The IR Bell Pretty Little Fifties Watch Thread

[Chin Music]

With Jason Roy and Joy Root scoring 50's in each of their last 2 ODI innings, they are continuing a trend across their cricketing formats of looking a million bucks in an innings and then getting out at inopportune moments.

For an aggressive one-day opener, Roy now has a fine record, averaging 40 and with a strike-rate of 105 yet he has the prospect of doing a great deal better. In county cricket, I've watched him a fair few times and the number of occasions that he's got a score of 40odd + and looks brilliant and then gets out stupidly has to be seen to be believed.

Joe Root, we've seen all about him and his test and odi batting averages speak for themselves. Yet in test cricket since the start of the UAE Pakistan test series in late 2015 Root has scored 3 test match tons while accumulating 13 50's. That, I'm afraid is a poor conversion rate and needs to be improved pronto. In ODI cricket, his last year since the start of the English home season up until now is similarly poor, 7 50s and no ton.

I think there needs to be a thread documenting somewhat careless dismissals of upper order players scoring 50+ but not going on to get 3 figures. Of course the chief culprit of recent years for this phenomenon was a certain IR Bell, but it is time to find new figures to vent our spleen over!

[Bestie]

I have perhaps less concern with Roy getting out when set as his job is to score quickly throughout which he does - and indeed anyone in an ODI can be excused more than in tests, when the pressure to score quickly is far less common and intense. Reports of Roy's 4-day innings ending the same way are coming from far and wide and would prevent me from considering him a potential test player.

[Chin Music]

Originally Posted by Bestie

I have perhaps less concern with Roy getting out when set as his job is to score quickly throughout which he does - and indeed anyone in an ODI can be excused more than in tests, when the pressure to score quickly is far less common and intense. Reports of Roy's 4-day innings ending the same way are coming from far and wide and would prevent me from considering him a potential test player.

On the first point, I don't quite agree. In both the 1st ODI, and indeed yesterday if Roy or Root had gone to a big ton, England would have got more runs than they did, particularly in the 1st game and it may have been too much. Of course Roy has the licence to be expansive but game management is a bit of an issue for him, no matter what form of the game.

I think I've mentioned his performances in FC cricket a fair few times on here and I don't doubt his talent at all but his game management, definitely. If he had that, he'd be a really good shout for a middle order slot in test cricket.

[JRC67]

Originally Posted by Chin Music

On the first point, I don't quite agree. In both the 1st ODI, and indeed yesterday if Roy or Root had gone to a big ton, England would have got more runs than they did, particularly in the 1st game and it may have been too much. Of course Roy has the licence to be expansive but game management is a bit of an issue for him, no matter what form of the game.

I think I've mentioned his performances in FC cricket a fair few times on here and I don't doubt his talent at all but his game management, definitely. If he had that, he'd be a really good shout for a middle order slot in test cricket.

I think game management is the key and English batsmen aren't doing it well.

In all forms of cricket the longer you've batted the better you are seeing the ball and therefore the easier it is not to get out. More often than not its a lapse in concentration which is getting English players out between 50 and 100. I don't really have a problem with 1 - 20 scores from a player because the first 10 to 15 minutes of an innings is tough in all forms of the game. I suspect over both formats the England players have been almost as good as India's at reaching 20 yet they have consistently out scored us because their conversion rate is streets ahead.

[Bestie]

Originally Posted by Chin Music

On the first point, I don't quite agree. In both the 1st ODI, and indeed yesterday if Roy or Root had gone to a big ton, England would have got more runs than they did, particularly in the 1st game and it may have been too much. Of course Roy has the licence to be expansive but game management is a bit of an issue for him, no matter what form of the game.

I think I've mentioned his performances in FC cricket a fair few times on here and I don't doubt his talent at all but his game management, definitely. If he had that, he'd be a really good shout for a middle order slot in test cricket.

I'm not saying it's not an issue, by any means, and there is plenty to learn from how the Indian batsmen have really cashed in once set so far this series. It's more that I can forgive it more in ODI cricket because one has to play a certain number of aggressive strokes, whereas getting out to stupid shots in tests like Root and Ali seem to do is pretty much unforgivable when you can just leave a ball.

