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 > England
Register FAQDonate Members List Calendar Casino Articles Terms of Use Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 17th January 2016, 12:35   #141
CDogg16
Established International
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 4,000
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1000yardstare View Post
I think Bayliss wants the Test team to play like the ODI team.
Quote:
Originally Posted by geoff_boycotts_grandmother View Post
Stokes and Root's fast scoring has been moe effective than Cook and Compton's crease occupation though. So maybe Bayliss is onto something?
It's about game management as much as anything. Stokes is great when he comes off, but there should be times when he has play more defensively. The second Test when England were in trouble he was caught on the boundary when England had no chance of winning the game. It don't buy the argument that players should play with freedom all the time and not worry about it when it doesn't come off. That might be a good attitude to have for limited overs cricket, but in Test cricket I would want at least 75% of the batsmen to be able to dig in and bat long if needed.

In the current line up we only really have Cook and Root who have proven they can bat for a long period of time and dig in. Hopefully Taylor can learn to play a more disciplined role and that will add a bit of steel to the line up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by D/L View Post
Expectations must have been quite low, then.
I didn't think he'd pass 50, so he exceeded my expectations there. The rest of his innings were what I expected.
CDogg16 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th January 2016, 15:57   #142
sanskritsimon
Posting God
 
sanskritsimon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Team(s): Arkholme Bees, Hackney Grasshoppers, Holy Cross Academicals
Posts: 10,847
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michelle Fivefer View Post
... Some teams have openers who can score a lot of runs very quickly and that's great for them. ...
I wonder whether this relates to the discussions about the declaration, follow-on etc. in the previous game. The main example of this type of opener at the moment is Warner, I would say, and he's been very good at scoring quick and substantial runs when Australia decline to enforce the follow-on. If you are going to score lots of runs you probably won't need, best score them very quickly to reduce the chance of failing to win. So it also relates to the tendency to overload the team with seamers who all get exhausted quickly and will need a break after taking 10 wickets; and it also relates to the reluctance to develop / pick several high-quality spin bowlers. With Stokes in the side England have the chance to field a proper balanced bowling attack, but it doesn't look like they're going to try to do that. So as a result they will occasionally be in danger of drawing matches they might otherwise win, unless they can score quick second-innings runs when needs be. Though I don't see why they can't just re-jig the batting order a bit sometimes, promoting e.g. Ali and/or Bairstow.
sanskritsimon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th January 2016, 17:15   #143
Psyduck
Posting God
 
Psyduck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Manchester
Team(s): England, Lancashire, Man Utd
Posts: 16,421
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanskritsimon View Post
I wonder whether this relates to the discussions about the declaration, follow-on etc. in the previous game. The main example of this type of opener at the moment is Warner, I would say, and he's been very good at scoring quick and substantial runs when Australia decline to enforce the follow-on. If you are going to score lots of runs you probably won't need, best score them very quickly to reduce the chance of failing to win. So it also relates to the tendency to overload the team with seamers who all get exhausted quickly and will need a break after taking 10 wickets; and it also relates to the reluctance to develop / pick several high-quality spin bowlers. With Stokes in the side England have the chance to field a proper balanced bowling attack, but it doesn't look like they're going to try to do that. So as a result they will occasionally be in danger of drawing matches they might otherwise win, unless they can score quick second-innings runs when needs be. Though I don't see why they can't just re-jig the batting order a bit sometimes, promoting e.g. Ali and/or Bairstow.
Who are the high quality spin bowlers currently available to England Sans?
Psyduck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th January 2016, 20:25   #144
sanskritsimon
Posting God
 
sanskritsimon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Team(s): Arkholme Bees, Hackney Grasshoppers, Holy Cross Academicals
Posts: 10,847
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psyduck View Post
Who are the high quality spin bowlers currently available to England Sans?
That's not to the point of my post. Even if one thinks Mo is our best option, England's policy is evident from their choice of Patel as their "second best spinner". Recently, for whatever reason, they're not in a position to supply high quality spin bowling from the squad selected; and this may have knock-on effects.
sanskritsimon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th January 2016, 20:58   #145
Chin Music
Administrator
 
Chin Music's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: la sala de opinion equivocada
Team(s): ****
Posts: 24,470
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanskritsimon View Post
That's not to the point of my post. Even if one thinks Mo is our best option, England's policy is evident from their choice of Patel as their "second best spinner". Recently, for whatever reason, they're not in a position to supply high quality spin bowling from the squad selected; and this may have knock-on effects.
I re-read your previous post and I was trying to figure out in particular "So it also relates to the tendency to overload the team with seamers who all get exhausted quickly and will need a break after taking 10 wickets; and it also relates to the reluctance to develop / pick several high-quality spin bowlers. With Stokes in the side England have the chance to field a proper balanced bowling attack, but it doesn't look like they're going to try to do that".

