Cricket 24/7  

Welcome to the Cricket 24/7.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. There are also more forums available to members, such as the Lounge - where members chat about just about anything under the sun except cricket!

Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.


Go Back   Cricket 24/7 > Cricket Discussion Forums > International Cricket
Register FAQDonate Members List Calendar Casino Articles Terms of Use Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 18th September 2017, 14:37   #101
D/L
World Class
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Leeds
Team(s): Yorkshire CCC & England, Wakefield Trinity RLFC, Leeds Carnegie RUFC
Posts: 6,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by luckyluke View Post
Yeah that's what I meant. He's worse when we bat 2nd, suggesting that after an innings of keeping his batting suffers...
Surely an important context in which to view that particular statistic would be that the team wining the toss saw an advantage to them in either batting first or second, i.e. first use of the wicket would either favour batting or bowling.

I seriously doubt it suggests that an innings spent keeping adversely effects the batting of Bairstow (or any keeper who bats in the middle order).
D/L is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th September 2017, 17:51   #102
luckyluke
Established International
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,057
It's almost as if I said there might be other factors that explained it...

Sans said there was no evidence that JB's batting is affected by the gloves. I'm not saying that him averaging half of what he does if he hasn't just spent an innit nhs behind the stumps is definite evidence that his batting suffers, but what evidence would say this?
__________________
Most heartless decision:

In a women's league match in Denmark, a heavily pregnant woman arrived at the crease, and asked for a runner. Her request was denied, on the grounds that her incapacity had not occured during the course of the match.
luckyluke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th September 2017, 18:33   #103
sanskritsimon
Legendary
 
sanskritsimon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Team(s): Arkholme Bees, Hackney Grasshoppers, Holy Cross Academicals
Posts: 9,969
Quote:
Originally Posted by luckyluke View Post
... Sans said there was no evidence that JB's batting is affected by the gloves. I'm not saying that him averaging half of what he does if he hasn't just spent an innings behind the stumps is definite evidence that his batting suffers, but what evidence would say this?
I'm sure that if his average when playing as a specialist batsman was much higher than his average when playing as the wicketkeeper, then those with the preconceived idea that keeping wicket is bad for his batting would cite those averages in order to support the proposal that we should sacrifice his keeping. However, as those two figures are the wrong way around, some other kind of data must be used instead.
sanskritsimon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th September 2017, 18:51   #104
luckyluke
Established International
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,057
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanskritsimon View Post
I'm sure that if his average when playing as a specialist batsman was much higher than his average when playing as the wicketkeeper, then those with the preconceived idea that keeping wicket is bad for his batting would cite those averages in order to support the proposal that we should sacrifice his keeping. However, as those two figures are the wrong way around, some other kind of data must be used instead.
That doesn't answer my question. What evidence do you think would be sufficient to say that his keeping is detrimental to his batting?
__________________
Most heartless decision:

In a women's league match in Denmark, a heavily pregnant woman arrived at the crease, and asked for a runner. Her request was denied, on the grounds that her incapacity had not occured during the course of the match.
luckyluke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th September 2017, 19:02   #105
sanskritsimon
Legendary
 
sanskritsimon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Team(s): Arkholme Bees, Hackney Grasshoppers, Holy Cross Academicals
Posts: 9,969
Quote:
Originally Posted by luckyluke View Post
That doesn't answer my question. What evidence do you think would be sufficient to say that his keeping is detrimental to his batting?
I don't think it needs evidence, really. My instinct would be that it would be true of all keepers. But usually if there are perceived to be problems with the batting returns of England's test keeper, the solution is to drop him (i.e., out of the team) for a keeper who's a better batsman.
sanskritsimon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th September 2017, 22:56   #106
luckyluke
Established International
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,057
I suppose.

There just seems something backwards about England scratching around for a top order when there are apparently capable wicketkeeper batsmen that could let Johnny go up the order, which you would think give us a stronger line up overall
__________________
Most heartless decision:

In a women's league match in Denmark, a heavily pregnant woman arrived at the crease, and asked for a runner. Her request was denied, on the grounds that her incapacity had not occured during the course of the match.
luckyluke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th September 2017, 09:48   #107
sanskritsimon
Legendary
 
sanskritsimon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Team(s): Arkholme Bees, Hackney Grasshoppers, Holy Cross Academicals
Posts: 9,969
Quote:
Originally Posted by luckyluke View Post
... There just seems something backwards about England scratching around for a top order when there are apparently capable wicketkeeper batsmen that could let Johnny go up the order, which you would think give us a stronger line up overall
It would be stronger if the keeper who is brought in is a better batsman than the batsman who is dropped so that Bairstow can take his place. That's the nub of it for me, since the alleged improvement in Bairstow's batting when he doesn't have the gloves is imponderable and probably imaginary. But if that's the case then the same effect would be achieved with less disruption by simply dropping that batsman for e.g. Foakes playing as a specialist batsman. That's what they did with Buttler last winter -- but then as soon as the pool of available players expanded after the tour was over, they swapped him back for a real specialist batsman.

