The Moeen Ali-All Round Great Guy-Thread

[CDogg16]

Originally Posted by Sir Virgs and Zamora

Should he have dug in at 190 for 7 or smash 59 to add almost 100 with the tail?

Should he have dug in at 343 for 7 overnight after day one of the ashes series or come out and smashed 77 to add almost 100 with the tail?

Should he have dug in at 310 for 8 at Trent bridge or smashed 38 off 24 to add 60 with last two wickets?

Three ashes wins and three perfect innings.

Second Test comes in at 210-6 hits 39 off 57. Second innings 6-64 out caught for a duck. In the fifth Test in both innings he had a strike rate of around 50 and was caught behind both times.

Batting where is there are times when a breezy 30 isn't needed and it would be far better if he could play defensively and stick around. If England are 100-5 and he comes in smashing 30 off 30 balls isn't needed.

[Sir Virgs and Zamora]

Originally Posted by CDogg16

Second Test comes in at 210-6 hits 39 off 57. Second innings 6-64 out caught for a duck. In the fifth Test in both innings he had a strike rate of around 50 and was caught behind both times.

Batting where is there are times when a breezy 30 isn't needed and it would be far better if he could play defensively and stick around. If England are 100-5 and he comes in smashing 30 off 30 balls isn't needed.

Second test we added 100 with last four wickets which is not too bad is it? Second innings was a shambles from all.

He did well during the ashes and played decent knocks in all 3 of our wins. You probably need to accept this.

[CDogg16]

Originally Posted by Sir Virgs and Zamora

Second test we added 100 with last four wickets which is not too bad is it? Second innings was a shambles from all.

He did well during the ashes and played decent knocks in all 3 of our wins. You probably need to accept this.

He did play well in the Ashes, I completely accept that.

However, if a batsman scores a magnificent century in their second Test you wouldn't expect them to go nearly two years without coming close to scoring another.

[JRC67]

Its not really surprising Ali's batting average has got worse as batting at 8 he will always have to play with the tail. The experiment with him as an opener shouldn't count as it was clearly doomed to fail. As a batsman he plays a role because over the last 12 months its been 6 - 11 who have dug us out of a hole and he has been a significant part of that. He's clearly in the side while we are trying to find a better spinner. Its harsh to judge him on the UAe as the opposition all played spin pretty well. In South Africa he has done a job, but not excelled, but he does allow us to play 4 quicks and hasn't really been carted around the park. The bottom line is we probably would only be one up without him.

[CDogg16]

Originally Posted by JRC67

Its not really surprising Ali's batting average has got worse as batting at 8 he will always have to play with the tail. The experiment with him as an opener shouldn't count as it was clearly doomed to fail. As a batsman he plays a role because over the last 12 months its been 6 - 11 who have dug us out of a hole and he has been a significant part of that. He's clearly in the side while we are trying to find a better spinner. Its harsh to judge him on the UAe as the opposition all played spin pretty well. In South Africa he has done a job, but not excelled, but he does allow us to play 4 quicks and hasn't really been carted around the park. The bottom line is we probably would only be one up without him.

He only got moved to eight because Stokes performed much better than him when he was in the number six spot. He had plenty of chances to make the spot his own.

[JRC67]

Originally Posted by CDogg16

He only got moved to eight because Stokes performed much better than him when he was in the number six spot. He had plenty of chances to make the spot his own.

The reason given for him moving to 6 was that the management thought Stokes batted too irresponsibly further down the order. At the time Ali had the higher average (as he also did during the Ashes). Its fair play to Stokes that he's made 6 his own. But the value of someone like Ali is he hasn't sulked, gets on with the job no matter where he's put in the order. I'm not saying he is a world beater but I think the value he adds to the team is more than some people credit. How many tests he plays depends on the development of other spin bowling options.

[Jock McTuffnel v3]

Originally Posted by JRC67

Its not really surprising Ali's batting average has got worse as batting at 8 he will always have to play with the tail. The experiment with him as an opener shouldn't count as it was clearly doomed to fail. As a batsman he plays a role because over the last 12 months its been 6 - 11 who have dug us out of a hole and he has been a significant part of that. He's clearly in the side while we are trying to find a better spinner. Its harsh to judge him on the UAe as the opposition all played spin pretty well. In South Africa he has done a job, but not excelled, but he does allow us to play 4 quicks and hasn't really been carted around the park. The bottom line is we probably would only be one up without him.

