The cricket thread

RandallFlagg

UnclePsychosis said:

scrumhalf said:

Well, that's that.

A ludicrous schedule didn't help, but well played Aus. Might have been different without Smith, but he's there and it wasn't. 

To be fair, the test played without Smith needed the combination of both a legend-making innings and a woeful umpiring decision to deny Australia.

Best team won it, its been fun to finally see some competitive test cricket and for those of us neutrals who don't care either way who wins also refreshing to see a touring side coming away on top. Home advantage has been too ridiculous for too long. 

I think that will be the thing that will stick in Joe Root's throat, it was apparent from early on at Edgbaston that the Duke ball, English conditions home advantage just wasn't there. England were reeling from Edgbaston onwards with just a few flourishes of brilliance to keep their toe in.

Heartfeltdawn

UnclePsychosis said:

To be fair, the test played without Smith needed the combination of both a legend-making innings and a woeful umpiring decision to deny Australia.

Best team won it, its been fun to finally see some competitive test cricket and for those of us neutrals who don't care either way who wins also refreshing to see a touring side coming away on top. Home advantage has been too ridiculous for too long. 

It's been on the cards. Over the last couple of years, India won in Australia and Sri Lanka, England won in Sri Lanka, New Zealand beat Pakistan in the UAE.. there is a shift. India is still the ultimate fortress. 

axisus

I can't complain, best team won. Like him or not, Smith was amazing. We have no clue how to get him out.

A disappointing series in terms of results, but some good cricket to watch and a historic innings from Stokes. 

octatonic

Aussie, Aussie, Aussie!!!

guitars4you

Well played Australia - Far better unit throughout the series

Will save me a few hours time on Thursday for the 5th test - I will keep an eye out but not with the same level of intent 

RandallFlagg

This Ashes series has been quite draining to watch, I'm relieved the bubble has burst in a way, but sad in another.

Do you think England will mix up the team for The Oval? Playing for places in the winter tours.

I'm already looking forward to the Boxing Day Test against South Africa, it starts at 08:00am UK time. What a Christmas treat that will be for the wife & kids, when I plonk down on the sofa with the TV remote, forget Mary Poppins love, England have won the toss.

sixstringsupplies

RandallFlagg said:

This Ashes series has been quite draining to watch, I'm relived the bubble has burst in a way, but sad in another.

Do you think England will mix up the team for The Oval? Playing for places in the winter tours.

Absolutely. My life seems to stop when England play test cricket, yet alone the ashes. One more match to watch before, for me, summer is officially over and I can get on with my life for the next 6 weeks or so.

so would you play Sam Curran in the final test? Bit weird he hasn’t been Given a game given how well he played last summer. The beauty of hindsight but he must be thinking “what have I done wrong”. As well as Overton played today, he got the gig because he dismissed Smith in the previous series down under...which is desperate to say the least!

sixstringsupplies

RandallFlagg said:

I'm already looking forward to the Boxing Day Test against South Africa, it starts at 08:00am UK time. What a Christmas treat that will be for the wife & kids, when I plonk down on the sofa with the TV remote, forget Mary Poppins love, England have won the toss.

PS Boxing Day test is tradition in this house. Christmas wouldn’t be the same without it!

RandallFlagg

Well one more to go at the Oval and I'll watch the T20 Blast finals day on 21st Sept for shits and giggles then that's it I can go back to playing and thinking about guitars again...and get some jobs done at home.

There's no harm in giving Sam Curran a go for the last Test.

earwighoney

Heartfeltdawn said:

UnclePsychosis said:

To be fair, the test played without Smith needed the combination of both a legend-making innings and a woeful umpiring decision to deny Australia.

Best team won it, its been fun to finally see some competitive test cricket and for those of us neutrals who don't care either way who wins also refreshing to see a touring side coming away on top. Home advantage has been too ridiculous for too long. 

It's been on the cards. Over the last couple of years, India won in Australia and Sri Lanka, England won in Sri Lanka, New Zealand beat Pakistan in the UAE.. there is a shift. India is still the ultimate fortress. 

I hate to say HFD, I know it's something you don't really believe in but in all the series you mentioned the pretty much each team that won the toss went on to win the test match.  

