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 4th January 2016, 12:24   #161
D/L
World Class
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Leeds
Team(s): Yorkshire CCC & England, Wakefield Trinity RLFC, Leeds Carnegie RUFC
Posts: 6,554
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michelle Fivefer View Post
True. Prior only played one way, it was 'the way he played'. But when he smashed a quick 30 or 40 to invigorate a stagnating innings towards the end he was praised for his unselfish batting. Sometimes it came off though, as when he saved the Auckland test 2012/13 with his 110*. He didn't change his approach one iota and benefited from dropped catches, streaky boundaries and the luck of the devil. But chutzpah can sometimes carry you through.
The streakiest century I think I have ever seen, including the ball hitting a stump and failing to dislodge a bail.

Prior had the ability to play shots. Where he fell down was with his judgment of when to play them. I don't think Bairstow has much of a problem in that regard.
D/L is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th January 2016, 11:43   #162
Michelle Fivefer
Posting Goddess
 
Michelle Fivefer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: North West England
Team(s): England, Lancashire
Posts: 41,804
Quote:
Originally Posted by slop View Post
Nice narrative but not sure it fits how Prior actually played. Given his batting position his innings would have come close to a declaration or when running out of partners so it's not a surprise many are at a high rate. But many of his 50s were at 3-4 an over which is hardly playing it one way. He's no Brian Lara but he's hardly a slogger.
Quote:
Originally Posted by D/L View Post
Prior had the ability to play shots. Where he fell down was with his judgment of when to play them. I don't think Bairstow has much of a problem in that regard.
This is what I meant really. Batting for a declaration, or running out of partners, it appeared that he thought he had to score off every ball before time ran out. But with a bit more circumspection he could have achieved a bigger total for the team or extended the innings a bit longer. It was frustrating, but when giving your wicket away needlessly was nearly always described as unselfish batting it's no surprise that he didn't change his approach.
__________________
As balanced and focused as the next man
Michelle Fivefer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th January 2016, 13:58   #163
Ali TT
Posting God
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 16,650
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michelle Fivefer View Post
This is what I meant really. Batting for a declaration, or running out of partners, it appeared that he thought he had to score off every ball before time ran out. But with a bit more circumspection he could have achieved a bigger total for the team or extended the innings a bit longer. It was frustrating, but when giving your wicket away needlessly was nearly always described as unselfish batting it's no surprise that he didn't change his approach.
I think you've created a "straw" version of Prior here which only fits to reality on some occasions. There may have been times when he got out needlessly (which batsman doesn't?) but over his career his efforts more often than not put England into match winning positions. Two egs off the top of my head are good centuries against Pakistan in 2010 at Trent Bridge and against India at Lords the following year. On both occasions England had suffered dramatic top order collapses in the second innings which threatened to destroy the strong positions they'd established.

Also, why is it that the "but that's the way they play" type of argument only used to criticise quick scoring players?
__________________
WARNING
Reading the above post may cause bouts of nausea.
Ali TT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th January 2016, 14:59   #164
slop
Posting God
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Cambridge
Team(s): South Africa
Age: 41
Posts: 18,805
He's also batting at 7 or 8 so he's not exactly expected to be as adaptable as a top order bat. If he was (and that worked rather than running out of partners while blocking an end), then he would average 45-50 rather than 40 and could have replaced Bell.
slop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th January 2016, 15:52   #165
YAMS
Banned
 
YAMS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 7,346
More poor footwork again from Jonny. Weight transfer all over the shop.
__________________
Available via PM.
YAMS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th January 2016, 17:45   #166
sanskritsimon
Legendary
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Team(s): Arkholme Bees, Hackney Grasshoppers, Holy Cross Academicals
Posts: 9,915
Quote:
Originally Posted by YAMS View Post
... Weight transfer all over the shop.

pie shop I presume
sanskritsimon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th January 2016, 18:01   #167
slop
Posting God
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Cambridge
Team(s): South Africa
Age: 41
Posts: 18,805
Signal failure
slop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th January 2016, 18:32   #168
sanskritsimon
Legendary
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Team(s): Arkholme Bees, Hackney Grasshoppers, Holy Cross Academicals
Posts: 9,915
Quote:
Originally Posted by slop View Post
Signal failure

call the fat controller
sanskritsimon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th January 2016, 19:11   #169
sweatysock
Established International
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Team(s): Sussex & Scotland
Posts: 3,830
I presume we can now discount Bairstow's 100 as conditions were too easy
sweatysock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th January 2016, 20:16   #170
Michelle Fivefer
Posting Goddess
 
