The cricket thread

scrumhalf

What a shower of shit.

guitars4you

To loose one test by innings is bad - To loose two matches by effectively the same margin and t becomes a disease - It is not as though the WI is a top light side these days 

I'll have no interest now in the 3rd test and actually hope the WI win 3-0

This is as bad as it gets 

scrumhalf

guitars4you said:

This is as bad as it gets 

Almost.

Playing like that during the Ashes would be hitting rock bottom.

crunchman

guitars4you said:

To loose one test by innings is bad - To loose two matches by effectively the same margin and t becomes a disease - It is not as though the WI is a top light side these days 

I'll have no interest now in the 3rd test and actually hope the WI win 3-0

This is as bad as it gets 

Roach, Gabriel, and Joseph are actually half decent bowlers.  With a bit of perspective on it, I'm not sure this is quite as bad as some results we've seen.  I don't think it's as bad as the 4-0 down under last time out.  In that one, we couldn't bat, and we couldn't bowl them out either.  While we haven't been able to bat in this series, at least we do have the ability to bowl the Windies out for a score under 600.

Hick81

The way he’s going I can see Root ending his test career with an average around 40 (like Vaughn). 

Stokes’ bowling has kicked on but (apart from a few solid performances against India) I can’t think of any match winning performances?? 

guitars4you

crunchman said:

guitars4you said:

To loose one test by innings is bad - To loose two matches by effectively the same margin and t becomes a disease - It is not as though the WI is a top light side these days 

I'll have no interest now in the 3rd test and actually hope the WI win 3-0

This is as bad as it gets 

Roach, Gabriel, and Joseph are actually half decent bowlers.  With a bit of perspective on it, I'm not sure this is quite as bad as some results we've seen.  I don't think it's as bad as the 4-0 down under last time out.  In that one, we couldn't bat, and we couldn't bowl them out either.  While we haven't been able to bat in this series, at least we do have the ability to bowl the Windies out for a score under 600.

I don't see them as bad bowlers but hardly a top team and nothing we should have feared before getting out there - Their attack has done what it needed to do, helped by a very poor dishevelled batting performance

Hick81

Hick81 said:

The way he’s going I can see Root ending his test career with an average around 40 (like Vaughn). 

Stokes’ bowling has kicked on but (apart from a few solid performances against India) I can’t think of any match winning performances?? 

*with bat

NorthernGooner

What does Bayliss bring to the party? He seems to take the money and contribute little.
Sits on the balcony gurning at the TV camers in his sunhat and drinking tea.  I'm sure someone like 
Graham Thorpe is a better judge of English players than Mr B.

scrumhalf

Bayliss was brought in to win the World Cup. Test cricket has been a secondary consideration, which is why we bat like it's a limited overs game.

crunchman

scrumhalf said:

Bayliss was brought in to win the World Cup. Test cricket has been a secondary consideration, which is why we bat like it's a limited overs game.

I'm beginning to hope we fail ignominiously in the World Cup.  It might be the only way to save the proper game.

Heartfeltdawn

earwighoney said:

The lack of warm up games for tours are sadly part of the modern game.  The cricket schedule is far too bloated to actually allow teams adequate preparation. 

My suggestion of winning the toss being an important part of influencing the game's outcome wasn't to exempt England's performance but it was to suggest it was a factor.  IMO, England have been in a somewhat unusual position of having won 8 consecutive tosses and for the majority of the time rarely being in a position where they were chasing the game.

Yep, I heard the stat about Australian batting when I was watching the Australia v India series.  Did you watch any of that series?  Harris looked pretty decent at the crease but just couldn't convert his starts, the rest of the team's batting seemed very fragile at best.  A few comments here and there have suggested the BBL has not had the best impact for domestic red ball /Shield cricket.  It seems the standard of cricket in Indian railways is better than the standard of Australian domestic cricket... I imagine once Smith etc return they'll recover with the bat. 
 