However India in the recent series against Windies, lost both of the tosses and won both test matches very comfortable, whilst England lost the tosses in Windies and lost the first two, but won the last test match (which IMO, the Windies had stepped off the gas after winning the series & Holder was suspended)

IMO, home conditions aren't as important as they once were winning the toss is very important.

Heartfeltdawn

earwighoney said:

I hate to say HFD, I know it's something you don't really believe in but in all the series you mentioned the pretty much each team that won the toss went on to win the test match.  

However India in the recent series against Windies, lost both of the tosses and won both test matches very comfortable, whilst England lost the tosses in Windies and lost the first two, but won the last test match (which IMO, the Windies had stepped off the gas after winning the series & Holder was suspended)

IMO, home conditions aren't as important as they once were winning the toss is very important.

Certainly there is a case to be made for that. The Pakistan-NZ series is one that would support the need to win the toss as you win and you bat first knowing that the wickets are likely to turn. England in Sri Lanka would fall into this category: win toss, bat first, pitch breaks up. 

So winning the toss is important if you assume that it means you will either bat first and exploit what should be the best of the batting conditions or you bowl first to utilise conditions helpful to the seamers. 

Sometimes there are the exceptions. Look at Australia in the first Test: won toss, batted first, went into the second innings with a deficit, ended up winning. Was the toss responsible for that win? Not to my mind. Same with our solitary win at Headingley. We didn't win because of a toss: we won thanks to a real lifetime knock from Stokes, some hard work from Denly and Root, and a brave number 11. It's reminiscent of Shai Hope at Headingley: Windies lost the toss, England didn't utilise that advanatge, Hope plays a blinder. 

Now the West Indies-India series: clearly winning the toss didn't help the West Indies. The emergence of the Indian pace attack who really can bowl in all conditions, having proven themselves now in Australia and the West Indies, negated that advantage. Quality quicks led by Bumrah and the continued up and down nature of the West Indies bowling attack.

The toss does give an advantage but I don't believe it's as cut and dried as some suggest. I haven't got the figures for County Championship game result now that they've erased the toss. I'll see if I can pull something out tomorrow. 

guitars4you

sixstringsupplies said:

RandallFlagg said:

I'm already looking forward to the Boxing Day Test against South Africa, it starts at 08:00am UK time. What a Christmas treat that will be for the wife & kids, when I plonk down on the sofa with the TV remote, forget Mary Poppins love, England have won the toss.

PS Boxing Day test is tradition in this house. Christmas wouldn’t be the same without it!

at least the SA matches have a similar time zone to the UK

When we play down under it is often early to bed about 7pm - Get up midnight/1am and watch as much as I can, then maybe a 1 hour kip before I go to work - Effectively become a zombie for 2 months or so

guitars4you

RandallFlagg said:

Well one more to go at the Oval and the I'll watch the T20 Blast finals day on 21st Sept for shits and giggles then that's it I can go back to playing and thinking about guitars again...and get some jobs done at home.

There's no harm in giving Sam Curran a go for the last Test.

I can't see why he didn't start the 1st test or any since - Certainly based on his 2018 performances 

I think the issue has been does he play for Woakes, which is now Overton - Or drop 1 batsman and options here, move Bairstow to 6 and Curran slots in at 7 - Many pundits think he will move up above this and become a better batsman who can bowl a bit 

Heartfeltdawn

sixstringsupplies said:

RandallFlagg said:

This Ashes series has been quite draining to watch, I'm relived the bubble has burst in a way, but sad in another.

Do you think England will mix up the team for The Oval? Playing for places in the winter tours.

Absolutely. My life seems to stop when England play test cricket, yet alone the ashes. One more match to watch before, for me, summer is officially over and I can get on with my life for the next 6 weeks or so.

so would you play Sam Curran in the final test? Bit weird he hasn’t been Given a game given how well he played last summer. The beauty of hindsight but he must be thinking “what have I done wrong”. As well as Overton played today, he got the gig because he dismissed Smith in the previous series down under...which is desperate to say the least!

The series bowling averages for both teams are amazing. 

