Cricket 39: Playing COVID-19 With a Straight Bat

[Jeor]

Much as it pains me to see Ben Stokes put in another scintillating match-winning performance, that was an awesome Test match for him. I think he really is England's best all-rounder since Botham; Flintoff's batting, while equally destructive, was never as consistent as Stokes' (one gets the feeling Flintoff was just thumping them until he got out, whereas Stokes can build a Test innings much better) and their bowling is about the same. Statistically, Stokes is looking better although I'm always wary of Flintoff's stats given he had a pretty lacklustre start and end to his career which dragged his stats down a fair bit. Flintoff was only in his prime for a few years.
 

Quote

 

IMO Wood and Archer should never play in the same Test together.  I totally get the desire to see them bowl together, but they both should be used in short, devastating bursts, which means placing the burden of more overs onto other bowlers.  And Archer suffers as well.  He is seen as so much stronger than Wood, who I think is still seen as a bit fragile, that Root seems OK with over-bowling him sometimes, and that should not be his role.

If fit, I would always have Broad and Woakes and rotate Anderson (to prolong his tenure), Wood and Archer.  Dropping a fit Broad is just bananas.  Fired him up, though!

 

Quoting @Mosi Mynn, I think it's possible for Wood and Archer to play in the same Test together (injury and form permitting of course) as long as Stokes is playing as the all-rounder. Stokes gives England five frontline bowlers, so I think England actually have a freer hand than most in picking a bowling attack without having to worry about workload; Root can fire in a few tidy overs himself. It's just up to the English captains to strike the correct balance in using them on the field!

[Mosi Mynn]

16 minutes ago, Jeor said:

Much as it pains me to see Ben Stokes put in another scintillating match-winning performance, that was an awesome Test match for him. I think he really is England's best all-rounder since Botham; Flintoff's batting, while equally destructive, was never as consistent as Stokes' (one gets the feeling Flintoff was just thumping them until he got out, whereas Stokes can build a Test innings much better) and their bowling is about the same. Statistically, Stokes is looking better although I'm always wary of Flintoff's stats given he had a pretty lacklustre start and end to his career which dragged his stats down a fair bit. Flintoff was only in his prime for a few years.

Stokes is the best allrounder I've seen for England (I did not see Beefy play).  He seems to give England whatever we need at the time. If we need fast runs, he'll get them; if we need a slow, grinding hundred after a batting collapse, he'll hang around; if we need an outrageous bit of fielding to turn a match or lift the team, he'll stick his hand out; if we need a wicket, he (or Broad) will summon some magic.  It was interesting to see him as a fallible captain!

I won't bore you with my pre-rehearsed, much-used Freddie rant here - but I knew I would be defending him from those who did not see him play and only look at his stats (not you, I know).  His stats simply do not reflect his presence on the field or impact upon a game.  His prime may have been short, but it was awesome.

Quote

Quoting @Mosi Mynn, I think it's possible for Wood and Archer to play in the same Test together (injury and form permitting of course) as long as Stokes is playing as the all-rounder. Stokes gives England five frontline bowlers, so I think England actually have a freer hand than most in picking a bowling attack without having to worry about workload; Root can fire in a few tidy overs himself. It's just up to the English captains to strike the correct balance in using them on the field!

I take your point about Stokes, although he seems a wee bit fragile at the moment too!  It's such a gamble to play both Wood and Archer, because captains (Root mainly, to be fair!) are too tempted to over-bowl them.  And if it was a choice between having Broad or both of them, Broad stays.

[Sir Thursday]

I tend to think of the English specialist seamers as falling into three categories:

• Pace: Wood, Archer
• Swing: Anderson, Curran
• Seam/Variations: Broad, Woakes

I'm not completely happy with these characterisations - Curran has some variations in his bag, for example. But in English conditions it seems to me that you want one from each category so you can take advantage of whatever's working. Then when you go somewhere where you're not likely to get much of one, you can switch the balance of the attack and take (eg) both of Wood and Archer if you need pace, or both of Broad and Woakes if you think the surface has some irregular bounce.

ST

[Hereward]

Woakes is totally a swing bowler.

[williamjm]

10 hours ago, Mosi Mynn said:

Stokes is the best allrounder I've seen for England (I did not see Beefy play).  He seems to give England whatever we need at the time. If we need fast runs, he'll get them; if we need a slow, grinding hundred after a batting collapse, he'll hang around; if we need an outrageous bit of fielding to turn a match or lift the team, he'll stick his hand out; if we need a wicket, he (or Broad) will summon some magic.  It was interesting to see him as a fallible captain!

I'm sure Stokes will get more opportunities to be captain in future. It'll be interesting to see how he does in the long term, for all their all-round abilities Botham and Flintoff were failures at captaincy. I reckon Stokes could do better than either of them (admittedly that's a fairly low bar to clear).

I think Stokes is probably a better batsman than Botham but not as good a bowler as Botham was in his prime.

[Sir Thursday]

4 hours ago, Hereward said:

Woakes is totally a swing bowler.

There was a graph they showed on the BBC highlights package that showed the amount of swing various bowlers had been getting, and it seemed to show that Curran and Anderson were getting a lot more than Woakes. But point taken, perhaps the categorisations aren't quite right.

ST

[Mosi Mynn]

12 hours ago, williamjm said:

I'm sure Stokes will get more opportunities to be captain in future. It'll be interesting to see how he does in the long term, for all their all-round abilities Botham and Flintoff were failures at captaincy. I reckon Stokes could do better than either of them (admittedly that's a fairly low bar to clear).