Ultimately I think there are no real substitutes for having good specialist batsmen who do their job. These have to be found, and the way to find them is to pick someone promising, and then after a while if they're not delivering, drop them for someone who is now more promising.
sanskritsimon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th September 2017, 10:10   #108
luckyluke
Established International
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,057
Yeah. As I said, I think there's a good chance our reserve keeper will get a game as a batsman
__________________
Most heartless decision:

In a women's league match in Denmark, a heavily pregnant woman arrived at the crease, and asked for a runner. Her request was denied, on the grounds that her incapacity had not occured during the course of the match.
luckyluke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th September 2017, 11:07   #109
sanskritsimon
Legendary
 
sanskritsimon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Team(s): Arkholme Bees, Hackney Grasshoppers, Holy Cross Academicals
Posts: 9,969
Quote:
Originally Posted by luckyluke View Post
Yeah. As I said, I think there's a good chance our reserve keeper will get a game as a batsman
I hope not. But if some of the batsmen fail and there are not enough reserves, I think that's the best way to go, rather than switching keepers. I think it was good policy by the selectors to ditch Buttler, the makeshift final batsman on tour, so that we could look for good new batsmen this summer. Even if the results were mixed, the idea (once Ballance was also out of the way) was sound.
sanskritsimon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th September 2017, 11:33   #110
Jock McTuffnel v3
World Class
 
Jock McTuffnel v3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Cambridge
Team(s): England
Posts: 5,878
When is the squad announced ?

Edit - BBC says "next week"
__________________

Last edited by Jock McTuffnel v3 : 19th September 2017 at 16:31.
Jock McTuffnel v3 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 19th September 2017, 23:25   #111
AJ101
International Material
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 1,081
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanskritsimon View Post
Ultimately I think there are no real substitutes for having good specialist batsmen who do their job. These have to be found, and the way to find them is to pick someone promising, and then after a while if they're not delivering, drop them for someone who is now more promising.

That's what they've been doing though, not saying there's anything wrong with that but it isn't working because the players just don't seem to be there.
AJ101 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th September 2017, 14:43   #112
sanskritsimon
Legendary
 
sanskritsimon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Team(s): Arkholme Bees, Hackney Grasshoppers, Holy Cross Academicals
Posts: 9,969
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJ101 View Post
That's what they've been doing though, not saying there's anything wrong with that but it isn't working because the players just don't seem to be there.
And if the players continue not to be there then it will continue not to work. But still there is no alternative. What's effectively being proposed is to stop picking the best specialist batsmen from county cricket and instead pick the best-batting wicketkeepers. That's fine by me if those wicketkeepers are better at batting than the best specialist batsmen. But I don't think they are. Also, if they were then it might seem to suggest that keeping wicket is good for your batting, in which case perhaps the solution for England would be for some of their underperforming batsmen to take a turn behind the timbers.
sanskritsimon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th September 2017, 15:57   #113
luckyluke
Established International
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,057
I don't entirely disagree but I think the situation with Bairstow is a bit more nuanced than that. There don't appear to be a wealth of batting options - the once popular phrase "next cab off the rank" seems to have died out - and so that's why people are thinking of other solutions instead of just picking the next least hopeless option for 2/3/5.

Even if Foakes has made less runs than specialist bats in CC (although I think he's doing pretty well), picking him to bat at 8 or even 9 behind Ali and Woakes could result in a stronger batting line up overall. Even if Johnny fairs the same without the gloves I'd wager we'd make better scores if we weren't 40/4 so bloody often.
__________________
Most heartless decision:

In a women's league match in Denmark, a heavily pregnant woman arrived at the crease, and asked for a runner. Her request was denied, on the grounds that her incapacity had not occured during the course of the match.
luckyluke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th September 2017, 16:00   #114
luckyluke
Established International
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,057
However we've got three new batsmen who've made at least one score each, and have yet to prove themselves as completely **** so let's see what happens.
__________________
Most heartless decision:

In a women's league match in Denmark, a heavily pregnant woman arrived at the crease, and asked for a runner. Her request was denied, on the grounds that her incapacity had not occured during the course of the match.
luckyluke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th September 2017, 17:00   #115
sanskritsimon
Legendary
 
sanskritsimon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Team(s): Arkholme Bees, Hackney Grasshoppers, Holy Cross Academicals
Posts: 9,969
Quote:
Originally Posted by luckyluke View Post
I don't entirely disagree but I think the situation with Bairstow is a bit more nuanced than that. There don't appear to be a wealth of batting options - the once popular phrase "next cab off the rank" seems to have died out - and so that's why people are thinking of other solutions instead of just picking the next least hopeless option for 2/3/5.