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/records/averages/batting_bowling_by_team.html?id=12492;type=series

Cummins and Hazlewood have been outstanding but so too have Archer and Broad. You then look at everyone else in the teams: Woakes has a better average and SR than Starc, Siddle, and Pattinson. Lyon on the face of the stats has been outbowled by Leach. The real difference has been Smith and Labuschagne. They gave Australia enough runs to bowl England out with. They didn't bat us out of the game like India do at home but they gave enough depth to allow the bowlers time to get the opposition out. That's precisely what we saw today. 

As for Curran... it's simply inexplicable to me that he hasn't featured at some point this series. This seamer has been good for seamers. Our lead swing bowler has missed the whole series through injury and so Curran surely had to appear at some point. Instead we've ignored him, took a huge punt on Roy that failed, Joe Denly has been up and down the order, the two JBs are still in shitsville.. it's an abject mess. 

earwighoney

Heartfeltdawn said:

earwighoney said:

I hate to say HFD, I know it's something you don't really believe in but in all the series you mentioned the pretty much each team that won the toss went on to win the test match.  

However India in the recent series against Windies, lost both of the tosses and won both test matches very comfortable, whilst England lost the tosses in Windies and lost the first two, but won the last test match (which IMO, the Windies had stepped off the gas after winning the series & Holder was suspended)

IMO, home conditions aren't as important as they once were winning the toss is very important.

Certainly there is a case to be made for that. The Pakistan-NZ series is one that would support the need to win the toss as you win and you bat first knowing that the wickets are likely to turn. England in Sri Lanka would fall into this category: win toss, bat first, pitch breaks up. 

So winning the toss is important if you assume that it means you will either bat first and exploit what should be the best of the batting conditions or you bowl first to utilise conditions helpful to the seamers. 

Sometimes there are the exceptions. Look at Australia in the first Test: won toss, batted first, went into the second innings with a deficit, ended up winning. Was the toss responsible for that win? Not to my mind. Same with our solitary win at Headingley. We didn't win because of a toss: we won thanks to a real lifetime knock from Stokes, some hard work from Denly and Root, and a brave number 11. It's reminiscent of Shai Hope at Headingley: Windies lost the toss, England didn't utilise that advanatge, Hope plays a blinder. 

Now the West Indies-India series: clearly winning the toss didn't help the West Indies. The emergence of the Indian pace attack who really can bowl in all conditions, having proven themselves now in Australia and the West Indies, negated that advantage. Quality quicks led by Bumrah and the continued up and down nature of the West Indies bowling attack.

The toss does give an advantage but I don't believe it's as cut and dried as some suggest. I haven't got the figures for County Championship game result now that they've erased the toss. I'll see if I can pull something out tomorrow. 

I'm in agreement, the toss is important but it's to an extent and it's dependent on the pitch and the teams and of course they are performances which are either exceptional or disasters that do not show the toss to always be relevant. 

I remember seeing the India test series in South Africa, and couldn't think of a series where the toss was as important.  Pretty each consecutive innings was lower scoring than the last. 

Back to England, I thought Joe Root was incredibly lucky winning as many tosses as he did last year, and with the conditions that largely went in his favour his abilities as captain were flattered.

Heartfeltdawn

earwighoney said:

I'm in agreement, the toss is important but it's to an extent and it's dependent on the pitch and the teams and of course they are performances which are either exceptional or disasters that do not show the toss to always be relevant. 

I remember seeing the India test series in South Africa, and couldn't think of a series where the toss was as important.  Pretty each consecutive innings was lower scoring than the last. 

Back to England, I thought Joe Root was incredibly lucky winning as many tosses as he did last year, and with the conditions that largely went in his favour his abilities as captain were flattered.

Both the India and Australia series in South Africa were very much dictated by the toss bar the Port Elizabeth Test against Australia which went 'against the toss'. The drought conditions really dictated that you win the toss and bat first. League and school cricket in Cape Town was cancelled halfway through the season because of it. 

https://www.iol.co.za/news/south-africa/western-cape/watercrisis-club-school-cricket-cancelled-due-to-drought-13043427

It comes back to this article and Ric Finlay's studies:

https://www.cricket.com.au/news/coin-toss-test-cricket-adam-gilchrist-winning-away-from-home-icc-allan-border-du-plessis/2018-07-25

Gilchrist's words are right on sides having to learn to cope better when they lose the toss. If you lose the toss and get inserted, England for instance haven't got the ways and means for the most part to cope. But the speed of change is also there in the final paragraph of that article that's now approaching 14 months old: 

"While historical data shows the toss makes a negligible difference to the outcome of a match, there's no doubt modern teams are losing Tests away from home more frequently."