Back to England, IMO the selection of the XI seemed a bit odd.  Selection of Rashid over Leach for the second spinner to begin with, but I'm not sure whether a second spinner was needed in the first place.  As for batting they seem to not really truly acknowledge how important the no.3 position for batting is.  Maybe a cliche but I was always under the mindset that it was pivotal to have a player with a technique with an adequate amount of defensive work and enough attacking intent to keep things ticking over.  Looking at the English batting order, I'm unconvinced by Bairstow at 3 and for a lot of of the batsmen the positions in the order seems more about trying to get in as many batsmen as possible opposed to have the right batsmen in the right order, which isn't to say there aren't benefits to this approach clearly it does work from time to time as it does allow having a lot of batsmen in the XI. 

I'd say that winning the toss in some of the overseas spin friendly tracks is a major boon. For tours in New Zealand, some of the drop in wickets actually start spicy and then fizzle out. That's also happened in Australia in recent years where a track starts with some life and gets progressively more tedious. That helps balance out the perceived toss advantage.

Australia versus India had plenty of noteworthy elements. Mitchell Starc looked awful and now probably has a bit mroe confidence after taking wickets against a very weak Sri Lanka side. Likewise the batting has feasted on a near rookie SL seam attack after being made to look very average by the Indian seamers. It must be a strange feeling to be in that Aussie top six as two of them know that they will be dropped when Smith and Warner return. The series started with people talking of Harris and Finch as a long-term opening pair which got me laughing: didn't even last the series. 

Two spinners was a possibility when touring a country whose first-class competition has been dominated by spinners for some time.  When you have a part-time offie taking 8 wickets in an innings in the First Test. the case was there for two spinners. When you cock that up and have Curran on two wickets totally unsuited for him, it puts the pressure on. Plaudits to Broad for how he bowled, deserved a lot more wickets and was arguably the most consistent bowler on display out there. 

The batting: I can't think of any batting side that has consistently performed well when it's being constantly rejigged and fucked about with. Until we have consistency in line up, we won't have consistency in decent run scoring performance. If management feel Bairstow is 3, then he should be in there for at least a year. If Buttler is going to be a batsman, then do so for a similar time period. 

Heartfeltdawn

crunchman said:

scrumhalf said:

Bayliss was brought in to win the World Cup. Test cricket has been a secondary consideration, which is why we bat like it's a limited overs game.

I'm beginning to hope we fail ignominiously in the World Cup.  It might be the only way to save the proper game.

Sadly not. The powers that be are hell bent on fucking with the longer formats. 

crunchman

England management should be sacked.

Keaton Jennings will make less runs than Foakes would have, and Bairstow will keep less well.

iseverynamegone

Yes it’s nonsense. Fowkes  dropped is a terrible decision. 

earwighoney

iseverynamegone said:

Yes it’s nonsense. Fowkes  dropped is a terrible decision. 

I was listening to TalkSport the other day and one of the guys who'd spoken to Ben Foakes had said he was really struggling to catch the ball without being in a huge amount of pain, impacting the bruising he already has. 

From that perspective it seems he's injured, and FWIW it seems to make more sense to give him the time to recover. 

crunchman

By all accounts he's fit now, and has just been dropped.

iseverynamegone

crunchman said:

By all accounts he's fit now, and has just been dropped.

Yes that what was they are saying, and is the basis for my comment. 

Stuckfast

Utterly baffling selection. If anything Joe Denly looked even more at sea than Jennings in the last test. Having them as two of our top three inspires no confidence at all. And poor Foakes hasn't done much wrong, you might just as well drop Buttler instead. 

I suppose at least Jennings is a good catcher.

Broad was excellent in the second test, very unlucky.

Heartfeltdawn

Claudio Ranieri became known as the Tinkerman for his squad rotation at Chelsea. Bayliss is no different. Ranieri's greatest success with Leicester though came with a settled squad. Our opponents in this series have that. When you look at Holder and Stokes, both 27 years of age, and see how one has maximised his ability and leads by example and how the other has really slid back over the last year. 

Ian Bishop's words on Cricinfo are well chosen. 

http://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/25952404/holder-character-improved-pace-keeping-faith

Find out who the core of the team are, blood some youngsters and show faith in them, and improve the pitches. The lousy spin-friendly tracks did nothing for WI cricket.

crunchman

Where has Mark Wood been all winter?