Cricket

[Chris O'Connor]

Three of them I would agree with, but not Burns. He'll be 30 by the end of the summer, and we can safely assume will have played over 20 tests. He's done a decent job so far but he's got to push on from that now, the next 4 tests should show us whether he can do that. If an average of 33 after 20+ tests is good enough to keep you at the top of the order for England then we are on a steep downward slope.

Tbf that post directly followed s previous post which qualified that statement

"Haven't they made over 400 in three of the last four first innings? That in itself represents a huge mindset change and an extremely significant improvement as they start to bond together as a formidable unit with a new 'go big first up' strategy. Keeping an essentially young batting unit together, (in test experience if not always years)"

It was part of an ongoing conversation with Bruce and I'd possibly left that qualification out in repeating the very same point yet again. They're trying to adopt a new attitude of batting long and making substantial first innings runs. A settled order is crucial to that project as they try to establish continuity and build. Not everyone will be inform at the same time but I for one see the change of approach and their aim.

 

[Chris O'Connor]

2005, and the progress of that team over the following years, was the nearest I could remember us being up around the best team in the world. If I recall, every front line batsman in that team averaged 40 and above. Now, only Root does, and he is well off his best form. Hopefully these new players will come in and do okay, but we had a generation where we jettisoned guys like and Bopara as not good enough, yet both have better averages than mainstays of the current side. This goes down as far as someone like Buttler, who has a highest score of 106 after 43 tests and just 1 century. This is someone who is primarily in the side for his batting, yet his record is considerably worse than, say, Matt Prior before him. We haven't been a good batting side for some time now, but I'd feel a lot better about those new players bedding in if Root was playing as we know he can, but his average has fallen by 10 runs since taking the captaincy, with much of that being down to difficulty converting starts into match winning scores. We can't keep relying on Stokes bailing the side out.

Around 2010 we reached number one in the world with Jonathan Trott and Alistair Cook being mainstays of the batting under Andrew Strauss. Batting big first innings runs even if only through accumulation was the style adopted and very similar to today's recent change. No point in repetition so I won't go on.

Gary unfortunately was badly found out as soon as he faced real pace, something he didn't encounter in his early test career but his playing from the crease and basic technique didn't equip him for facing far quicker bowling. Building for the ashes really needs those who can cope with pace as that's what will be on offer.

Buttler's keeping and form I've commented on in my last few posts and therefore I won't repeat.

Why go on about 2005 it's gone and a long time ago? We were number one five or six years later as we were in the late 1950's. Had a good team in the twenties with Jack Hobbs.. if only he was around.

 

[Walken]

Joe Root for all his mistakes has more than once shown himself likely to pull out too early rather than the reverse and bat too long, on past form I would think it highly unlikely he would bat on too long. I think 70 or 80 may take a little too long to get unless, and it's a decent possibility, Stokes performs absolute heroics again. Test match bowlers can easily bowl it wide down the legside, every man back and crucially only ten overs an hour and take the fine. If an hour has elapsed and we have 60 more that should be it for me.

Dominic Cork raised some good points, why did Root not turn to Stokes until the 51st over? Bess over Moeen or Leach may be them just giving another experience with the subcontinent tours. He was also like many perplexed with our selection policy and leaving Anderson out here, Broad out in the first test and our left field thinking on electing to bat first on cloudy days in the first test. Anderson surely would have been ideal here and Broady in the first. I think it's so difficult to keep future test series in mind all the time when playing the current one which I think they're partly doing with this series.

Agree entirely that Root deserves credit for a good declaration and changing the openers, great that it came off aswell which will encourage more innovation.

I think regards the bowlers you need to have a squad of bowlers than can over you variety and then all have to be blooded at some stage, nit chopping and changing for the sake of it of course but certainly there will be those days where traditional seam won't be enough and this is a good period to get games into different types of bowlers

 

[Chris O'Connor]

Agree entirely that Root deserves credit for a good declaration and changing the openers, great that it came off aswell which will encourage more innovation.

I think regards the bowlers you need to have a squad of bowlers than can over you variety and then all have to be blooded at some stage, nit chopping and changing for the sake of it of course but certainly there will be those days where traditional seam won't be enough and this is a good period to get games into different types of bowlers

Yes I think it's also taking a leaf out of the Aussies tourists book from last summer when rotation did help them

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Around 2010 we reached number one in the world with Jonathan Trott and Alistair Cook being mainstays of the batting under Andrew Strauss. Batting big first innings runs even if only through accumulation was the style adopted and very similar to today's recent change. No point in repetition so I won't go on.