Michelle Fivefer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: North West England
Team(s): England, Lancashire
Posts: 41,804
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ali TT View Post
I think you've created a "straw" version of Prior here which only fits to reality on some occasions. There may have been times when he got out needlessly (which batsman doesn't?) but over his career his efforts more often than not put England into match winning positions. Two egs off the top of my head are good centuries against Pakistan in 2010 at Trent Bridge and against India at Lords the following year. On both occasions England had suffered dramatic top order collapses in the second innings which threatened to destroy the strong positions they'd established.

Also, why is it that the "but that's the way they play" type of argument only used to criticise quick scoring players?
On the contrary, I see the phrase more often used to accept that quick scoring players play that way and shouldn't be forced to change their methods. Slow scoring players, on the other hand, are frequently told that they have to 'adapt' their game to suit the situation. Why not either leave both types as they are or encourage both types to become more adaptable?

As for Prior, I didn't mean that all his innings were as described in previous posts, but his characterisation by the media as an unselfish player for getting out when he might have made a few more used to grate. It tended not to be the response to other batsmen who gave it away.
__________________
As balanced and focused as the next man
Michelle Fivefer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th January 2016, 22:16   #171
Ali TT
Posting God
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 16,650
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michelle Fivefer View Post
On the contrary, I see the phrase more often used to accept that quick scoring players play that way and shouldn't be forced to change their methods. Slow scoring players, on the other hand, are frequently told that they have to 'adapt' their game to suit the situation. Why not either leave both types as they are or encourage both types to become more adaptable?

As for Prior, I didn't mean that all his innings were as described in previous posts, but his characterisation by the media as an unselfish player for getting out when he might have made a few more used to grate. It tended not to be the response to other batsmen who gave it away.
This might be how things play out in the real world, but as you regularly point out, things are often the reverse on here.
__________________
WARNING
Reading the above post may cause bouts of nausea.
Ali TT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th January 2016, 22:32   #172
Michelle Fivefer
Posting Goddess
 
Michelle Fivefer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: North West England
Team(s): England, Lancashire
Posts: 41,804
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ali TT View Post
This might be how things play out in the real world, but as you regularly point out, things are often the reverse on here.
Indeed.
__________________
As balanced and focused as the next man
Michelle Fivefer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th January 2016, 05:11   #173
greyblazer
County Pro
 
greyblazer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 991
None of them seem like Test match keepers.
greyblazer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th January 2016, 19:29   #174
oldandfat
County Pro
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 697
I understand the argument for a batsman who also Keeps and, although it pains me to admit it, generally agree with it. But in the present England team that plays two batting allrounders (Stokes & Ali) I believe it is somewhat negated and we should pick our best keeper. It would not really disrupt the makeup of the team, we could still play 5 bowlers have Ali at 7 and Broad (who does have a Test Century) at 8/9.
oldandfat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th January 2016, 19:49   #175
Ali TT
Posting God
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 16,650
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldandfat View Post
I understand the argument for a batsman who also Keeps and, although it pains me to admit it, generally agree with it. But in the present England team that plays two batting allrounders (Stokes & Ali) I believe it is somewhat negated and we should pick our best keeper. It would not really disrupt the makeup of the team, we could still play 5 bowlers have Ali at 7 and Broad (who does have a Test Century) at 8/9.
Drop Bairstow?
__________________
WARNING
Reading the above post may cause bouts of nausea.
Ali TT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th January 2016, 21:37   #176
sanskritsimon
Legendary
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Team(s): Arkholme Bees, Hackney Grasshoppers, Holy Cross Academicals
Posts: 9,915
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldandfat View Post
I understand the argument for a batsman who also Keeps and, although it pains me to admit it, generally agree with it. But in the present England team that plays two batting allrounders (Stokes & Ali) I believe it is somewhat negated and we should pick our best keeper. It would not really disrupt the makeup of the team, we could still play 5 bowlers have Ali at 7 and Broad (who does have a Test Century) at 8/9.
As Sir Virgs pointed out somewhere else, if the argument for picking a batsman who keeps is that this is of better value to the team (in terms of runs scored minus runs conceded through keeping imperfections) than picking a keeping specialist, then that argument should hold regardless of how deep the batting line-up is. It seems slightly paradoxical, but there you go. Allegedly the need for a keeper who can bat really well is nothing to do with trying to cover up frailties elsewhere in the batting line-up.
sanskritsimon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th January 2016, 22:16   #177
geoff_boycotts_grandmother
Posting God
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 27,079
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psyduck View Post
He certainly played second fiddle to Stokes but to suggest he was protected by him is absurd.
He was protected from the new ball by Stokes dominating the strike. No slight on Bairstow as its what any quality batsman would try and do for a new partner.