I guess the point also is that if you tell Roy to be more smart/cautious in his shot selection in ODIs, there is the possibility that his average will increase but the strike rate will go down. There is also the prospect, though it is obviously unlikely, that he will score far fewer rapid fire 30/40 cameos (lasting as many deliveries but scoring less frequently) and actually dent his average. The trick is finding the sweet spot so that you can encourage the natural, free-flowing game that has made him one of the best ODI openers around and build on it, rather than amending it. It just seems to me that it's not likely to be an easy balancing act - but as I said, look at how India have managed it and take the lessons from that.

[AJ101]

Really don't think it's a massive issue in ODI cricket obviously it's better if a big hitter like Roy hits a 100 (or Stokes/Buttler for that matter) but Root has a much lower limit in his strike rate which is going to mean him batting at the end ie after he's got to 100 isn't really going to do England that much good although it's going to be better than a bowler coming in fresh. I'd rather have Buttler or Stokes on 40 than Root on 100 going in to the last 10 overs....

In that first ODI us being 20-30 runs short was more an issue of Buttler getting out just before the last 10 overs than Root. Numbers 5-7 who came in after Root got 47 runs off 28 balls it's unlikely Root would have done much if any better.

I agree Roy has an issue with getting out when set but again that's a bigger limitation in first class cricket than it is in limited overs where his role is to hit big and really keep on hitting big which suits his limitation and strengths, I wouldn't want to change that.

Root is test cricket is very frustrating, him getting out on 60 or 70 most of the time seems to be because he simply forgets a fielder is there or who's bowling rather than a good ball or even the shot execution.

[JRC67]

Originally Posted by AJ101

Really don't think it's a massive issue in ODI cricket obviously it's better if a big hitter like Roy hits a 100 (or Stokes/Buttler for that matter) but Root has a much lower limit in his strike rate which is going to mean him batting at the end ie after he's got to 100 isn't really going to do England that much good although it's going to be better than a bowler coming in fresh. I'd rather have Buttler or Stokes on 40 than Root on 100 going in to the last 10 overs....

In that first ODI us being 20-30 runs short was more an issue of Buttler getting out just before the last 10 overs than Root. Numbers 5-7 who came in after Root got 47 runs off 28 balls it's unlikely Root would have done much if any better.

I agree Roy has an issue with getting out when set but again that's a bigger limitation in first class cricket than it is in limited overs where his role is to hit big and really keep on hitting big which suits his limitation and strengths, I wouldn't want to change that.

Root is test cricket is very frustrating, him getting out on 60 or 70 most of the time seems to be because he simply forgets a fielder is there or who's bowling rather than a good ball or even the shot execution.

The logical extension of this argument is to question Roots place in the ODI side. If you don't want him batting in the last 10 overs you equally don't want him in during the first 10 power play. On these small straight up and down wickets are England better with a more forceful cricketer?

What is noticeable is that Root is scoring significantly slower than any other batsman from either side who has scored significant runs in either match. He's been under 100 in both matches the next lowest 109.9. If 7 runs an over is becoming the norm then maybe Root will struggle to play all formats, particularly outside England where the game is rigged for fast scoring boundary hitting batsmen.

Root in test matches increasingly seems to lose concentration when we'll set. Mentally Kohli is currently in a different league.

[Chin Music]

Originally Posted by AJ101

Really don't think it's a massive issue in ODI cricket obviously it's better if a big hitter like Roy hits a 100 (or Stokes/Buttler for that matter) but Root has a much lower limit in his strike rate which is going to mean him batting at the end ie after he's got to 100 isn't really going to do England that much good although it's going to be better than a bowler coming in fresh. I'd rather have Buttler or Stokes on 40 than Root on 100 going in to the last 10 overs....

In that first ODI us being 20-30 runs short was more an issue of Buttler getting out just before the last 10 overs than Root. Numbers 5-7 who came in after Root got 47 runs off 28 balls it's unlikely Root would have done much if any better.

I agree Roy has an issue with getting out when set but again that's a bigger limitation in first class cricket than it is in limited overs where his role is to hit big and really keep on hitting big which suits his limitation and strengths, I wouldn't want to change that.

Root is test cricket is very frustrating, him getting out on 60 or 70 most of the time seems to be because he simply forgets a fielder is there or who's bowling rather than a good ball or even the shot execution.