Gary unfortunately was badly found out as soon as he faced real pace, something he didn't encounter in his early test career but his playing from the crease and basic technique didn't equip him for facing far quicker bowling. Building for the ashes really needs those who can cope with pace as that's what will be on offer.

Buttler's keeping and form I've commented on in my last few posts and therefore I won't repeat.

Why go on about 2005 it's gone and a long time ago? We were number one five or six years later as we were in the late 1950's. Had a good team in the twenties with Jack Hobbs.. if only he was around.

Just saying, I don't think we'll reach the very top unless some of these batsmen show they can improve, especially outside of England. The bowlers are generally okay. We don't have a great spinner, but few countries do these days, and the seamers are pretty comparable with any nation. It's just the batting. Root is a good 10 runs or more below Smith, Kohili and Williamson since he took the captaincy and only really Stokes has stepped up to fill that gap. As you say, the shift in approach seems required. It's noticeable that under Cook's captaincy, Root averaged 50+, even Bairstow was averaging in the 40s, but under Root's captaincy both fell away heavily and the team developed a tendency to collapse spectacularly. Moeen was another. 35 average under Cook, 20 under Root. Is that a coincidence?

 

[Billy Dean]

Just saying, I don't think we'll reach the very top unless some of these batsmen show they can improve, especially outside of England. The bowlers are generally okay. We don't have a great spinner, but few countries do these days, and the seamers are pretty comparable with any nation. It's just the batting. Root is a good 10 runs or more below Smith, Kohili and Williamson since he took the captaincy and only really Stokes has stepped up to fill that gap. As you say, the shift in approach seems required. It's noticeable that under Cook's captaincy, Root averaged 50+, even Bairstow was averaging in the 40s, but under Root's captaincy both fell away heavily and the team developed a tendency to collapse spectacularly. Moeen was another. 35 average under Cook, 20 under Root. Is that a coincidence?

Was any of that down to Bayliss and the emphasis placed on white ball cricket during his tenure?

 

[Lanolin]

Tbf that post directly followed s previous post which qualified that statement

"Haven't they made over 400 in three of the last four first innings? That in itself represents a huge mindset change and an extremely significant improvement as they start to bond together as a formidable unit with a new 'go big first up' strategy. Keeping an essentially young batting unit together, (in test experience if not always years)"

It was part of an ongoing conversation with Bruce and I'd possibly left that qualification out in repeating the very same point yet again. They're trying to adopt a new attitude of batting long and making substantial first innings runs. A settled order is crucial to that project as they try to establish continuity and build. Not everyone will be inform at the same time but I for one see the change of approach and their aim.

Oh I know what their aim is, but that isn't really what I was talking about. You said 4 of the top 6 were too early in their careers to look at averages. I'm simply saying I disagree in the case of Burns. 20 tests stops being form and starts being a reliable indicator of ability I think. At that point you should have shown what you're capable of. It's different if you're 21/22 like the others, but at Burns's age, if your average isn't great after 20 tests it probably never will be. There's a point at which continuity stops being a virtue, and changing 1 of your top 6 is hardly ripping it up and starting again. Burns has shown himself to be a useful opener who can do a job. Now is the time for him to show that he can consistently score the runs which get us those 400+ totals. We can't always just lay a decent foundation and expect Stokes to score the runs, the others have got to get scores too. Hopefully Burns can do that.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Was any of that down to Bayliss and the emphasis placed on white ball cricket during his tenure?

Possibly, I don't know. I would have thought many of the players that did well under Cook would have been regulars in the one day side during that time though, so their decline does seem very odd. Of course, it might also just be a case that county cricket isn't producing decent batsman any more.

 

[Chris O'Connor]

Just saying, I don't think we'll reach the very top unless some of these batsmen show they can improve, especially outside of England. The bowlers are generally okay. We don't have a great spinner, but few countries do these days, and the seamers are pretty comparable with any nation. It's just the batting. Root is a good 10 runs or more below Smith, Kohili and Williamson since he took the captaincy and only really Stokes has stepped up to fill that gap. As you say, the shift in approach seems required. It's noticeable that under Cook's captaincy, Root averaged 50+, even Bairstow was averaging in the 40s, but under Root's captaincy both fell away heavily and the team developed a tendency to collapse spectacularly. Moeen was another. 35 average under Cook, 20 under Root. Is that a coincidence?

