The cricket thread

Heartfeltdawn

crunchman said:

Not convinced Bairstow's technique is tight enough to bat 3 in places where the ball does more for the fast bowlers like England, NZ, or SA.

Still wonder if we would be better with Stokes trying to do the Kallis role at 3 with Bairstow 5 and Buttler 5.

Stokes isn't close to being in Kallis's class with the bat. I take your point about technique but we haven't got a Dravid or Sangakkara figure whose technique looks solid. A player like Kallis is a rare thing. When you look at his stats, it reinforces that 3 is a difficult spot. 

280 innings, 45 tons. That's a ton every 6.22 innings. 

Batting at 3: 78 innings, 9 tons. That's one every 8.66 innings. 

Some comparisons when batting 1 to 3:

Cook: 290 innings, 33 tons = 8.79
Sachin: 1 innings. 15 runs scored. 
Lara: 68 innings, 9 tons = 7.55
Dravid: 242 innings, 32 tons = 7.56. 
Sangakkara: 216 innings, 37 tons = 5.83. 

Then of course we have to do the Don: 56 innings, 20 tons = 2.8. Yet another stat that demonstrates how outlandish his run scoring was in the entire history of Test cricket. 

So perhaps we need to move away a bit from technique. An ugly technique can work if you adapt (just ask Graeme Smith). YJB wants the gloves but isn't going to get them. It's pretty clear he's been riled by some of the media criticism directed his way. That shout when reaching his century was a decided message to the detractors. He strikes me as the sort of guy who likes a challenge. Tell him that he's got the number 3 slot for the foreseeable future and set him the target of making that his spot alone. 

Nobody thought Steve Smith's technique was tight enough five years ago. That average certainly picked up and went a bit higher than that guy at 3 for Oz who kept padding up and challenging reviews...

scrumhalf

So was today's Sri Lankan collapse down to crap batting or brilliant bowling? More the foemer than the latter, I think.

But as Barry Davies said whilst commentating on the Olympic Hockey final "But quite frankly, who cares?".

sixstringsupplies

scrumhalf said:

So was today's Sri Lankan collapse down to crap batting or brilliant bowling? More the foemer than the latter, I think.

But as Barry Davies said whilst commentating on the Olympic Hockey final "But quite frankly, who cares?".

Bit of both. Batting was poor but Stokes bowled really well (don't say that enough about him)

Sri Lanka making a fist of it today though, what a run chase it would be if they pull it off

Gassage

And, as if by magic, Jofra is now available for the World Cup!

Yaaaay!!!

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/nov/29/jofra-archer-available-england-ecb-eligbility-rules-cricket

earwighoney

Gassage said:

And, as if by magic, Jofra is now available for the World Cup!

Yaaaay!!!

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/nov/29/jofra-archer-available-england-ecb-eligbility-rules-cricket

A good change to the rule. 

I thought the qualification issue for Jofra Archer was a little harsh, especially considering his father is British/from the UK and he's had a British passport from day one. 

crunchman

Much as it's likely to be good for England, he really should be playing for the Windies.  Cricket needs a competitive Windies team.

Gassage

crunchman said:

Much as it's likely to be good for England, he really should be playing for the Windies.  Cricket needs a competitive Windies team.

It's his choice, nobody else's.

crunchman

Gassage said:

crunchman said:

Much as it's likely to be good for England, he really should be playing for the Windies.  Cricket needs a competitive Windies team.

It's his choice, nobody else's.

But if he's played for Windies U19s already, then surely he's made his choice at that point.  This looks mercenary because there is a lot more money in the English set up.

Meanwhile Windies cricket is in the doldrums, and world cricket is much poorer for that.

Heartfeltdawn

crunchman said:

Gassage said:

crunchman said:

Much as it's likely to be good for England, he really should be playing for the Windies.  Cricket needs a competitive Windies team.

It's his choice, nobody else's.

But if he's played for Windies U19s already, then surely he's made his choice at that point.  This looks mercenary because there is a lot more money in the English set up.

Meanwhile Windies cricket is in the doldrums, and world cricket is much poorer for that.

I don't think it's mercenary. It's just what happens in the modern era with greater migration than before. It is odd though how I've seen a few people online say Archer is mercenary for moving yet I can't recall anyone describing Sams Hain and Robson for doing likewise after representing Australia U-19s. 

If I had the ability to ping the ball down like Archer then I'd want to come to the UK rather than spend my time bowling on some of those awful West Indies tracks.  

earwighoney

Heartfeltdawn said: 

 I don't think it's mercenary. It's just what happens in the modern era with greater migration than before. It is odd though how I've seen a few people online say Archer is mercenary for moving yet I can't recall anyone describing Sams Hain and Robson for doing likewise after representing Australia U-19s. 

