The Cricket Thread

[ItalAussie]

I'm not massively worried, to be honest. Cummins is clearly sick and bowling 10km below his normal pace. Bird is bowling medium pace straight, which isn't wildly productive. Lyon and Hazelwood have had their moments, but they can't do it alone.

Not to take away from the English - you can only beat what's in front of you, and it's hard to begrudge Cook a good innings - but I don't think Australia need to click into panic mode by any stretch of the imagination. I reckon Khawaja may have run into the selection axe though. Even his decent innings in this series have been awful and stuttering.

[Jimmy Floyd]

Well you are 3-0 up in the series, so I don't think panic is on the horizon.

I think if we won a Test it would be a fair reflection though, we've not been anywhere near as bad as 13/14. More at turn of the century levels. I think Australia just have a far better team for the conditions, and Smith is a machine.

[ItalAussie]

Well you are 3-0 up in the series, so I don't think panic is on the horizon.

I think if we won a Test it would be a fair reflection though, we've not been anywhere near as bad as 13/14. More at turn of the century levels. I think Australia just have a far better team for the conditions, and Smith is a machine.

Never underestimate the Australian selectors ability to hit that button again and again.

I agree that I don't think we're a whitewash better than your side, for sure. I think marginally better overall, and massively helped by the conditions. I think England beat us on English grounds, and we'd shade it on neutral territory.

The two teams playing in South African grounds would be a series to remember. Fast and swingy.

[Max Power]

South Africa generally best conditions for cricket imo. Neutral grounds would be interesting Let’s play the fifth test in Dhaka.

[Jimmy Floyd]

If I could devise the ideal five Test series, I think I'd go:

Newlands
Adelaide
Trent Bridge
Galle
Bridgetown

All kinds of conditions and lovely grounds. In fact they should do this for the 'final' of the new Championship.

[ItalAussie]

If I could devise the ideal five Test series, I think I'd go:

Newlands
Adelaide
Trent Bridge
Galle
Bridgetown

All kinds of conditions and lovely grounds. In fact they should do this for the 'final' of the new Championship.

Adelaide's a bit boring. Our best ground is the Gabba, and it's not even close. Any brand of player can find success there, but the player has to be very good at their craft - It generally rewards skill.

Australia has a good record there because we know what to expect, but visiting players haven't flamed out if they're good enough.

[Jimmy Floyd]

Adelaide looks nicer though, and that's the real quiz.

[niko_cee]

Used to look nicer.

I'm quite fond of the SCG as far as Aussie grounds go.

[Jimmy Floyd]

This ball tampering stuff from the strayans is properly embarrassing. 'Slats' on TV trying to claim that Jimmy Anderson has been roughing up the shiny side of the ball, because that would obviously make it swing more. Thick as shit.

[Ian]

Probably an idiot question but why is it okay to muck about with the ball by shining it but not by roughing it up?

[Jimmy Floyd]

Because cricket makes no sense. I guess you could say roughing it up is destruction of the ball, and shining it is preservation of its original characteristics (but only on one side, natch).

[ItalAussie]

Isn't the fact that England are great at getting away with ball-tampering kind of an open secret?

I mean, if they don't catch you, then no foul. But it's no great surprise that the English text commentary was very much of the "of course they aren't tampering, but if they were it should be legal anyway so who cares".

Frankly, we should probably learn from your lot in this regard.

[Jimmy Floyd]

Ravi Bopara used to be boss at it, but I don't think the modern side know how.

[Jimmy Floyd]

Liew on top form again nailing the Barmy Army to a post. He is the best sports writer around at the moment.

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/c...-a8134056.html

[Ian]

Malan coming in to bowl. Sounds like it's going well.

[Jimmy Floyd]

Root to Warner, OUT, spanked up in the air, and Warner has had a brainfart!

No, Cricinfo, that's just his usual brain.

[ItalAussie]

Cook gets lots of runs: "Heroic effort of talent and application"

Australia defend out the day: "Disgrace of a pitch - flat as a pancake"

Anyone might imagine that maybe the two events are not wholly independent. Pick one, Cricinfo. You don't get both.

