To take away 2 more overs so the game went into the last hour and they could shake hands 10 mins earlier.
Cricket
- Thread starter summerisle
- Start date
To take away 2 more overs so the game went into the last hour and they could shake hands 10 mins earlier.
It's funny really isn't it? I remember both Michael Vaughan and Trescothick averaging mid 30's at FC level but just translated to the test game much better. I see a lot of that with Crawley. Sibley and Burns have much better FC averages, but I just don't see it at all with them. They constantly look to be having to perform at their very best to get any runs.
Crawley to me looks like he has shots all aroud the wicket. For 22 thats really impressive.
I don't want to hammer people here, so it's important for me to give some praise out as well!
In all honesty, you'd say the toss was more important for Pakistan than England, as we know they have the spinners to really take advatage bowling last on any deck.
Mildredblues
Player Valuation: £2.5m
Interesting. Defies logic that players can average better playing TC than in the county game over a long period of time. I suppose both Tresco and Vaughan developed late? Or since they were openers, they faced much more swinging, seaming conditions in early summer county games?
Sibley has better stats but I agree with you on his performances. He seems to score most of his runs through the edge of his bat!!
Burns is a walking wicket.
I think some players just have a technique and a mindset that suits the top level. Maybe tey play within themselves a bit at County level. I know Trescothick was playing as a bowling allrounder for Somerset down at 6 or 7. You often have to give your wicket away more in such circustances.
In County cricket you will play on worse wickets generally too. A lot more grass will be left on, they will be a lot softer. Darren Stevens, a medium pacer get wickets all the time for Kent. I suppose for a young opener, you can get into a rut of poor scores.
Crawley is still a bit rash and gives his wicket away a bit, but he has all of the shots, and I just see a player, who in a variety of diffrent circumstances will prosper. To go back to Vaughan and Trescothick they were both top players of fast bowling. Great hookers and pullers. I see that with Crawley too. I don't see it with Burns or to a degree Sibley. They look like lads who will struggle with extreme pace.
I also see bigger problems with spin for them both, that I dont with Crawley. For a big man he's good on his feet. Sibley at gimes is painful to watch against spin. It's a problem for England too, he made mention of it before this test, saying that he was chewing balls up and not allowing players like Root and indeed Stokes get enough of the strike, and so hampering their games. You have to be able to rotate the strike, and go through the gears.
Blue Shoes
Player Valuation: £10m
in fairness though, they're the best options we have imo. I don't pay too much notice in county cricket, but we need a bit of stability there, i'm happy with both of them tbh, they're not going to be scoring double centuries etc. But as we've seen with jennings, ballance etc we're used to having guys up there making single figure scores every time. Sibley is exactly the grinder we need at the top, doesn't really matter about runs, there's loads of runs to be had in the middle and lower order, we just need a trott like player to just block everything and take the wear out of the ball. He's settled really well in doing that and with trott as batting coach that'll only improve imo.
English cricket just doesn't have the luxuries of having a string of good batsmen to choose from who will make those big scores sadly, root and stokes are the only ones capable but root never looks like he'll live up to that sadly.
Chris O'Connor
Player Valuation: £35m
It's not just spin, it's the bounce and carry that becomes unpredictable too, in the end the batsmen haven't a clue how the ball will misbehave. Bad pitches are bad pitches and worn ones can be impossible whether seam or spin is used.
Unlike most home countries England have been extremely accomodating to the visitors recently preparing pitches to suit, this could would suit Pakistan down to the ground (no pun intended). Just like the Old Trafford strip that looked akin to something they'd regularly see in Lahore, Karachi or Rawalpindi. Preparing turning wickets with good bounce is probably just what Waqar would order. Losing the toss all the time (or when Stokes won one, choosing the stupid option) just makes it even better.
I suppose the cunter would be there tends to be some greenery, the use of the Dukes ball and the overheads give England quite a bespoke and unique advantage while playing at home.
Chris O'Connor
Player Valuation: £35m
I'm not so sure about that at all, not one bit actually, against most countries it would be true but Pakistan have a long tradition of great seam bowlers and in Mohammed Abbas have a master at using both, having played in county cricket helps, but their seam attack has looked every bit as dangerous. The seam attacks are well matched it's the spin department where the far larger advantage lies. Conversely England's batting is normally less fragile with Stokes balancing the side, but without him they haven't even that advantage and are definitely a batsman short.
If a toss is beneficial for one side in a two team contest then conversely it's equally bad for their opponents to lose. It cannot be more important for one side than the other. What could be said is Pakistan winning it would give them a greater advantage over England than the one England might gain form the reverse being true, but it's crucial England win that toss to deny them that big advantage too
Last edited:
Agree with this.