In addition Keaton Jennings & Jon Trott played for South Africa U19's.  

Btw, Sam Hain is the most unintentional awesome name for a cricketer (for the Glenn Danzig associations...)

Heartfeltdawn

The reliably odious Simon Heffer opines thus in the Telegraph:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2018/11/29/england-crickets-new-eligibility-rules-will-destroy-link-birth/


"The England and Wales Cricket Board’s apparent determination to undermine the English name has taken a further step forward by the decision to allow overseas-born players the right to qualify for England by taking out British citizenship and having just three years’ residence in the United Kingdom.

In each of those years 210 days’ residence is required, thus allowing the qualifying player to travel abroad. In the press release announcing the new regulations the ECB noted the ICC regulations, which are three years, and will argue that they were simply bringing England and Wales into line. 

The likely first beneficiary Jofra Archer, the Sussex fast bowler, has a British father but was born in Barbados and did not come to England until after his 18th birthday. Archer played for the West Indies U-19s, but has not represented another country for four years. 

Although Archer has a first-class bowling average of 23.44, he has especially distinguished himself in white-ball cricket, the main obsession of England’s administrators, to whom he is likely to become exceptionally useful.

Before this wholesale change in regulations there was talk of the ECB using a discretionary clause in its own rules to let Archer play; it is hard to judge which would have been more cynical. It looks as though the change has been made with the sole object not of creating “fairness”, but of allowing England to add to its World Cup squad next year a player who otherwise would have been unable to take part. Any idea that this would have consequences other than obliging England and Archer must be dismissed immediately.

For a start, it will put England-qualified quick bowlers who have laboured for their counties in the hope of achieving international recognition at an immediate disadvantage. At a stroke, because of Archer’s unquestioned talent, they go one step back in the queue. With both James Anderson and Stuart Broad much nearer the ends of their careers than their beginnings, this is an important consideration.

But it also moves one step closer to destroying the link between birth and international representation. When South Africa was disqualified from Test cricket during the apartheid era a number of non-English born players – notably Allan Lamb and the Smith brothers – went through processes to play for England instead. And there have always been Englishmen born abroad – whether Ted Dexter (Milan) or Phil Edmonds (Zambia) who, thanks to being born in countries that did not play international cricket and having a British passport could qualify easily for England.

And in the distant days of the Empire, when all its citizens were subjects of the Queen Empress and India was yet to have a Test team of its own, Prince Ranjitsinhji turned out gracefully for England, making his debut in 1896 in an early and commendable example of the English cricket authorities – in those days the MCC, which picked the team – overcoming notions of racism. It was pointed out at the time that, as well as having no other national side for which to play, Ranji had learned how to play cricket to a high standard in England, first at Cambridge and then for Sussex.

Ranji, though, was the exception and not the rule. With the rule now relaxed so a player can take a three-year sabbatical from international cricket (while earning a fortune in domestic T20 competitions) before being enlisted in another national side, it will not just be the link with birthright that will be compromised.

In time some sort of transfer market will build up; and as Test cricket plunges in popularity in some countries around the world, notably West Indies, South Africa and New Zealand, it will be tempting for talented cricketers to wish to play the game in all its formats to a high level to shift to those countries where, at the moment, it is still flourishing. And England, with this substantial relaxation in its existing rules, will become a magnet for such players.

The change will, though, have its greatest impact on English-born county players, for whom there is seldom somewhere else realistic to go. Most of them do not get asked to play in an overseas T20 franchise where they can attract attention; and with a pitiful 14 first-class matches a year have much less chance to shine at that level than their predecessors. Those in the second division often verge on the invisible. With English cricket’s doors now open, effectively, to all comers, the incentives for native-born players just shrivelled enormously."

cj73

Or the old gaelic festival 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samhain

scrumhalf

Won't be long now before the eligibility criteria are changed to:

1) Is he any good?

2) Has he eaten fish and chips.

crunchman

scrumhalf said:

Won't be long now before the eligibility criteria are changed to:

1) Is he any good?

2) Has he eaten fish and chips.

The old LOL or Wis dilemna

Heartfeltdawn

This is why Heffer's article is so dreadful. It makes out that it's a simple process and it is not. As dissected:

"Although Archer has a first-class bowling average of 23.44, he has especially distinguished himself in white-ball cricket, the main obsession of England’s administrators, to whom he is likely to become exceptionally useful."