So in summary he has been pretty average at every role he's been shunted into. Perhaps wicketkeeper next ?

His test career after 22 tests

INNINGS
36
RUNS
878
AVERAGE
26.60
HIGH SCORE
108*
100s
1
50s
4

WICKETS
62
AVERAGE
38.40
ECONOMY
3.68

SR
62.61

5WS
1

[Jock McTuffnel v3]

Tim Bresnan

MATCHES
23
INNINGS
26
RUNS
575
AVERAGE
26.13
HIGH SCORE
91
100s
0
50s
3

MATCHES
23
INNINGS
41
WICKETS
72
AVERAGE
32.73
ECONOMY
3.02
SR
64.91
5WS
1

[Sir Virgs and Zamora]

Originally Posted by Jock McTuffnel v3

So in summary he has been pretty average at every role he's been shunted into. Perhaps wicketkeeper next ?

His test career after 22 tests

INNINGS
36
RUNS
878
AVERAGE
26.60
HIGH SCORE
108*
100s
1
50s
4

WICKETS
62
AVERAGE
38.40
ECONOMY
3.68

SR
62.61

5WS
1

You highlight his strike rate as if it is bad. Let's compare

Tuffers 93 with same average
Giles 85 and mo better average
Monty 74 with a slightly better average than mo but crap bat and fielder
Swann 60 with a better average and he was good slip.

So his strike rate is miles better than other spinners but marginally worse than Swann. So how bad are the others?

[sanskritsimon]

Originally Posted by Sir Virgs and Zamora

You highlight his strike rate as if it is bad. Let's compare

Tuffers 93 with same average
Giles 85 and mo better average
Monty 74 with a slightly better average than mo but crap bat and fielder
Swann 60 with a better average and he was good slip.

So his strike rate is miles better than other spinners but marginally worse than Swann. So how bad are the others?

Maybe the review system makes a difference to these comparisons. Swann says it helped him immensely but e.g. Tufnell and Giles never played with it.

[Sir Virgs and Zamora]

Originally Posted by sanskritsimon

Maybe the review system makes a difference to these comparisons. Swann says it helped him immensely but e.g. Tufnell and Giles never played with it.

Speculation your honour.

[Jock McTuffnel v3]

Originally Posted by Sir Virgs and Zamora

You highlight his strike rate as if it is bad. Let's compare

Tuffers 93 with same average
Giles 85 and mo better average
Monty 74 with a slightly better average than mo but crap bat and fielder
Swann 60 with a better average and he was good slip.

So his strike rate is miles better than other spinners but marginally worse than Swann. So how bad are the others?

Gilo- 5 5fers in 54 tests (no DRS)
Sir Phil - 5 5fers in 42 test (no DRS)
Monty - 12! 5fers in 50 tests (no DRS)
Swann - 17 !! 5fers in 60 tests

[Fatslogger]

Originally Posted by Jock McTuffnel v3

Gilo- 5 5fers in 54 tests (no DRS)
Sir Phil - 5 5fers in 42 test (no DRS)
Monty - 12! 5fers in 50 tests (no DRS)
Swann - 17 !! 5fers in 60 tests

So were you obsessed with the utility of numbers of 5 wicket hauls for judging bowlers before you became obsessed with Moeen or after?

[Fatslogger]

Originally Posted by sanskritsimon

Maybe the review system makes a difference to these comparisons. Swann says it helped him immensely but e.g. Tufnell and Giles never played with it.

Originally Posted by Sir Virgs and Zamora

Speculation your honour.

Don't know the answer to this question but one way of looking at this would be what spin bowlers have averaged per year or decade pre and post DRS. Would be quite a crude tool as for example years with Murali and Warne operating might be rather confounded (you could exclude bowlers who weren't orthodox finger spinners, I suppose) but still interesting.

[D/L]

Originally Posted by Jock McTuffnel v3

I did some stats research which I posted on another thread -

Other English bowlers capped since 1980 who have somehow been selected for over 20 tests and only managed just 1 five fer.

Tim Bresnan (1 in 23 tests)
Robert Croft (1 in 21 tests)
Craig White (1 in 30 tests)
Moeen Ali (1 in 22 tests)

I haven't gone beyond being capped after 1980 but I suspect there may not be many bowlers who have played that many tests with only 1 fiver. And obviously that was in his first 5 tests against a rabble of an Indian side.