I think he can be a good captain too.  I don't particularly want him as captain because he has everything else to do - talisman and vice-captain seem like the ideal roles for him.

[Paxter]

Freddie and Stokes are completely different cricketers IMO; despite some similarities in their respective records. Flintoff's bowling record looks ordinary (averaging 32, striking every 11 overs) and comparable to Stokes (averaging 32, striking every 9.3 overs). But to me, Flintoff is the far superior bowler. Not only he did he play in a much (much!) better era of international batsmen, but he consistently caused problems to those batsmen and was extremely unlucky not to get more wickets. He was really the only fast bowler against whom I ever saw Adam Gilchrist struggle. Stokes is a handy bowler with a big heart and a knack for taking wickets, but he will never be the spearhead that Flintoff was in his prime.

Freddie's batting...so much wasted potential. He just did not have the application and powers of concentration that Stokes exhibits more often than not these days. He certainly did not have what it takes to bat up the order. 

[Paxter]

Better start for the Windies today after again bowling first. Roach getting good reward for his efforts. Burns the key man for England.

Important innings for Pope - he hasn't found much form in this series so far.

[ljkeane]

So, shockingly, the decision to drop a batsman for a sixth bowler is looking ill advised.

[The Winged Shadow]

41 minutes ago, ljkeane said:

So, shockingly, the decision to drop a batsman for a sixth bowler is looking ill advised.

Was the pitch expected to do a lot? Or are they just gambling that since both batting lineups are pretty weak, whoever has the better bowling lineup will win?

[ljkeane]

1 minute ago, The Winged Shadow said:

Was the pitch expected to do a lot? 

I don’t think so. Stokes is probably struggling a bit so they’re not counting him as one of their bowlers and they’re hoping Woakes and Bess will add up to one frontline batsman. It also lets them avoid making a tough decision on which one of Broad and Anderson to play.

[Paxter]

Second Test, Manchester, Toss: WI, End Day One: England 207/3

Third Test, Manchester, Toss: WI, End Day One: England 260-odd/4 

Twice in a row that England have set themselves up to boss the test. And like last time, I really don't see WI coming back into it without assistance from the weather (which is possible by the look of the forecast). 

[Hereward]

Pope is proper quality. Unsurprising with a FC average of 57, I know, but he looks like the dog’s.

[williamjm]

5 hours ago, Paxter said:

Better start for the Windies today after again bowling first. Roach getting good reward for his efforts. Burns the key man for England.

I don't really understand the Windies tactics here. They drop a seam bowler for a spinner despite knowing Gabriel was struggling in the previous Test then decide to bowl first again. If they want to pick Cornwall that's fine but I think maybe a batsman needed to make way instead.

Roach did well but the lack of depth in the Windies bowling attack meant some of the pressure was taken off and Pope and Buttler have done a good job of rebuilding the innings.

[Paxter]

Agree w all of the above. Holder is going to end up regretting these tosses.

And Pope does look the goods I agree. He reminds me of Ian Bell crossed with Kane Williamson.

[Sir Thursday]

Great day for Broad yesterday - feels like those extra runs really put the Windies behind the game (and as it turns out may have given them the room to be able to enforce the follow on if they need it).

This feels like England's best combination of bowlers (for English conditions, anyway). Would people agree? I know that normally there would be one fewer bowler and Stokes would be there, but I'd argue that Woakes is a better bowler than Stokes (if not a better all around player). I don't really like the balance of the batting lineup, but the bowling unit does look fearsome. Maybe in hindsight they didn't need to play a spinner? Doesn't really feel like Bess has had much of an impact this series, and the conditions are good for pace bowling. In any case, the way they put the clamps on the Windies in the afternoon/evening was very impressive to me.

ST

[williamjm]

1 hour ago, Sir Thursday said:

Great day for Broad yesterday - feels like those extra runs really put the Windies behind the game (and as it turns out may have given them the room to be able to enforce the follow on if they need it).

It feels like a long time since he's been so effective with the bat. I do wonder if maybe the Windies bowlers got a bit too focused on his well-known struggles against the short ball and might have modified their bowling approach from what had been so effective against the other batsmen.

1 hour ago, Sir Thursday said:

This feels like England's best combination of bowlers (for English conditions, anyway). Would people agree? I know that normally there would be one fewer bowler and Stokes would be there, but I'd argue that Woakes is a better bowler than Stokes (if not a better all around player). I don't really like the balance of the batting lineup, but the bowling unit does look fearsome. Maybe in hindsight they didn't need to play a spinner? Doesn't really feel like Bess has had much of an impact this series, and the conditions are good for pace bowling. In any case, the way they put the clamps on the Windies in the afternoon/evening was very impressive to me.

It is a strong bowling line-up. I'm never a fan of not playing a spinner, if the seam bowlers keep consistently making breakthroughs then it can work but if some of the batsmen manage to get set and the ball/pitch aren't doing much then I think a spinner is useful to both provide a plan B which isn't 4 right-arm seam bowlers and also to avoid the seamers bowling themselves into the ground. I think the jury is still out on whether Bess is the best option as a spinner.

[ljkeane]

I don’t think Dowrich is enjoying keeping wicket in England.

[Mosi Mynn]

3 hours ago, ljkeane said:

I don’t think Dowrich is enjoying keeping wicket in England.

That looked nasty.

I'm hoping the first Test was a blip.  Looks like we need Root and Broad to remind England of what they are capable of.