[ItalAussie]

I reckon the test team should probably be:

Warner
Renshaw
S Marsh
Smith
Hanscombe/Bancroft
Maxwell
Paine
Starc
Cummins
Lyon
Hazelwood

I realise that Starc isn't as good a batsman as Cummins, but he can give it a whack and if it doesn't come off, Cummins can put up the shutters. Harsh on Mitch Marsh, who has done little wrong, but I really don't believe he'll sustain his Perth heroics. Any two of Bancroft/Hanscombe/Maxwell would be fine, but I'd trust the latter while the former two are developing a little bit more. Khawaja surely has to be replaced by Hanscombe in the next test.

[Jimmy Floyd]

If we win with this bowling lineup, Australia should hand us back the urn.

[Ian]

I can't find the actual line-up. Are there changes other than Crane for Woakes?

[Jimmy Floyd]

No, so we've got seam from Anderson, Broad and Curran, and spin from Crane and Moeen Ali. The first two will have to become bionic men.

[Ian]

Well, I suppose it could be a laugh at least.

[ItalAussie]

Hazlewood replaces Cummins and has a huge shout for LBW against Cook turned down. I think it pitched outside leg stump but Australia are going to review. I doubt they would have reviewed it for a lesser batsman. It’s certainly hitting the stumps - and replays suggest it pitched in line! Cook is out!

They reviewed it because it was out, you wanker.

EDIT:

That appeal against Cook still doesn’t look particularly convincing to the naked eye. But the pitch map suggested that approximately 50.00001 per cent of the ball pitched in line, which is enough for him to be given out.

Taste the salt.

[Jimmy Floyd]

Old school cricket people still absolutely cannot get their heads around reviews. It's like watching your grandad use a smartphone.

[niko_cee]

James Vince also looked in great touch, but then misjudged a wafty cut shot and nicked off.

[Jimmy Floyd]

Still hearing a lot of 'he looks a good player' about Vince. Yeah and the Titanic looked a good ship.

[Jimmy Floyd]

This is what James Whitaker had to say when the squad was announced:

The selectors are backing James Vince to make an impact on his recall to the Test squad. He is a quality strokeplayer and we believe his game will suit the Australian pitches. His understanding of the England set-up will help him settle into the environment quickly and hit the ground running when we arrive in Perth next month.

Surely Whitaker and Bayliss fired after this tour.

[Ian]

It's a shame that "understanding of the England set-up" is something they care about more than the fact that he chucks his wicket away ever single time.

[Danny]

One of the TMS pundits, I think Ed Smith, was surprisingly frank about him. Saying that he had the skill but has shown nothing between the ears and that if we let him, he would still be wafting away outside his offstump in 5 years time.

[niko_cee]

Backing himself to execute his skills

[Jimmy Floyd]

This stuff about talent and 'he has the skill' is horseshit. First class cricket is meant to filter out the people who 'have the talent' but don't deliver on a regular basis. It succeeds, of course, and then the selectors ignore it.

[Ian]

Off the top of your head (or if you can be arsed to actually look, I know you love this shit) how different do you reckon our XI would be if first class form was actually being given its due and used to look at Test cricket qualities rather than some waft-machine like Vince being picked because Trevor Bayliss score a nice 4 in a T20 once?

[Jimmy Floyd]

My team is probably only two or three players different to what they've got - Rory Burns would be in there, for Vince (Stoneman probably to three), and then I'd stick either Dan Lawrence or Liam Livingstone at five (Malan has done well, so a victory for the hat-wearers there, but I'm not convinced long term). The fourth seamer is tough given injuries to Stoke and TRJ, there are trundlers who stat up in FC who probably couldn't play away Tests (like Jamie Porter), and we're quite poorly stocked at the moment beyond Broad and Anderson. We have three immense talents in Mahmood, Curran jr, and Garton but none of them ready yet. With spin, Mason Crane was an absolutely ridiculous shout and they should have gone for Jack Leach or Ollie Rayner instead - people who know their craft and could have bailed out Moeen three Tests ago. Leach is a bit Kerrigan-y, but still.