There was certainly a style and policy of quick runs but unfortunately underwhelming totals. This seems to have gone 180 degrees with the new policy under Silverwood to concentrate on red ball cricket far more with first innings runs essential. It showed signs of coming right despite the loss in a two test (so called) series in NZ, but in the first three test series abroad they actually did have the opportunity to overturn a loss and win the series in South Africa, thanks to making big first innings scores.

Most sides have far poorer away records you only have to look at the way India, despite their impressive home record, are repeatedly on the end of some decisive results here. An aggregate of 11-2 in their last three tours despite each time being ranked very highly (number one or two finding number four or five too good for them?) Home conditions play a massive part.

 

[toffeejack]

I think he a bad problem in South Africa and struggled to get over it and build his strength back but available now. Tbh if Moeen is available he must be the better option imo. Batting strength is secondary but we're likely to have three real tailenders (at test level) in Archer, Broad and Anderson and really could do without a fourth if he's up to the bowling job.

Jack Leach quits England tour of South Africa after sepsis and sickness bug

A sickness bug, and a difficult recovery from sepsis, have forced Jack Leach to quit England’s tour of South Africa

www.theguardian.com

Broad's batteted alright last couple of years tbf, but yeah, we need a bit more there. I think the ship may have sailed with moeen, he's not contributing with the ball or bat like he used to.

I maintain that our attack should be one of broad/Anderson plus wood/archer plus woakes/curran. Think that's a good blend of experience and skill, pace and swing with batting ability. Obviously on the pacey pitches there's an argument for wood and archer together.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

There was certainly a style and policy of quick runs but unfortunately underwhelming totals. This seems to have gone 180 degrees with the new policy under Silverwood to concentrate on red ball cricket far more with first innings runs essential. It showed signs of coming right despite the loss in a two test (so called) series in NZ, but in the first three test series abroad they actually did have the opportunity to overturn a loss and win the series in South Africa, thanks to making big first innings scores.

Most sides have far poorer away records you only have to look at the way India, despite their impressive home record, are repeatedly on the end of some decisive results here. An aggregate of 11-2 in their last three tours despite each time being ranked very highly (number one or two finding number four or five too good for them?) Home conditions play a massive part.

Most teams do seem to have poor records overseas. It makes me wonder if our relative depth of playing resources could allow us to build teams for home and away. Certainly in the bowling, Curran and Woakes do well at home, whereas Wood, and to a lesser extent Archer, seem better suited to faster tracks.

 

[Chris O'Connor]

Oh I know what their aim is, but that isn't really what I was talking about. You said 4 of the top 6 were too early in their careers to look at averages. I'm simply saying I disagree in the case of Burns. 20 tests stops being form and starts being a reliable indicator of ability I think. At that point you should have shown what you're capable of. It's different if you're 21/22 like the others, but at Burns's age, if your average isn't great after 20 tests it probably never will be. There's a point at which continuity stops being a virtue, and changing 1 of your top 6 is hardly ripping it up and starting again. Burns has shown himself to be a useful opener who can do a job. Now is the time for him to show that he can consistently score the runs which get us those 400+ totals. We can't always just lay a decent foundation and expect Stokes to score the runs, the others have got to get scores too. Hopefully Burns can do that.

He's played 17 matches for an average of 33 a large percentage in England as an opener against a moving dukes ball.

(Sir) Alastair Cook's (first time I've used his new title lol just not used to it), long career was so meritorious and his incredible average of 45 so good because a large part of his career was in home tests opening the innings against a moving ball.

Andrew Strauss going further back also had an outstanding record as an opener averaging 40.

Opening in England against a dukes ball in green bowler friendly conditions invariably means a fair amount of failures, opening up is normally therefore an extremely specialised position and England possibly the most difficult place to be one.

Burns has had a poor start to this particular series possibly finding it tougher to recapture concentration and form after the long enforced break.