Who are these bowlers that aren't Adil Rashid, who did not bowl accurately enough for test cricket? I am quite prepared to believe that he hasn't been handled well earlier in his career but that probably overlooks that he was picked more for his type of bowling than the actual quality he possessed at the time. You forget to mention that a mere 4 tests ago, England played 3 spinners in effect in a test and that didn't end well with a lot of pastry baking by all three twirly men. That didn't end at all well and they kept having to go back to Broad and Anderson to try and take wickets.
Chin Music is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th January 2016, 22:10   #146
sanskritsimon
Posting God
 
sanskritsimon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Team(s): Arkholme Bees, Hackney Grasshoppers, Holy Cross Academicals
Posts: 10,847
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chin Music View Post
I re-read your previous post and I was trying to figure out in particular "So it also relates to the tendency to overload the team with seamers who all get exhausted quickly and will need a break after taking 10 wickets; and it also relates to the reluctance to develop / pick several high-quality spin bowlers. With Stokes in the side England have the chance to field a proper balanced bowling attack, but it doesn't look like they're going to try to do that".

Who are these bowlers that aren't Adil Rashid, who did not bowl accurately enough for test cricket? I am quite prepared to believe that he hasn't been handled well earlier in his career but that probably overlooks that he was picked more for his type of bowling than the actual quality he possessed at the time. You forget to mention that a mere 4 tests ago, England played 3 spinners in effect in a test and that didn't end well with a lot of pastry baking by all three twirly men. That didn't end at all well and they kept having to go back to Broad and Anderson to try and take wickets.
OK, sorry about that. Rephrasing:

I wonder whether the idea of having a more aggressive top order relates to the discussions about the declaration, follow-on etc. in the previous game. The main example of this type of opener at the moment is Warner, I would say, and he's been very good at scoring quick and substantial runs when Australia decline to enforce the follow-on. If you are going to score lots of runs you probably won't need, best score them very quickly to reduce the chance of failing to win. So it also relates to our tendency to have lots of seamers who all get exhausted quickly and will need a break after taking 10 wickets; and it also relates to our not having several high-quality spin bowlers in the side. With Stokes in the side England could, in an ideal world, have the chance to field a proper balanced bowling attack, but it doesn't look like they're going to do that. So as a result they will occasionally be in danger of drawing matches they might otherwise win, unless they can score quick second-innings runs when needs be. Though I don't see why they can't just re-jig the batting order a bit sometimes, promoting e.g. Ali and/or Bairstow.
sanskritsimon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th January 2016, 22:13   #147
CDogg16
Established International
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 4,000
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanskritsimon View Post
OK, sorry about that. Rephrasing:

I wonder whether the idea of having a more aggressive top order relates to the discussions about the declaration, follow-on etc. in the previous game. The main example of this type of opener at the moment is Warner, I would say, and he's been very good at scoring quick and substantial runs when Australia decline to enforce the follow-on. If you are going to score lots of runs you probably won't need, best score them very quickly to reduce the chance of failing to win. So it also relates to our tendency to have lots of seamers who all get exhausted quickly and will need a break after taking 10 wickets; and it also relates to our not having several high-quality spin bowlers in the side. With Stokes in the side England could, in an ideal world, have the chance to field a proper balanced bowling attack, but it doesn't look like they're going to do that. So as a result they will occasionally be in danger of drawing matches they might otherwise win, unless they can score quick second-innings runs when needs be. Though I don't see why they can't just re-jig the batting order a bit sometimes, promoting e.g. Ali and/or Bairstow.
But surely that is the whole point of Hales. Why move Hales down the order and promote others when runs are needed quickly? You could make a case for moving Cook down but when England have done that in the past it hasn't come off.
CDogg16 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th January 2016, 22:19   #148
sanskritsimon
Posting God
 