Moeen should match Bressie this week.

Not sure what this suggests. None of the above opened the bowling very much. Those that did had a head start in the quest for 5 wickets. Not sure, on its own, how important a 5 wicket haul is, anyway.

I suppose they are the bowling equivalents of centuries - impressive, perhaps, when viewed in isolation but not telling the full story.

[Fatslogger]

If anything a 5 wicket haul is probably a worse surrogate for performance than centuries for various reasons, particularly that with 10 wickets to be taken per innings at most, the capacity to get 5 of them is quite dependent on a player's bowling role, including when he gets to bowl and how many other bowlers there are. Giles was usually one of five but the others were more usually parts of four man attacks so more likely to get the opportunity to take five wickets. It's also clearly the case that even a relatively bad bowling performance can be rewarded with 5 wickets, due to a combination of luck and attrition (given that even when sides score a lot of runs, they usually lose at least several wickets and often all 10 in doing so). Of course some centuries are better than others too.

[geoff_boycotts_grandmother]

Originally Posted by Chin Music

I think quasi all rounders would be more appropriate. There is no way that Bresnan or White would have got close to a test call-up on batting alone and that when Ali started he was a batsman who bowled but ended up being shunted down the order.

Point of order: when Craig White got called up by Ray Illingworth it was as a batsman who could bowl a bit.

It was only when he later re-emerged (under Fletcher, D) that it was as a bowler who could bat a bit. Although he wasn't worth his place the first time round so maybe that shouldn't count.

I actually think he's one of the most underrated England players of the last couple of decades. Was a key member of that great England team who won in Pakistan and Sri Lanka and was the first one to beat West Indies since 1969 but is all but forgotten.

[Chin Music]

Originally Posted by geoff_boycotts_grandmother

Point of order: when Craig White got called up by Ray Illingworth it was as a batsman who could bowl a bit.

It was only when he later re-emerged (under Fletcher, D) that it was as a bowler who could bat a bit. Although he wasn't worth his place the first time round so maybe that shouldn't count.

I actually think he's one of the most underrated England players of the last couple of decades. Was a key member of that great England team who won in Pakistan and Sri Lanka and was the first one to beat West Indies since 1969 but is all but forgotten.

I remember his role in the beating of Windies well and was at that famous "4 innings in a day" at Lord's but it really was a very small period that he was that good. By the end of the Sri Lanka tour he barely bowled with anything like the same speed and ended up batting from fine leg against Dizzy and Brett Lee in the 2001 Ashes. I think for a time he registered the quickest ever speed for an England bowler, 97mph.

[Ali TT]

Originally Posted by Fatslogger

If anything a 5 wicket haul is probably a worse surrogate for performance than centuries for various reasons, particularly that with 10 wickets to be taken per innings at most, the capacity to get 5 of them is quite dependent on a player's bowling role, including when he gets to bowl and how many other bowlers there are. Giles was usually one of five but the others were more usually parts of four man attacks so more likely to get the opportunity to take five wickets. It's also clearly the case that even a relatively bad bowling performance can be rewarded with 5 wickets, due to a combination of luck and attrition (given that even when sides score a lot of runs, they usually lose at least several wickets and often all 10 in doing so). Of course some centuries are better than others too.

In a four man attack of three seamers, one spinner I'd expect the latter to bowl tidy overs in first innings or on unsuitable wickets, but to take 5fers when trying to bowl sides out in favourable conditions in the final innings. Swann and Monty were both quite good at this and Swann had the knack of picking up wickets in first innings too.

Mo has a different role. I doubt he'll take many five wicket hauls - he lacks control and enough variation to really put prolonged pressure on a batting side even in good conditions. However he is nipping out big wickets from time to time and he's contributing to victories.

Oddly I'd expect his average to fall but his s/r to rise over time.

Oh, and there's still none better who could take his place.

[Sir Virgs and Zamora]

Mo has a better average than Swann in the fourth innings. It is not his fault he is playing at the same time as England's two leading wicket takers (which they will be) plus Finn who has a phenomenal strike rate and it is very rare that he bowls last.

In quite a few innings he has not bowled until 4 or five wickets have gone.

What I am saying is that for many reasons jock's obsession is bizarre.

Monty must surely be the ultimate crap track bully given all those five fers and as near and dammit same average.