And we have seen a change. India can now mix it in Australia because they have a pace attack that comes close to rivalling Australia. England can win in Sri Lanka because the opposition don't have a top level spinner nor have come close to replacing their two greatest batsmen. Now Dale Steyn has gone from Test cricket, will South Africa be as daunting as it has been? 

Collective strength isn't what it used to be. Us older types can remember the days when Australia could field an A side in ODI tournaments that was close to being as good as their 1st XI. All those overseas Aussies in the CC, people who couldn't get a game. India now are the only side who really have that collective strength in the batting where players can come up into theTest side and slot in. Their first class game allows players to bat for a long time and it prepares them for Test cricket. Take Hanuma Vihari who debuted against England made his first ton against West Indies recently and compare him to Jason Roy. Both of them made their FC debut in 2010. 

75 games, 119 innings, 6272 runs at 60.... 12,763 balls faced. 

86 games, 142 innings, 4832 runs at 36... and faced 5975 balls. 

It is too early to say if Vihari will become an estabished Test player but the foundations he has had by the way the FC game is played in India has allowed for some early success. With Roy, we selected him on a hunch, going totally against the stats-led world that is gaining strength. Perhaps now we will go the other way and pick people who demonstrate longevity in the middle. 

earwighoney

Heartfeltdawn said:

earwighoney said:

I'm in agreement, the toss is important but it's to an extent and it's dependent on the pitch and the teams and of course they are performances which are either exceptional or disasters that do not show the toss to always be relevant. 

I remember seeing the India test series in South Africa, and couldn't think of a series where the toss was as important.  Pretty each consecutive innings was lower scoring than the last. 

Back to England, I thought Joe Root was incredibly lucky winning as many tosses as he did last year, and with the conditions that largely went in his favour his abilities as captain were flattered.

Both the India and Australia series in South Africa were very much dictated by the toss bar the Port Elizabeth Test against Australia which went 'against the toss'. The drought conditions really dictated that you win the toss and bat first. League and school cricket in Cape Town was cancelled halfway through the season because of it. 

https://www.iol.co.za/news/south-africa/western-cape/watercrisis-club-school-cricket-cancelled-due-to-drought-13043427

It comes back to this article and Ric Finlay's studies:

https://www.cricket.com.au/news/coin-toss-test-cricket-adam-gilchrist-winning-away-from-home-icc-allan-border-du-plessis/2018-07-25

Gilchrist's words are right on sides having to learn to cope better when they lose the toss. If you lose the toss and get inserted, England for instance haven't got the ways and means for the most part to cope. But the speed of change is also there in the final paragraph of that article that's now approaching 14 months old: 

"While historical data shows the toss makes a negligible difference to the outcome of a match, there's no doubt modern teams are losing Tests away from home more frequently."

And we have seen a change. India can now mix it in Australia because they have a pace attack that comes close to rivalling Australia. England can win in Sri Lanka because the opposition don't have a top level spinner nor have come close to replacing their two greatest batsmen. Now Dale Steyn has gone from Test cricket, will South Africa be as daunting as it has been? 

Collective strength isn't what it used to be. Us older types can remember the days when Australia could field an A side in ODI tournaments that was close to being as good as their 1st XI. All those overseas Aussies in the CC, people who couldn't get a game. India now are the only side who really have that collective strength in the batting where players can come up into theTest side and slot in. Their first class game allows players to bat for a long time and it prepares them for Test cricket. Take Hanuma Vihari who debuted against England made his first ton against West Indies recently and compare him to Jason Roy. Both of them made their FC debut in 2010. 

75 games, 119 innings, 6272 runs at 60.... 12,763 balls faced. 

86 games, 142 innings, 4832 runs at 36... and faced 5975 balls. 