sanskritsimon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Team(s): Arkholme Bees, Hackney Grasshoppers, Holy Cross Academicals
Posts: 10,847
Quote:
Originally Posted by CDogg16 View Post
But surely that is the whole point of Hales. Why move Hales down the order and promote others when runs are needed quickly? You could make a case for moving Cook down but when England have done that in the past it hasn't come off.
Maybe it is the point of Hales -- who knows? -- but if so, we're wondering (a) when he's going to score anything significant at all, regardless of strike rate, and (b) why it's such an important point that it would explain his selection given (a).
sanskritsimon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th January 2016, 22:25   #149
CDogg16
Established International
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 4,000
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanskritsimon View Post
Maybe it is the point of Hales -- who knows? -- but if so, we're wondering (a) when he's going to score anything significant at all, regardless of strike rate, and (b) why it's such an important point that it would explain his selection given (a).
If he gets given the summer I would like to think he could conjure up a century. I was convinced he would fail as a Test player and I still think he has too many flaws to open the innings. He should have just gone for it in the second innings and tried to smash 40 off 20 balls instead of defending everything.
CDogg16 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th January 2016, 22:30   #150
sanskritsimon
Posting God
 
sanskritsimon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Team(s): Arkholme Bees, Hackney Grasshoppers, Holy Cross Academicals
Posts: 10,847
Quote:
Originally Posted by CDogg16 View Post
If he gets given the summer I would like to think he could conjure up a century. I was convinced he would fail as a Test player and I still think he has too many flaws to open the innings. He should have just gone for it in the second innings and tried to smash 40 off 20 balls instead of defending everything.
Re. the summer I think so too, I think he has shown a little bit of promise -- although Robson and Lyth also scored centuries before fading out of the team. I do wonder what's going on behind the scenes though, with that weird comment from Bayliss, and with Hales scoring so slowly, and with Compton's occasional ill-advised biffs.
sanskritsimon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th January 2016, 22:41   #151
sharky
Posting God
 
sharky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Sunny Sussex
Team(s): Sussex, England
Posts: 10,957
I think a random line from Bayliss has been taken hugely out of proportion. I'm sure scoring run a ball hundreds like Warner isn't a necessity. I'd be surprised if Compton is dropped from the side before Hales, anyway. I think it is a matter of time before Vince gets a debut with Compton shifted up to open.
__________________
She was like a candle in the wind...Unreliable
sharky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th January 2016, 23:04   #152
Ali TT
Posting God
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 19,797
Quote:
Originally Posted by sharky View Post
I think a random line from Bayliss has been taken hugely out of proportion. I'm sure scoring run a ball hundreds like Warner isn't a necessity. I'd be surprised if Compton is dropped from the side before Hales, anyway. I think it is a matter of time before Vince gets a debut with Compton shifted up to open.


Never heard so much guff written about a one line comment.
__________________
WARNING
Reading the above post may cause bouts of nausea.
Ali TT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th January 2016, 14:48   #153
geoff_boycotts_grandmother
Administrator
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 28,417
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanskritsimon View Post
OK, sorry about that. Rephrasing:

I wonder whether the idea of having a more aggressive top order relates to the discussions about the declaration, follow-on etc. in the previous game. The main example of this type of opener at the moment is Warner, I would say, and he's been very good at scoring quick and substantial runs when Australia decline to enforce the follow-on. If you are going to score lots of runs you probably won't need, best score them very quickly to reduce the chance of failing to win. So it also relates to our tendency to have lots of seamers who all get exhausted quickly and will need a break after taking 10 wickets; and it also relates to our not having several high-quality spin bowlers in the side. With Stokes in the side England could, in an ideal world, have the chance to field a proper balanced bowling attack, but it doesn't look like they're going to do that. So as a result they will occasionally be in danger of drawing matches they might otherwise win, unless they can score quick second-innings runs when needs be. Though I don't see why they can't just re-jig the batting order a bit sometimes, promoting e.g. Ali and/or Bairstow.
I think it probably comes from instances like the Root-Stokes at Jo'burg and the Stokes-Bairstow at Cape Town partnerships.

In both instances England went from being in an iffy position to quite a strong position. And SA's bowling seemed to wilt in the face of England's counter-attacking.
__________________
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 24th January 2016, 10:58   #154
Rebelstar
International Material
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,832
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoff Boycott
Hales' was a shocking shot - caught at cover as an opening batsman. I'll repeat that: caught at cover as an opening batsman. It's not humorous
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoff Boycott
The lad has never had it in Test cricket - he doesn't have the attitude for it. He hasn't got it. He's got wonderful hand-eye concentration but he's a one-day cricketer.

