The IR Bell Pretty Little Fifties Watch Thread

[sandmoorcc]

Originally Posted by JRC67

To some extent it depends on the context of the match and the type of wicket....

You forgot one more; the standard of bowling you are facing. And while I take the point about being more vulnerable earlier in your innings that's why if you're in for your batting contribution you shouldn't get out the same way two or three times or playing daft uncontrolled shots. I can understand that a bit if you're coming in in the last ten, but other than that, unless you're out to a good ball then I don't class getting out early as particularly unlucky.

[AJ101]

Originally Posted by JRC67

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.

Do you really think we're miles behind India? Not that much in it in my eyes although them playing at home exacerbates what small difference there is.

[JRC67]

Originally Posted by sandmoorcc

You forgot one more; the standard of bowling you are facing. And while I take the point about being more vulnerable earlier in your innings that's why if you're in for your batting contribution you shouldn't get out the same way two or three times or playing daft uncontrolled shots. I can understand that a bit if you're coming in in the last ten, but other than that, unless you're out to a good ball then I don't class getting out early as particularly unlucky.

Maybe you are a far better cricketer than me but my experience is that every one of the first few balls is a good ball unless you are playing against a pie chucker - even then on a slow wicket its pretty easy to get through the shot too quickly until you can judge the speed of the wicket. I assume that your opinion is that batting doesn't really get much easier the longer you bat. I don't have a lot of sympathy with players wafting in the first few balls, because they know how difficult it is to hit the ball early in an innings. The last 10 overs of an ODI or trying to set a total quickly in a test is the exception. The point with the current England team is a lot of them are getting out wafting between 20 and 70 not because they are facing unplayable balls. In this series England players have only been out five times for less than 20 unless they've come in during the last 10 overs over the last 3 matches - Hales (2x), Buttler (2x), Stokes (1x). 9 Indian batsman have done it ... yet they've won the series reasonably comfortably.

[geoff_boycotts_grandmother]

Bairstow's the main one in tests, although this probably has something to do with him being burdened by the gloves. It's hardly surprising when he and Root don't regularly make the daddy scores given their work schedules.

Roy's doing a superb job opening the batting in ODIs. Averaging over 40 and a strike-rate over 100, consistently getting England off to good starts. And to think of the arguments people were having two years ago about how he wasn't good enough and the eponymous villain of this thread deserved yet another chance to do what he'd continually failed to do in 150+ ODIs.

[JRC67]

Originally Posted by AJ101

Do you really think we're miles behind India? Not that much in it in my eyes although them playing at home exacerbates what small difference there is.

Nope I think India are better than us ... because there batsmen at the moment are better at turning starts in to match defining scores. My point was that although our batsmen tend to get through the difficult first few overs there ability to kick on and define the game is worse than India's.

[Ali TT]

Roy scores quickly from the outset which, when it works, gives Hales and/or Root, who tend to build their innings more steadily, time to settle in. Roy shouldn't be aiming to play more cautiously at all as we'd then end up once more with a top order of builders and back to that situation of the middle order only getting ten overs to smash 100+ runs, just to make the total competitive.

It would be great for him to convert more 50s to 100s but I think it's more of a concern for Root and Morgan who should be providing those mainstay innings which winning totals/chases require.

[AJ101]

Originally Posted by JRC67

Nope I think India are better than us ... because there batsmen at the moment are better at turning starts in to match defining scores. My point was that although our batsmen tend to get through the difficult first few overs there ability to kick on and define the game is worse than India's.

Strike rate is so important in ODI's though it's very hard to judge a batsmans ability just on runs scored as if he's scoring a lot slower than the opposition unless he's seeing out a particularly dangerous bowler or period in the game then he's hurting the team not helping.

Morgan got a 100 in the 2nd ODI but it wasn't match defining because it was scored slightly below the average run rate of the India innings, if he'd taken 10 less balls to get that score it probably would have been match defining.

50's tp 80's can very much be match defining in ODI's if they're scored at a significantly higher run rate than in the match overall.

[JRC67]

Originally Posted by Ali TT

Roy scores quickly from the outset which, when it works, gives Hales and/or Root, who tend to build their innings more steadily, time to settle in. Roy shouldn't be aiming to play more cautiously at all as we'd then end up once more with a top order of builders and back to that situation of the middle order only getting ten overs to smash 100+ runs, just to make the total competitive.

It would be great for him to convert more 50s to 100s but I think it's more of a concern for Root and Morgan who should be providing those mainstay innings which winning totals/chases require.