Technically Archer's worst format with the ball is List A cricket aka a form of white-ball cricket so Heffer is purposefully inaccurate in order to construct a nice sentence where he can have a dig at the ECB.  

"It looks as though the change has been made with the sole object not of creating “fairness”, but of allowing England to add to its World Cup squad next year a player who otherwise would have been unable to take part. Any idea that this would have consequences other than obliging England and Archer must be dismissed immediately."

If other countries can pick players under this sort of immigration timeframe and we can't, then that offers a potential advantage to the opposition that we do not have. Closing it up makes sense. It's really no worse than the Australians a few years ago when Fawad Ahmed got fast tracked. 

"For a start, it will put England-qualified quick bowlers who have laboured for their counties in the hope of achieving international recognition at an immediate disadvantage. At a stroke, because of Archer’s unquestioned talent, they go one step back in the queue. With both James Anderson and Stuart Broad much nearer the ends of their careers than their beginnings, this is an important consideration."

With the injury rate within our bowlers, that one step back in the queue is not exactly a chasm. But why bowlers, Simon? Why does Keaton Jennings not represent a hurdle to our home-grown boys?

"But it also moves one step closer to destroying the link between birth and international representation. When South Africa was disqualified from Test cricket during the apartheid era a number of non-English born players – notably Allan Lamb and the Smith brothers – went through processes to play for England instead. And there have always been Englishmen born abroad – whether Ted Dexter (Milan) or Phil Edmonds (Zambia) who, thanks to being born in countries that did not play international cricket and having a British passport could qualify easily for England."

Names as large as Lord Harris and Pelham Warner were born in Trinidad for goodness sake. We live in a modern era where people and families move around far more than yesteryear. The link between birth and international representation is outdated. It belongs to an era of going on tour by fucking steam ship and playing deck quoits. 

"Ranji, though, was the exception and not the rule. With the rule now relaxed so a player can take a three-year sabbatical from international cricket (while earning a fortune in domestic T20 competitions) before being enlisted in another national side, it will not just be the link with birthright that will be compromised."


This is horseshit. The qualification for England will be:

"From 1 January 2019, to play for England, players will need to:

• Have British citizenship and
• Either have been born in England/Wales, or have three years' residence (a total of 210 days/year April-March) and
• Not have played as a local player in professional international or domestic cricket in a full member country within the past three years."

British citizenship is the key here. To get citizenship within three years is impossible. An unmarried person can only get citizenship after living here for five years, a person married to a British citizen can apply after living here for three years. 

https://www.gov.uk/apply-citizenship-spouse/how-to-apply

If someone comes over on a Tier 2 sportsperson's visa, they can remain here for three years

https://www.gov.uk/tier-2-sportsperson-worker-visa

This is important as it leads onto this element from Heffer:


"In time some sort of transfer market will build up; and as Test cricket plunges in popularity in some countries around the world, notably West Indies, South Africa and New Zealand, it will be tempting for talented cricketers to wish to play the game in all its formats to a high level to shift to those countries where, at the moment, it is still flourishing. And England, with this substantial relaxation in its existing rules, will become a magnet for such players."

A transfer system is unlikely to build up. A young player from South Africa who cuts all ties and contracts back home would be a free agent. Who would you pay a transfer fee to in this instance? County cricket's wages would be plenty of financial incentive and the county club would act as the sponsor I presume (unless the ECB acts as the sponsor) when it comes to any Tier 2 application process.  


The change will, though, have its greatest impact on English-born county players, for whom there is seldom somewhere else realistic to go. Most of them do not get asked to play in an overseas T20 franchise where they can attract attention; and with a pitiful 14 first-class matches a year have much less chance to shine at that level than their predecessors. Those in the second division often verge on the invisible. With English cricket’s doors now open, effectively, to all comers, the incentives for native-born players just shrivelled enormously."

Heffer's clearly missed news of the 100. Aren't overseas franchise players here banned from playing in the county one day matches come 2020? Pretty sure this was announced... the notion I suspect is that the county one day games will act as a shop window for the franchises to then go for those unknowns who might then prove to be box office gold. You've seen it a number of times in the IPL, how someone showing good stuff in domestic slap and giggle cricket then gets propelled into the big leagues. One might also point to David Warner as being a prime example in Australia. 

scrumhalf

New year, new series, same old top order batting. 44-3.

scrumhalf

48-6. The nostalgia is overwhelming. 

scrumhalf

77 all out in little more than a session. More than 200 behind. That's the first test gone, surely. 

sixstringsupplies

Pretty shambolic that. Beautiful fast bowling though.

crunchman

Not good.  Mitchell Starc must be licking his lips.