3 to be slightly more aggressive than the current set. Ideally an opener more in the Trescothick mould, although whether Root will be that player eventually I'm not sure.

That said, I don't think we should be messing around too much now. Batting is very much the weakest part of our game, but I think they're right to stick with who we're playing atm. There needs to be continuity at the top, and letting Compton play himself into form was absolutely the right decision. The number 6 position needs to be sorted, but it doesn't really look like players get dropped at present, just different ones given opportunities. Thankfully Patel and Bopara's seem to have gone for good.

[TheGayTent]

I don't understand that 3rd paragraph. Trott can't impact on a game in the way Dravid could? Dravid wasn't known as the wall for nothing. Both have superb test averages but Trott's strike rate is vastly superior. Whether Trott manages the same longevity as Dravid is another matter of course.

Trott was brought into the side solely as a replacement for the shite Bopara. He batted at 5. He was not brought in as Strauss was starting to fail more often. In actual fact, Trott made his debut in the 2009 ashes - that series Strauss was England's highest run scorer and had the highest average - 52. No other England batsmen even averaged 40. Trott then stayed in the side as an additonal batsmen for the tour of SA after we couldn't replace Flintoff due to a lack of another world class all rounder. It was Collingwood's form that dropped not Strauss. Plus of course, 2010 was when Cook was having a rough time and wasn't far from the chop.

Edited March 14, 2013 by TheGayTent

[TheGayTent]

Anyone seen the Hafeez dismissal?

[lharris92]

Anyone seen the Hafeez dismissal?

just watched it.

the way he curved his run deliberately after glancing back suggests one thing.

out.

[TheGayTent]

out.

Agreed.