He had his faults, but I was a big fan of Fletcher's tendency to look at pure talent rather than county averages. The county game is almost literally a different sport; the ability to do well as either a bowler or batsman at that level has pretty much no bearing on how you'll do at test level. I remember talking to the then head of selectors, Geoff Miller. At the time there was a lot of chatter about Ian Bell being dropped and a few names were being thrown around as a replacement. Miller basically said if any of those players play to the very very best of their ability and have a little bit of luck, they might score 100, whereas Ian Bell could scratch his way to a ton without ever being anywhere near his best. If Bell was at his very very best and had a bit of luck he could score 400. There's a lot of truth to it.
summerisle
The rain, it raineth every day
Lancashire, a miserable 173 all out, 299 behind. Second top scorer 26.
Yes I agree to all of this.
I think Fletcher was a visionary coach. Dragged England from being bottom of the world really to being competitive towards the top end. As you tend to find with a lot of people like that though, is they often rub people up the wrong way, rattle cages and when things turn a bit sour there is not a lot of loyalty about.
I think the subsequent tours to Australia hve put some context to that 5-0 defeat as well. We have been battered by much poorer Australian teams than that one.
As for the County game, yes I agree. I have actually grown to quite like the county game, probably as much as the national game. It's a different world though, as you say. The pitchers prepared are different. If it was just numbers, you would just look at the best 6 averages and pick them, but it doesn't work that way.
I see it at my level too. I'm a medium pace swing bowler/seam bowler, who on village wickets causes problems. As soon as a batsman can hit through the line of the ball though, I'm cannon fodder. We've got a young copper who plays with us, at present bowls too wide and too short, but his speed and bounce troubles guys at first team level when he's promoted. He leeks a few runs, but bowls balls that trouble better players. In honesty I don't. At village level, on uneven surfaces I'm ok, but as soon as a batsman can come down the pitch and take me off my length I'm done.
It's similar at all levels really, stats are important but whats also important is seeing if a play can translate his abilities upwards. Age helps, and it's about the only thing I can give in Sibleys favour, but if I'm honest his technique to me looks so limited I'm not sure they will be able to fix those holes. There's no doubt he has great mental strength, and to bowlers at a lower level he won't give his wicket away and will buy out enough time for the part timers to come on. He just won't get that at international level. I had a good look at hm and Burns, and at the very top level they will be found out, agin and again as we are seeing.
Crawley on the other hand is quite the opposite. He's hard to make plans too. He scores both sides of the wicket, front and back foot and is comfortable playing spin. He needs to apply himself a bit better, but you can see a lot of talent there. The average may not be, but all that says to me is he hasn't put it all together yet.
People on Burns/Sibley seem to say that any opener can get out cheaply-which I wholeheartedly agree with, but thats what cements my view they are in trouble. The trade off with opening, is that if you don't get out early you really capitalise. You need to have an array of scoring shots and options that they can really cash in and score big hundreds, at a decent speed to set games up. Neither of them do that. Neither of them are inventive against spin. Siblet in particular you can just revert to bowling a 6th stump line and he's unable to score off it, and occasionally you can nip one back from that line and you will have him in trouble. At no point as an opposing captain are you worried about him. If anything you'd be quite pleased he just keeps chewing up balls and preventing Stokes, Buttler, Root etc getting any kind of rhythm.
Chris O'Connor
Player Valuation: £35m
Through the ages you have highly successful batsmen who have been severely limited in strokeplay, Geoffrey Boycott perhaps the most notable example, I'm not saying Sibley is anything like as good as him and entirely agree on his inability to rotate being a huge problem, especially against spin, but powers of concentration and the right temperament can get you a long way, if they're exceptional. He needs to develop a shot and I'm sure Jonathon Trott will be helping him.
Burns has quicker feet than his partner and a better chance of adapting, I've seen more signs that his foot movements and use of the crease could help him adapt.
I haven't seen his average from before the ashes to now but it has to be fairly high. These two currently look the best openers, Crawley may move up but then we get our number three problem again.
Burns has quicker feet than his partner and a better chance of adapting, I've seen more signs that his foot movements and use of the crease could help him adapt.
I haven't seen his average from before the ashes to now but it has to be fairly high. These two currently look the best openers, Crawley may move up but then we get our number three problem again.
His average in that period is 39. So decent but not exactly brilliant. He's OK, Burns, he does a job. He's very much a stopgap for me though.