In such an early career each poor score does have a disproportionately larger effect because of his lack of matches already played. The poorer start of 2 or 3 innings from 15 to 17 is 18% of your average being poor, whereas 3 poor innings from 75 wouldn't have any really discernible effect. The point is it's early in his test career and good or poor form will greatly affect an early average.

Alastair Cook was one match from being dropped a couple of times and he was possibly the best English openers of modern times. Opening in England is a very difficult job at test level against real pace and a moving Dukes

There is no risk free better option, Burns deserves his chance after impressing over a long period at the lesser county level. No other opener, not in the current side, has a more consistent record he has to be the best current alternative.

i would say we have on the whole had favourable bowling conditions in England over the last few summers, low scores from both sides being the norm. The dukes selected for the test series have given an advantage and opening here has been difficult.

An average of 40 as an English openers playing at home an awful lot under these conditions is worth far more than an average of 40 for s middle order batsman. One of 33 after 17 tests isn't terrible at this stage

In South Africa he averaged 46.50 but then that's not in England.

 

[Lanolin]

He's played 17 matches for an average of 33 a large percentage in England as an opener against a moving dukes ball.

(Sir) Alastair Cook's (first time I've used his new title lol just not used to it), long career was so meritorious and his incredible average of 45 so good because a large part of his career was in home tests opening the innings against a moving ball.

Andrew Strauss going further back also had an outstanding record as an opener averaging 40.

Opening in England against a dukes ball in green bowler friendly conditions invariably means a fair amount of failures, opening up is normally therefore an extremely specialised position and England possibly the most difficult place to be one.

Burns has had a poor start to this particular series possibly finding it tougher to recapture concentration and form after the long enforced break.

In such an early career each poor score does have a disproportionately larger effect because of his lack of matches already played. The poorer start of 2 or 3 innings from 15 to 17 is 18% of your average being poor, whereas 3 poor innings from 75 wouldn't have any really discernible effect. The point is it's early in his test career and good or poor form will greatly affect an early average.

Alastair Cook was one match from being dropped a couple of times and he was possibly the best English openers of modern times. Opening in England is a very difficult job at test level against real pace and a moving Dukes

There is no risk free better option, Burns deserves his chance after impressing over a long period at the lesser county level. No other opener, not in the current side, has a more consistent record he has to be the best current alternative.

i would say we have on the whole had favourable bowling conditions in England over the last few summers, low scores from both sides being the norm. The dukes selected for the test series have given an advantage and opening here has been difficult.

An average of 40 as an English openers playing at home an awful lot under these conditions is worth far more than an average of 40 for s middle order batsman. One of 33 after 17 tests isn't terrible at this stage

In South Africa he averaged 46.50 but then that's not in England.

I don't really think that does anything to address what i'm saying to be honest. No offence here, but I worked as a coach in county cricket and still do some scouting for counties on the side, you don't need to explain how averages work or what English conditions are like.

 

[Chris O'Connor]

I don't really think that does anything to address what i'm saying to be honest. No offence here, but I worked as a coach in county cricket and still do some scouting for counties on the side, you don't need to explain how averages work or what English conditions are like.

I didn't mean to offend but if I did I'm sorry for it as it wasn't my intention. I addressed your question as best I could - perhaps the averages stuff was unnecessary but it was only to emphasise that his test career of 14 tests before this series isn't really that lengthy a one, and his recent form before the Covid break and away from England was impressive.

It's alternatives and trying to start all over again with someone else too. I think continuity, understanding and partnerships does play a part in building a team and Burns should be given the opportunity to continue his encouraging form in South Africa.

 

[Lanolin]

I didn't mean to offend but if I did I'm sorry for it as it wasn't my intention. I addressed your question as best I could - perhaps the averages stuff was unnecessary but it was only to emphasise that his test career of 14 tests before this series isn't really that lengthy a one, and his recent form before the Covid break and away from England was impressive.

It's alternatives and trying to start all over again with someone else too. I think continuity, understanding and partnerships does play a part in building a team and Burns should be given the opportunity to continue his encouraging form in South Africa.

Sorry no i'm not offended at all, I just thought i'd point it now because you seemed to think that I didn't understand the point you were making. I do understand it - both in the sense that I know what you're saying and that I can see the merits of it - I just don't agree. I'm not saying you're wrong or it's a ridiculous notion, I just disagree with it. I think if Burns is still averaging low 30s by the end of the Pakistan series then he will be very lucky to keep his place in the side.