My reading of how the current regime selects is they absolutely hate having more than one, how can I say this, defensive player in the lineup. There is a very clear recent pattern of them following this rule right through the system from the Test team (where Cook is the designated defender), to the Lions and even the U19s. The biggest statement of this was when they picked Vince to bat number three because he is a 'strokeplayer', whatever that means. You could see how much they hated the idea of Cook and Hameed opening together in the subcontinent - picked Ben Duckett, a genuinely mental choice, over Hameed initially because they were so resistant to it. I can only imagine that this is coming from Bayliss, because no one else in English cricket thinks in this way.

In short - we should pick the best players and then find a way they can win games, not pick players who fit pre-conceived ideas about what the team should look like.

[Ian]

I dunno what the correct balance would be but as you say, it does feel like we just don't want anybody in there who is, for want of a better word, stodgy. It's like they're so obsessed with the idea of a guy who averages 15 but might score a swish-looking 40 every umpteenth blue moon that it doesn't even occur to them that a guy who isn't spectacular but hangs about and helps build partnerships / others bed in for a score shouldn't be discounted just because they think he's boring.

I've definitely said this before and probably recently in this thread earlier in the series, and maybe I'm doing the Jenningses and Vinces of this world an injustice, but when you watch even the less well regarded Aussie batsmen playing they just fucking want to win. They're desperate to beat us in every match and desperate to grind us into dust and usually do have a player or two who look likely to not score a huge amount of runs but become such an immovable source of frustration for our bowlers that other batsmen end up reaping the rewards at our expense while they themselves work towards a century of their own.

Meanwhile we've got these dead-eyed cunts mooching out and taking up too much of our batting line-up who are permitted to use whatever may be between their ears so little that they get out the same way every single fucking time.

[Jimmy Floyd]

I think the biggest difference between the sides is less willpower than concentration. The free-spirit approach has had its benefits to us but we've definitely regressed in the mental discipline side of the game. We're lucky we have Anderson and Broad really, without them we'd be going 600/5 every innings.

[ItalAussie]

I've watched more of this series than I have for years, and I'll tell you that Broad and Anderson have both been way below par. Anderson's numbers are flattered by a decent number of wickets he got after the horse had bolted, and Broad was basically useless for the first three tests. Never at risk of being dropped, because you're not going to find a better replacement, but he was basically a waste of space.

Both obviously excepting the second innings in Adelaide, which, under lights, is a totally different kettle of fish.

Your problem in the competitive tests wasn't your batting (although it didn't help things). It was your inability to take twenty wickets in a match, unless the ball is seaming around under lights. If you can't take wickets, you can't win tests, and you didn't remotely look like taking twenty wickets in Brisbane or Perth. Or Melbourne, for what it's worth, but let's focus on the tests where the series was still competitive.

[Jimmy Floyd]

Yeah but if you take them out and put in Jake Ball and Mark Wood, we're getting properly eviscerated as opposed to merely well beaten. If nothing else they keep the scoring rate honest.

[ItalAussie]

Yeah but if you take them out and put in Jake Ball and Mark Wood, we're getting properly eviscerated as opposed to merely well beaten. If nothing else they keep the scoring rate honest.

I just don't know how you could say that based on their actual performances in the first three tests*. Broad in particular was a sigh of relief whenever he came on to bowl, and his numbers go some of the way to reflecting that. Anderson did keep it tight, but in a wholly unthreatening manner.

Despite his lack of threat, Anderson probably kept it tight enough that your comment is fair, but anyone would have been an improvement on Broad at the start of the series. Now, he's clearly good enough that he's been able to pull himself together (after it mattered), but he was genuinely worse* than I have to imagine any vaguely competent replacements would have been while the series was alive.

*Adelaide under lights excepted, etc.

[Dave.]

I just don't know how you could say that based on their actual performances in the first three tests*.

He says it because Jake Ball and Mark Wood are shit, even when compared to an underperforming Broad.