In this series alone, India have 4 tons, England just Morgan's sloppy seconds ton in consolation. I take your point, I really do and in fact Root's knock in the first ODI actually really wasn't that good in the context of the match and arguably held England back in terms of the its' pace. However I do think that if Roy in particular had got another 30-40 runs in even one of those innings I can't help think that the series standing might be a little different. Don't get me wrong, like everyone else, I have far more problems with the bowling line-up but to completely free the the batsmen from the responsibility from seeing their own innings through is something I can't do. I have a heck of a lot of time for Roy as I see him as a very talented player whom along with Billings and of course Buttler have a natural flair that many players across the world could die for.

I was in Mumbai last April and I desparately wanted to watch Buttler in the IPL, the likes of Sloggard didn't interest me at all because he's a vastly inferior talent in my opinion who has been exposed almost laughably whenever he's come across good quality opposition. I didn't in the end get to watch Buttler there due to the hawkers offering well above a reasonable price but I did get to watch him in the test at the start of last month for a cheaper price all in than for the cost of 1 IPL game! Sloppy seconds I guess but it gave you an idea that Buttler really does have a vast range of skills. Digressing I know but there is so much talent that we haven't often seen in English players and I want to see the most made of it and that's why I don't tend to get that happy when I see them throw it away.

[AJ101]

Originally Posted by JRC67

The logical extension of this argument is to question Roots place in the ODI side. If you don't want him batting in the last 10 overs you equally don't want him in during the first 10 power play. On these small straight up and down wickets are England better with a more forceful cricketer?

What is noticeable is that Root is scoring significantly slower than any other batsman from either side who has scored significant runs in either match. He's been under 100 in both matches the next lowest 109.9. If 7 runs an over is becoming the norm then maybe Root will struggle to play all formats, particularly outside England where the game is rigged for fast scoring boundary hitting batsmen.

Root in test matches increasingly seems to lose concentration when we'll set. Mentally Kohli is currently in a different league.

I certainly don't want him batting in the first 10 I'm pretty consistent on that matter :-) I do want him in the side though he's perfect for those middle 30 overs if England surround him with big hitting batsman (3 above him and 3 below) and also if the wicket isn't a complete flat track you want him in your side every time.

In T20 I would probably just rest him but his strike rate is actually very good at 137 in comparison with his colleagues so not really convinced either way and I haven't actually watched much England T20 cricket recently I seem to keep having something else to do although I will be watching the next 3 I think though so maybe I'll have more thoughts on the matter then.

[AJ101]

Originally Posted by Chin Music

In this series alone, India have 4 tons, England just Morgan's sloppy seconds ton in consolation. I take your point, I really do and in fact Root's knock in the first ODI actually really wasn't that good in the context of the match and arguably held England back in terms of the its' pace. However I do think that if Roy in particular had got another 30-40 runs in even one of those innings I can't help think that the series standing might be a little different. Don't get me wrong, like everyone else, I have far more problems with the bowling line-up but to completely free the the batsmen from the responsibility from seeing their own innings through is something I can't do. I have a heck of a lot of time for Roy as I see him as a very talented player whom along with Billings and of course Buttler have a natural flair that many players across the world could die for.

I was in Mumbai last April and I desparately wanted to watch Buttler in the IPL, the likes of Sloggard didn't interest me at all because he's a vastly inferior talent in my opinion who has been exposed almost laughably whenever he's come across good quality opposition. I didn't in the end get to watch Buttler there due to the hawkers offering well above a reasonable price but I did get to watch him in the test at the start of last month for a cheaper price all in than for the cost of 1 IPL game! Sloppy seconds I guess but it gave you an idea that Buttler really does have a vast range of skills. Digressing I know but there is so much talent that we haven't often seen in English players and I want to see the most made of it and that's why I don't tend to get that happy when I see them throw it away.

I agree that they shouldn't be free from responsibility but on these high scoring grounds/wickets it's hard for me to blame them when they're out going for a big shot then again Roy played all around a straight one just trying to work it for a single in the last ODI!

Who do you mean by sloggard?

[Chin Music]

Originally Posted by AJ101

I agree that they shouldn't be free from responsibility but on these high scoring grounds/wickets it's hard for me to blame them when they're out going for a big shot then again Roy played all around a straight one just trying to work it for a single in the last ODI!

Who do you mean by sloggard?

Pollard of course, the beast of many a t20 domestic competition but somewhat less grand when up against international standard bowling.

