Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Jeor

Cricket 37: Boycott's Grandma Probably Should Bat

Recommended Posts

I’m still completely lacking in confidence that England are going to salvage anything but, to be fair, Roy’s lasted significantly longer than I thought he was going to. This is definitely his best test innings so far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, ljkeane said:

I’m still completely lacking in confidence that England are going to salvage anything but, to be fair, Roy’s lasted significantly longer than I thought he was going to. This is definitely his best test innings so far.

thanks mate, Aussies really needed that :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He lasted nearly 2 hours, that’s pretty much as good as it was going to get.

ETA: Although it probably would have better for him not to get out bowled through the gate again.

Edited by ljkeane

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, his technical deficiencies are really on show here. I think the real mark of it for the layman is that if you watch all his dismissals, apart from getting out bowled a lot he is also literally falling over or stumbling each time he gets out. Footwork can't be top notch if he's tripping over himself all the time.

Australia will be happy with two wickets but the game isn't won yet. Another hour of resistance by this pair and Australia will begin to get edgy.

Glad Paine has not burned the reviews yet. I think they really need to save all the reviews unless they are absolutely certain it would be out. Most of their reviews have been speculative and hopeful. Whereas the non-reviews (e.g. Lyon's LBW of Stokes last match, and Starc's LBW of Leach in the first innings) were no-brainer reviews, if Australia had them they would have used them up in the first two seconds of decision time. My idea of a system to prevent Australia from stuffing up their reviews all the time is that if you don't review it in the first five seconds, just leave it. Gut instinct is better than extensive thought processes for DRS, I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Jeor said:

Yes, his technical deficiencies are really on show here. I think the real mark of it for the layman is that if you watch all his dismissals, apart from getting out bowled a lot he is also literally falling over or stumbling each time he gets out. Footwork can't be top notch if he's tripping over himself all the time.

I think his instinctive reaction to a lot of the deliveries he's getting is that's a ball he can hit for a boundary so he wants to come at the bowler and proactively smash them for 4 or 6 like he does in one days but he's aware that's not a risk he should be taking so he's getting caught in between.

Obviously sticking him in to open was a bad idea but beyond that I think he's someone who really could have done with playing a decent period of first class cricket before getting thrown into the test arena.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was getting worried there for a bit that Denly really was going to get a century!

Joking aside, he has done really well. You can see the improvement over the course of the series. I think the Pom openers is mostly set now. Just need to give Denly and Burns the time to settle in. Specially Denly, as Burns looked pretty good so far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Denly has showed some promise and stickability lately. Him and Burns as openers might have some potential, I'm sure they'll get another chance in the Fifth Test.

Lyon starting to look more dangerous, which is not good news for England.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thankfully no century for Denly, who at 33 should be summarily dispatched in favour of younger talent that will actually play the next Ashes.

Anyway this will be my last post for a while *falls into post-Ashes depression*.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Paxter said:

Anyway this will be my last post for a while *falls into post-Ashes depression*.

England will tempt you back with a decent stand! Wickets have stubbornly refused to fall in clumps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lucky that was outside the line. Overton got a huge edge on that. No point looking at ultraedge when bat, ball and pad are so close, just need to see how far the ball suddenly moved to one side. Hawkeye was having difficulty rendering it - their computer generated ball was in a different spot the real one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought it was outside the line to begin with and so luckily the right call was made. I guess DRS operates implicitly on the assumption that overturning something has to have clear evidence, and that any benefit of the doubt has to be given to the original decision. Which in this case put the umpire in a tricky position as it looked like the ball deflected from the vision but UltraEdge didn't give him any help with more evidence.

If they get to tea with four wickets in hand, Australia might get a little edgy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Argh. I don't think I can take another England great escape!!

Considering mortgaging the rest of my house to bet on a draw for insurance purposes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I quite like Labuschagne, I know this has nothing to do with anything, but he's been impressive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh man I was so prepared for that to be another English nailbiting escape.

England fought incredibly hard today - dragging it right into the last hour. Great tail-end resistance from Overton too, right up to the end, for all of our sledging of his selection at the start of this match he probably ended up doing a better job batting than Woakes would have done.

A masterstroke from Paine to get Labuschagne bowling to Leach. Leach looked so comfortable against everyone else including Lyon and the frontline pace bowlers, but to get a leggie turning it into him from the rough with men all around the bat was a brilliant idea. Crucial contribution from Marnus and great captaincy.

I'm really glad for Tim Paine that he captained a win from the field in a tight match, Headingley would have been incredibly hard on him and to have this win now will help exorcise those demons.

I think Australia retaining the Ashes is the right outcome given performances in these first four matches. The miraculous Stokes hundred staved it off for one match, and another miraculous escape in this Test would have been harsh on Australia. The pundits who were trashing England before the last day at Headingley made the right call but one match too early.

Smith has been the difference between the sides. If England had a top class batsman in good form (e.g. Root) then the series would have been much closer. As it is, they can still tie it up at the Oval.

I eagerly await news of Warner's demise from the squad for the Fifth Test.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh well, England actually lasted a lot longer than I would have expected with no real contributions from the three batsmen, Burns, Root and Stokes, you'd expect to be any use in a rearguard action. At least they put up a fight and made Australia work for it.

Overall you can't begrudge Australia retaining the Ashes, they been the far better side with only Stokes' improbable effort at Headingly holding back the tide. The Australian bowling has been better than England's and Smith and Labuschagne have been miles ahead of everyone else on the batting front.