Quote:
Originally Posted by oldandfat View Post
I understand the argument for a batsman who also Keeps and, although it pains me to admit it, generally agree with it. But in the present England team that plays two batting allrounders (Stokes & Ali) I believe it is somewhat negated and we should pick our best keeper. It would not really disrupt the makeup of the team, we could still play 5 bowlers have Ali at 7 and Broad (who does have a Test Century) at 8/9.
This is a really strange test to make the argument for a keeper first. England were in all sorted difficulties when Barstoe came up the crease in both innings. He dropped one chance. England missed 9 chances. Shouldn't we be concentrating on dropping the likes of Compton and Jimmy for specialist fielders instead?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michelle Fivefer
It was a poor innings by Bell with the bat.
geoff_boycotts_grandmother is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 8th January 2016, 16:46   #178
D/L
World Class
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Leeds
Team(s): Yorkshire CCC & England, Wakefield Trinity RLFC, Leeds Carnegie RUFC
Posts: 6,554
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldandfat View Post
I understand the argument for a batsman who also Keeps and, although it pains me to admit it, generally agree with it. But in the present England team that plays two batting allrounders (Stokes & Ali) I believe it is somewhat negated and we should pick our best keeper. It would not really disrupt the makeup of the team, we could still play 5 bowlers have Ali at 7 and Broad (who does have a Test Century) at 8/9.
Given what else happened (and what else may have happened) in that match, Broad's test century should be erased from the record. These days, he is barely good enough to bat at 10.

I still think we should try to find a place for a specialist keeper but, whilst the selectors don't, let's pick a keeper with the best batting credentials. At the moment, that is Bairstow.
D/L is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th January 2016, 13:36   #179
Rebelstar
International Material
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,532
Quote:
Originally Posted by D/L View Post
Given what else happened (and what else may have happened) in that match, Broad's test century should be erased from the record. These days, he is barely good enough to bat at 10.

I still think we should try to find a place for a specialist keeper but, whilst the selectors don't, let's pick a keeper with the best batting credentials. At the moment, that is Bairstow.
I agree. For the balance of the side the keeper needs to be able to bat, Ali and Stokes may be (in theory) batting all-rounders but neither has yet firmly established their credentials in terms of weight of runs.

Even if some may point to Stokes' 258, I will point to the fact it took him FIFTEEN innings before that to score more 5 runs and Ali's so dependable as a batsman he's batting #8

So for the moment at least England either need to play four bowlers or a keeper who can bat to around 30-35 or more average.

While it may just spark further debate, in my time following cricket there have been two keepers selected who provided stability - Prior and Stewart. I will mention Russell who for a time was a handy bat, but those two batsmen keepers are the pick (for me) of the keepers between 1990 and today.

We've had plenty of failed efforts on both sides of the balance of batting and keeping, we could try a keeper who would supposedly make few errors and find out that doesn't work for lack of runs, or indeed a batsman keeper who supposedly makes runs and doesn't, or drops too many chances.

I'm for consistency whichever way we go, until the runs hit rock bottom or the catches hit the ground way too often. Don't forget, whilst in theory keepers might catch almost everything, not all chances go to the keeper.................. but it is guaranteed they'll have to bat at least once.
Rebelstar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th January 2016, 15:00   #180
sanskritsimon
Legendary
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Team(s): Arkholme Bees, Hackney Grasshoppers, Holy Cross Academicals
Posts: 9,915
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rebelstar View Post
... Don't forget, whilst in theory keepers might catch almost everything, not all chances go to the keeper.................. but it is guaranteed they'll have to bat at least once.
It's not guaranteed. It would be interesting to see some data on whether a test wicketkeeper has been more often unused as a taker/dropper of catches/stumpings than as a batsman. But even then, there is always the issue of byes.
sanskritsimon 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 14:13.



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