[AJ101]

Originally Posted by Chin Music

Pollard of course, the beast of many a t20 domestic competition but somewhat less grand when up against international standard bowling.

Ah that makes sense I couldn't get Hoggard out of my brain and thought that just wasn't right on so many levels!

Pollards been very disappointing in the BBL this year as well only coming to the party when his team were already knocked out.

[DanielVettoriSpin]

Shame this is in the England forum, as Kane Williamson has been making quite the habit of this in Test cricket.

[Fatslogger]

Originally Posted by DanielVettoriSpin

Shame this is in the England forum, as Kane Williamson has been making quite the habit of this in Test cricket.

Got an unbeaten hundred at a very good clip only last test.

[DanielVettoriSpin]

Yes, but look over his past innings since his 166 at Perth.

Within that period he's scored

97
91
113
68
77
75
61
53
And then his recent century.

And some of those 50s have been fabulous.

With the 53 in the Basin Test he made it look all so incredibly easy. And then he made it look incredibly easy to get out too.

Perhaps Stephen Fleming is the archetypal Kiwi for this thread though really.

[Ali TT]

Roy, 3rd ODI v India 22 Jan 2017: 65 off 56

[Michelle Fivefer]

In ODIs I think the need to make big scores is much more important now that 300+ totals are almost de rigueur. Back in the days of 250 being a winning total a couple of 50-80 scores could win the game. I got fed up with Hussain in particular banging on about someone "needing to make a hundred". It was very welcome but not absolutely essential.

And even now, games can be won without anyone making a century, but you need a few batsmen to make substantial contributions. I agree with the earlier poster who said a 40 or 50 is better than a sub-20 score, although as we know, you are more vulnerable to getting out at the beginning of your innings.

As for the players who are regularly failing to convert good scores into excellent ones, I don't suppose there is a "one fits all" answer.

[Ali TT]

Originally Posted by Ali TT

Roy, 3rd ODI v India 22 Jan 2017: 65 off 56

Bairstow 56 off 64, Stokes left not out on 57, further middling contributions from Billings, Morgan and Woakes.

[Ali TT]

Originally Posted by Michelle Fivefer

In ODIs I think the need to make big scores is much more important now that 300+ totals are almost de rigueur. Back in the days of 250 being a winning total a couple of 50-80 scores could win the game. I got fed up with Hussain in particular banging on about someone "needing to make a hundred". It was very welcome but not absolutely essential.

And even now, games can be won without anyone making a century, but you need a few batsmen to make substantial contributions. I agree with the earlier poster who said a 40 or 50 is better than a sub-20 score, although as we know, you are more vulnerable to getting out at the beginning of your innings.

As for the players who are regularly failing to convert good scores into excellent ones, I don't suppose there is a "one fits all" answer.

I would say a run a ball or better sub-20 score is a pretty neutral contribution, but innings like Billings today or Root in the first ODI are negative ones, as they essentially waste time and deliveries in the match, thereby restricting their side's total.

[JRC67]

Originally Posted by Ali TT

I would say a run a ball or better sub-20 score is a pretty neutral contribution, but innings like Billings today or Root in the first ODI are negative ones, as they essentially waste time and deliveries in the match, thereby restricting their side's total.

To some extent it depends on the context of the match and the type of wicket. In general 300 is still a good score on a typical English wicket. Some of the Indian wickets 350 probably is now a little below par for better teams.

Everyone is very vulnerable early in their innings and I've never seen a player not play and miss at least once in the first 10 balls to decent bowling, unless its been 3 or 4th team bowling or Sunday afternoon dibbly dobbly cricket. I hate the - he's swinging it or spinning it miles comment - going out to bat because it doesn't really help much with the first or second ball and it doesn't really help you work out if you need to be going back or forwards and how far across the wicket you go. I don't really have a problem with single digit scores by a player because it almost always involves a bit of luck scoring the first 10 runs. English players have, I think, been more successful at reaching 20 than India's. India's top 6 has achieved it only 5 times in the first 2 ODIs, Englands 9 times. We haven't had an out and out failure in any of the matches, most of our top 9 have contributed somewhere, yet we are miles behind India. It should be the longer you bat the less chance you have of getting out, with England at the moment it seems there is an even chance of getting out at any times in an innings. My personal belief is that some of them are compensating for seeing the ball better by concentrating less as I think a lot of them are good players and are capable of making match determining scores.