I think Anderson's been papering over the cracks for England in test cricket in home conditions which has allowed the ECB to get away with their neglect of this format but they really need to step up now.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well after passing out from drinking to much this has been a pleasant hangover so far

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, ljkeane said:

The Australian bowling has been better than England's and Smith and Labuschagne have been miles ahead of everyone else on the batting front.

To be fair, Stokes has scored a couple of centuries as well, so England have had at least one batsman in decent form. The problem is that Roy, Buttler and Bairstow have batted 24 times in the series and have a single half-century to show for it (and that was a little half century too, just 52 from Bairstow). This is a good Australian bowling attack, but you'd still expect more from Test players. As it is, only Root is averaging above 36 in Test cricket.

Denly has done enough to salvage his series with a couple of 50s lately, and Burns, Stokes and Root aren't going to be dropped. But you have to think at least one of Roy, Buttler or Bairstow is in danger of being dropped, and the only thing saving them is that the selectors don't have ready made replacements for any of them. The England of the 1990s used to be criticised for being a bit too flighty with selections, chopping and changing too much, but if anything the opposite has happened here - it's been an unproductive batting lineup but they have kept the same top 7 all series and there doesn't seem to have been a Plan B.

In contrast to Australia and Langer, who obviously had a clear plan for the bowlers (if not necessarily the batsmen, I still think the Harris selection was a mistake, although Labuschagne's obviously worked out well). If Australia hadn't secured the Ashes in this match, I reckon they would have dropped Warner. Now that at least the Ashes have been retained, I wonder if they'll give Warner the last game (I hope not). I also wonder if they'll rest Pat Cummins - his pace was notably down in one of the final day spells and he must be feeling the effects of this long series. Still, if they want to push for a win then Cummins would have to play as their best bowler.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Jeor said:

To be fair, Stokes has scored a couple of centuries as well, so England have had at least one batsman in decent form.

I think Stokes has probably been the 3rd best batsman in series, he's had a couple of excellent innings but he's mixed in some pretty poor dismissals as well. Labuschagne's been impressively consistent for someone new to test cricket and I think doing as well as he did at Lords in particular having to come in as a concussion replacement for Smith was a fantastic effort.

3 hours ago, Jeor said:

 But you have to think at least one of Roy, Buttler or Bairstow is in danger of being dropped, and the only thing saving them is that the selectors don't have ready made replacements for any of them. The England of the 1990s used to be criticised for being a bit too flighty with selections, chopping and changing too much, but if anything the opposite has happened here - it's been an unproductive batting lineup but they have kept the same top 7 all series and there doesn't seem to have been a Plan B.

A lot of the problem is that English domestic cricket just isn't structured to develop test players, batsmen in particular, anymore so it's not really a straightforward task to pick out a standout first class batsmen who obviously deserves a call up to the test side mid series. Ollie Pope's obviously the big prospect but I think they're a little reluctant to throw him in against Australia. Foakes would probably be fine if they needed a wicket keeper but there are already two in the side.

They took a gamble on Roy but it hasn't really worked out, I'd tell him if he wants to play test cricket he's going to have to go away and earn his place by showing he can do it in first class cricket. They need to bite the bullet and tell Bairstow he's not going to be 'keeping and he needs to earn his place as a batsman. Buttler hasn't been good this series but he was good last year so maybe he's got a bit of credit in the bank but if he's going to be in the side batting at 7 he needs to keep. I'd be happy enough with either Buttler or Foakes keeping.

My batting lineup for next year would probably be something like:

1. Burns 2. Denly 3. Root 4. Stokes 5. Bairstow (on a short leash) 6. Pope 7. Buttler/Foakes

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

England name an unchanged squad, so the same top 7 we go. The extras in the squad are all bowlers (Curran, Woakes).

2 minutes ago, ljkeane said:

They took a gamble on Roy but it hasn't really worked out, I'd tell him if he wants to play test cricket he's going to have to go away and earn his place by showing he can do it in first class cricket. They need to bite the bullet and tell Bairstow he's not going to be 'keeping and he needs to earn his place as a batsman. Buttler hasn't been good this series but he was good last year so maybe he's got a bit of credit in the bank but if he's going to be in the side batting at 7 he needs to keep. I'd be happy enough with either Buttler or Foakes keeping.

My batting lineup for next year would probably be something like:

1. Burns 2. Denly 3. Root 4. Stokes 5. Bairstow (on a short leash) 6. Pope 7. Buttler/Foakes

 

Yes I don't get why Buttler is playing as a specialist batsman yet coming in at 7 behind Bairstow. If Bairstow's going to bat higher than him, Buttler should take the gloves. Or they should bring in Foakes and then have Buttler/Bairstow fight it out for the 6 spot.

I think with a five match series like this, by playing every batsman across five Tests they should have plenty of ammunition to remake the lineup if the failures continue. I mean, Roy and Buttler would have been given plenty of chances by the end (10 innings) and if there are no half centuries at all, that's pretty damning.

There was an article on cricinfo that said Buttler had seduced everyone into thinking he was a good batsman because he's good at hitting boundaries in ODI cricket. But his Test record (average 33.07 and 1 century in 35 games, albeit batting lower order) and his first-class record (average 32.12 and 5 centuries in 99 games) emphatically show that he is not a good longer-form batsman, and they aren't exactly small sample spaces.

Whereas Bairstow's first-class average of 44 is at least indicative of some solidity for Test cricket.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×