It is too early to say if Vihari will become an estabished Test player but the foundations he has had by the way the FC game is played in India has allowed for some early success. With Roy, we selected him on a hunch, going totally against the stats-led world that is gaining strength. Perhaps now we will go the other way and pick people who demonstrate longevity in the middle. 

Another great post.  

I saw quite a bit of Vihari bat in the Windies test and he's not a very exciting player to watch but he has got a pretty decent defensive game and can spend time at the crease.  Agarwal looks decent as well.  Have you seen any of Shubman Gill though?  Bloody hell, that kid's a talent.  Hope white ball cricket doesn't destroy his technique.

The Ranji trophy is still a very important part of Indian cricket, and even with the IPL there seems to be better scheduling in Indian cricket than in the UK.  God knows how much of a mess it'll be with the 100. 

SAF cricket doesn't look to be in the best health though.  They seem to be very reliant on a few names with some coming to the end of their careers eg Faf, Amla with no real replacements in line.  Steyn will be missed but they have Rabada and Ntini around, but another huge issue is they keep on losing bowlers to Kolpak.  Duaane Olivier could have a decent future for them. 

guitars4you

okay - Time to show some spirit

2 all, over the 5 test series is better than a 3 v 1 defeat - So let's get behind the team

Heartfeltdawn

earwighoney said:

Another great post.  

I saw quite a bit of Vihari bat in the Windies test and he's not a very exciting player to watch but he has got a pretty decent defensive game and can spend time at the crease.  Agarwal looks decent as well.  Have you seen any of Shubman Gill though?  Bloody hell, that kid's a talent.  Hope white ball cricket doesn't destroy his technique.

The Ranji trophy is still a very important part of Indian cricket, and even with the IPL there seems to be better scheduling in Indian cricket than in the UK.  God knows how much of a mess it'll be with the 100. 

SAF cricket doesn't look to be in the best health though.  They seem to be very reliant on a few names with some coming to the end of their careers eg Faf, Amla with no real replacements in line.  Steyn will be missed but they have Rabada and Ntini around, but another huge issue is they keep on losing bowlers to Kolpak.  Duaane Olivier could have a decent future for them. 

Gill looks very useful indeed. He and Abhimanyu Easwaran are the two being tipped to step up. Both of them are representing India A against South Africa A soon with Gill captaining one game. I like Vihari, from reports Dravid is very much a mentor to him and he has that kind of mindset. 

SAF are in a lot of strife. Hard to know how they can pull that back without trashing FC cricket. 

earwighoney

Heartfeltdawn said:

earwighoney said:

Another great post.  

I saw quite a bit of Vihari bat in the Windies test and he's not a very exciting player to watch but he has got a pretty decent defensive game and can spend time at the crease.  Agarwal looks decent as well.  Have you seen any of Shubman Gill though?  Bloody hell, that kid's a talent.  Hope white ball cricket doesn't destroy his technique.

The Ranji trophy is still a very important part of Indian cricket, and even with the IPL there seems to be better scheduling in Indian cricket than in the UK.  God knows how much of a mess it'll be with the 100. 

SAF cricket doesn't look to be in the best health though.  They seem to be very reliant on a few names with some coming to the end of their careers eg Faf, Amla with no real replacements in line.  Steyn will be missed but they have Rabada and Ntini around, but another huge issue is they keep on losing bowlers to Kolpak.  Duaane Olivier could have a decent future for them. 

Gill looks very useful indeed. He and Abhimanyu Easwaran are the two being tipped to step up. Both of them are representing India A against South Africa A soon with Gill captaining one game. I like Vihari, from reports Dravid is very much a mentor to him and he has that kind of mindset. 

SAF are in a lot of strife. Hard to know how they can pull that back without trashing FC cricket. 

I read the article about Easwaran, sounds interesting indeed.  FTR though, he plays for West Bengal and they are kind of the Somerset/Surrey of Indian cricket in some ways, there's a disdain between the selectors/BCCI towards towards that part of India long running as well.  Whether Easwaran gets picked is another issue but he sounds like a prospect. 

Dravid's the U19 coach and he seems to keep close ties with a few players even after they graduate from his team.  IMO one of the failings of English cricket is a lot of solid ex players who'd be able to offer the next generation a lot of their insights are lost to commentary.