You've got to set a platform. But Hales gets out in funny ways. His technique and footwork is not good enough for Test cricket. He may never get it. I've never been convinced.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/35392680

Not sure he's saying anything that a lot of people haven't thought or said, he's now averaging under 20 and even his HS of 60 was less than ONE TENTH of England's total (so a fifty on a high scoring pitch) and accounts for 4/9 of his runs.

Would he be better suited down the order? Well in theory if all pitches were equal, good for runs, and he never had to bat when the chips are down, you could hide him down at say #5, or maybe we should give him the gloves and see if he can't make it as a keeper.......... why not if we're looking for ways to accommodate him rather than accept he's another player picked in the wrong format....!?!?!?

He's not even done that well in ODIs, if he'd flourished there I could kinda understand moving him into Tests, but the decision like the player lacks substance.

I suspect Compton will be moved back to open, we'll go through all that again, and the man six years his junior with a similar record before this series (Robson) will be overlooked a little longer whilst England ponce about yet again.
Rebelstar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th January 2016, 12:12   #155
CDogg16
Established International
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 4,000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rebelstar View Post
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/35392680

Not sure he's saying anything that a lot of people haven't thought or said, he's now averaging under 20 and even his HS of 60 was less than ONE TENTH of England's total (so a fifty on a high scoring pitch) and accounts for 4/9 of his runs.

Would he be better suited down the order? Well in theory if all pitches were equal, good for runs, and he never had to bat when the chips are down, you could hide him down at say #5, or maybe we should give him the gloves and see if he can't make it as a keeper.......... why not if we're looking for ways to accommodate him rather than accept he's another player picked in the wrong format....!?!?!?

He's not even done that well in ODIs, if he'd flourished there I could kinda understand moving him into Tests, but the decision like the player lacks substance.

I suspect Compton will be moved back to open, we'll go through all that again, and the man six years his junior with a similar record before this series (Robson) will be overlooked a little longer whilst England ponce about yet again.
Agree with regards to Robson. I was convinced he could have been a great opener given more time. Trouble is seeing as Bayliss wants attacking players, I can't see him getting back in now.

I feel a bit sorry for Hales. It's not his fault the selectors picked him in a format he wasn't suited to. I hope this doesn't damage his limited overs career.
CDogg16 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th January 2016, 12:29   #156
Ali TT
Posting God
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 19,797
If we are using Boycott as evidence to condemn a player, then he was as damning of Robson as he has been of Hales. IIRC he couldn't comprehend how a player with such a propensity to be bowled between bat and pad could develop to the point of being selected for test duty.
__________________
WARNING
Reading the above post may cause bouts of nausea.
Ali TT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th January 2016, 14:12   #157
Rigs
International Material
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Nottingham
Team(s): Notts and Forest
Posts: 1,601
Suspect he will be binned after this test series and they will bring in the next cab off the rank for the summer. Which is ok for Notts as he will score runs in the CC wherever he plays. He should not be opening at test level....simply not good enough ATM and the sooner he and England recognise this the best for all concerned. If he plays for England with the red ball it should be lower down the order.
__________________
This is an ex-Parrot
Rigs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th January 2016, 14:18   #158
Ali TT
Posting God
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 19,797
The most damning indictment of Hales must be how people are talking up a return for Lyth who was equally unfortunate out of his depth in test cricket.
__________________
WARNING
Reading the above post may cause bouts of nausea.
Ali TT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th January 2016, 16:06   #159
sanskritsimon
Posting God
 
sanskritsimon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Team(s): Arkholme Bees, Hackney Grasshoppers, Holy Cross Academicals
Posts: 10,847
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ali TT View Post
If we are using Boycott as evidence to condemn a player, then he was as damning of Robson as he has been of Hales. IIRC he couldn't comprehend how a player with such a propensity to be bowled between bat and pad could develop to the point of being selected for test duty.
As I recall, Boycott thought Carberry was worth sticking with for a bit longer. But I don't think he's mentioned it for a while now.
sanskritsimon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th January 2016, 11:49   #160
D/L
Legendary
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Leeds
Team(s): Yorkshire CCC & England, Wakefield Trinity RLFC, Leeds Carnegie RUFC
Posts: 9,309
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ali TT View Post
The most damning indictment of Hales must be how people are talking up a return for Lyth who was equally unfortunate out of his depth in test cricket.
A much higher proportion of dismissals to good deliveries and a century to his name, though.

With the series against Sri Lanka starting in May, there will be few opportunities for county openers to impress the selectors, so there must be a danger that Hales will at least get the 1st test.
D/L 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 03:33.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Cricket247.org