Even if Foakes has made less runs than specialist bats in CC (although I think he's doing pretty well), picking him to bat at 8 or even 9 behind Ali and Woakes could result in a stronger batting line up overall. Even if Johnny fairs the same without the gloves I'd wager we'd make better scores if we weren't 40/4 so bloody often.
I'd say we've been a bit unlucky with how few of our debutant batsmen have made the grade in recent years. Though some might put it down to the quality of the CC, I do think that luck plays a big role. Taylor's retirement left a big hole, Hameed's injury was unfortunate, and there have been several who promised much then faded away. These things are very sensitive to small margins and e.g. Hales, Robson, Lyth, Compton might easily have turned the corner. There are several "next cabs off the rank" available (see GBG's post on another thread), but somehow people seem to have lost the belief that our next debutant might have a real future. I would be inclined to keep the faith if at all possible.

Regarding your second paragraph, it's certainly the case that batting down the order is less challenging than batting up the order, so it's possible that Foakes at 8 would prosper e.g. where Westley at 3 has not. But if Westley was considered a more promising batsman than Foakes, then one wonders about Westley at 8. One possibility would be to make our established batsmen take more of the pressure: we could move Root, Stokes, Ali, Bairstow (with gloves), and/or Woakes up a place or two in the order to make things a little easier for the newer boys. There is great lower-middle-order stength in the England test team at present, as GBG says, but that depends primarily on having 4 such fine all-rounders, so it should remain the case regardless of the batting order.
sanskritsimon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th September 2017, 19:14   #116
geoff_boycotts_grandmother
Posting God
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 27,169
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanskritsimon View Post
I'd say we've been a bit unlucky with how few of our debutant batsmen have made the grade in recent years.
What's interesting is that you could say the same about Australia, who seemingly have the same holes.

In fact you could also say it about South Africa, Sri Lanka, New Zealand etc as well. It's what made the West Indies' win so remarkable as it was so unexpected for an unestablished batsman to play the innings Hope did.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michelle Fivefer
It was a poor innings by Bell with the bat.
geoff_boycotts_grandmother is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd September 2017, 13:01   #117
Redmachine
International Material
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 1,146
Probably not Roland-Jones or Hameed now.

1. Cook
2. Stoneman
3. Westley
4. Root
5. Malan
6. Stokes
7. Bairstow
8. Ali
9. Woakes
10. Broad
11. Anderson
12. Hales
13. Buttler
14. Dawson
15. Finn
16. Wood
17. Ball

Thinks that's what they'll go for I reckon.
Redmachine is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd September 2017, 13:23   #118
Zebroston Chase
Not Lara or Chanderpaul but the best you've got
 
Zebroston Chase's Avatar
When Hope is gone, I will appear.
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Glasgow
Team(s): AFC Hornchurch, Essex, England
Age: 33
Posts: 18,494
I would take Lawrence over Westley and drop Wood for Plunkett.
I would also probably take Foakes as a test batting option over Buttler but there is no way that would happen.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by High Druid Nathan Barley View Post
I'm fully aware of his thinking, which merely underlines the point that he's an idiot.
Zebroston Chase is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd September 2017, 13:53   #119
Redmachine
International Material
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 1,146
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zebroston Chase View Post
I would take Lawrence over Westley and drop Wood for Plunkett.
I would also probably take Foakes as a test batting option over Buttler but there is no way that would happen.
I certainly agree with your first two suggestions. Think I'd marginally prefer Buttler over an untried Foakes, but wouldn't be unhappy to see Foakes go. However, none of those 3 things are going to happen.
Redmachine is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd September 2017, 14:20   #120
Ali TT
Posting God
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 16,702
I reckon there might be one or two wtf, left field decisions. Possibly related to the second spinner, back up seamer or reserve keeper positions.
__________________
WARNING
Reading the above post may cause bouts of nausea.
Ali TT is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 23:29.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Cricket247.org