[ItalAussie]

The whole "idiot England setup, selectors, system" idea does fall apart when you consider that the biggest disappointments in the live tests (barring the session in Adelaide under lights, etc.) were Cook, Broad, Anderson (whose numbers are flattered by bags of late wickets after innings had gotten completely away), Moeen (who you have to feel sorry for, but has been equally disappointing with bat and ball), and to a much lesser extent, Root (who did fine enough, but you feel he should be doing better).

Can't complain about the selectors when five automatic selections barely turned up.

[ItalAussie]

He says it because Jake Ball and Mark Wood are shit, even when compared to an underperforming Broad.

Then don't select players who are total rubbish, because as long as they knew vaguely which way to aim the ball, they'd have out-performed Broad.

[Dave.]

Then don't select players who are rubbish, because as long as they knew which way to direct the ball, they'd have out-performed Broad.

There is no one else.

[Dave.]

In any case, I thought Broad bowled okay in the first test match, especially compared to Jake Ball.

[ItalAussie]

There is no one else.

If there's nobody in the entire nation of England who can bowl better than how Broad bowled in the first three tests, then you have bigger problems than the Ashes. Because he was diabolical. Not merely "not up to his usual standards" like Root, or "at least able to do a job" like Anderson, but genuinely unthreatening in every way.

Now, Broad is quality, and has found his feet, and I'm not suggesting for one second that you should have dropped him. But it's revisionist history to claim that he had any positive influence on the outcome of the first three tests (Adelaide, lights, etc.)

[ItalAussie]

I will agree that it's all basically moot, due to England not turning up with a full-time spinner.

And I'll also point out that Australia have absolutely been guilty of similar mistakes in the past, so there's no high horse here. Still, being our front-line spinner on an India tour got Smith into the test side, so there's that.

[Jimmy Floyd]

If we want to really butcher the mathematical method and exclude the second innings at Adelaide because it swung around a bit, and butcher it some more to exclude dead rubbers, in the three live Tests (Brisbane, Adelaide Part I, and 'here comes Mitch downdoctor'), Anderson was striking every 93 balls, Broad every 120, and the other seamers (Woakes, Overton, and Ball) every 111 balls.

Meanwhile, Anderson was going at .41 a ball (I like to measure things in balls instead of overs, because I'm a maverick), Broad .47, and the others .57. This gives Broad an average of 56, which is crap but still better than the others who averaged 63 (Anderson is at a cool 38 without his pink ball five-for).

If I then artificially juke the stats to stop excluding times when they bowled well, such as Melbourne and Adelaide Part II, then an even more pro-duo picture emerges.

[ItalAussie]

I'm not cherry-picking data though. We all know why the third session at Adelaide was different. They were basically bowling at Edgbaston.

I'm not saying it wasn't a good session for England, but it's entirely unreflective of how the bowlers performed for the rest of the live matches. I'm absolutely excluding dead rubbers because I think it's important to point out that they found their feet when it didn't matter anymore. That's part of the conclusion, not a fudge.

You can say what you want really, I was watching most of those innings. Neither of them threatened, and Anderson's numbers are deceptive due to the amount of wickets he took after the horse had bolted (again, not bad, but not particularly what he's there for, either). Anderson at best held up an end, and Broad was Jackson Bird levels of entirely unthreatening. That's just the evidence of my own eyes.

[ItalAussie]

Let's remember that, Smith and Warner aside, our batting lineup is rubbish. Nothing should be unthreatening.

[ItalAussie]

I'm not wholly unconvinced that England aren't giving these runs to Khawaja in order to keep him in the side until the return series.

[Jimmy Floyd]

You are though. You're saying wickets only count:

a) when conditions are unfavourable;
b) when the horse hasn't bolted;
c) when there has not been an unassailable lead established by one side in the five-match series.

Even then, however, Broad turned in similar performances to the other seamers (including Chris Woakes, who is pretty good) and taking the first four Tests as a whole, this improves to 'better'. There's absolutely no evidence that we'd be better off without him. And it's all very well going on about eyes but cricket is a game of results, saying someone 'looks unthreatening' is the same as saying James Vince 'looks good'.