I'm not really pointing fingers at any batsman, but collectively we are far worse than Australia and India at converting starts in to big scores across all forms of the game. Mentally there seems a difference between what the players of India see as a good score and what our players almost settle for. There's an interesting article on ESPN showing that scoring about 400 in the first innings in Asia since 2009 in tests actually tends to be a losing total and I think Indian players on good wickets would see this as a bit of a failure. I think at the moment we'd trot out the quotes at the end of the innings about how pleased we were. The Indian players aren't that phased by 350 totals in ODIs because they've scored a lot of them over the last few years against all the test nations, so on certain grounds they almost see that as a par score, which means mentally they are setting themselves up for a big score. On some grounds in India going for 6 an over is actually quite good bowling when you look at some of the games over the past few years.

This is in no way a dig at Ali as there are less extreme examples involving Root, Bairstow, Cook and Stokes. In the final test Ali played pretty well until well in to the 100s. For whatever reason he then decided to resurrect his hook shot, which he plays awfully. As he clearly knows he doesn't play it well (he's been pretty good at not playing it for nearly a year apart from towards the end of the 150 vs Sri Lanka when we were also trying to get quick runs) the only reasoning I can see is he felt he was seeing the ball well and maybe he thought England needed to push on a bit to get in a position to win the test. 146 is a good score, but you just get the feeling that if one of the Indian batsmen got fed a shot they weren't very good at they would have just ignored it and carried on playing the way they were and gone on to score 200 plus. All our batsman just tend to switch off. Being generous they have had a crazy 21 months of non stop cricket and it may be linked a little to mental fatigue, which does affect concentration. It'll be interesting to see if the conversion rate improves when they kick back in during May.

[JRC67]

Originally Posted by AJ101

Strike rate is so important in ODI's though it's very hard to judge a batsmans ability just on runs scored as if he's scoring a lot slower than the opposition unless he's seeing out a particularly dangerous bowler or period in the game then he's hurting the team not helping.

Morgan got a 100 in the 2nd ODI but it wasn't match defining because it was scored slightly below the average run rate of the India innings, if he'd taken 10 less balls to get that score it probably would have been match defining.

50's tp 80's can very much be match defining in ODI's if they're scored at a significantly higher run rate than in the match overall.

Strike rate is important and it tends to increase the more runs you've scored. Getting out for 70 with 5 or 6 overs to go is just putting the last few overs in to the hands of the gods. Players just end up coming in and t-ing off straight away, and new batsmen either get lucky, edge it, hole out or have a swing and a miss. Morgan's century was actually bang on for strike rate (marginally over) if you allow for the extras bowled by both sides. The problem was other batsmen didn't hang around with him.

[AJ101]

Originally Posted by JRC67

I'm not really pointing fingers at any batsman, but collectively we are far worse than Australia and India at converting starts in to big scores across all forms of the game. Mentally there seems a difference between what the players of India see as a good score and what our players almost settle for.

There's definitely an issue throughout the English team and possibly further than that in to the entire English game it shows not just with our batsman but also our declarations.

At a pure guess I'd say it's something to do with the conditions that the players are brought up in where 300 or 350 is a par score and therefore 400-450 or so is huge in the context of most games. This percolates in to an individuals score as well so 140 is seen as a daddy hundred where they'd be very unlikely to have ever lost a first class game while scoring one.

[Rebelstar]

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.

Agree, far too much focus on speed but you need to score 300+ runs a lot these days and the batsman in the middle on fifty is set, got his eye in, should have a feel for the pitch so why should he not go on batting that way and make a match winning hundred instead of a pretty little fifty?



You mentioned the conversion rate of Root (since 2015?) in an earlier post, hasn't he gone through a phase of playing well but also stupid shots? His standards have been set so high by his own success I guess we're ultra critical when he doesn't do something yet still manages to bat at a level others could only wish to reach

[Rebelstar]

Originally Posted by JRC67

Strike rate is important and it tends to increase the more runs you've scored. Getting out for 70 with 5 or 6 overs to go is just putting the last few overs in to the hands of the gods. Players just end up coming in and t-ing off straight away, and new batsmen either get lucky, edge it, hole out or have a swing and a miss. Morgan's century was actually bang on for strike rate (marginally over) if you allow for the extras bowled by both sides. The problem was other batsmen didn't hang around with him.

Until the final match of the 3 ODIs against India England batsmen had reached fifty SEVEN times yet only saw one converted to a hundred.

Indian batsmen by contrast had reached fifty only twice each in the opening 2 ODIs but converted all to hundreds - they won both......

And in the last ODI Jadhav would likely have won it had he got to his hundred. Yes you can score good and quick runs with fifties, but the losing of wickets can lose a fraction of momentum or worse.

Kohli and Pandya in that ODI also fell for fifties, overall they fell just five runs short.

[Chin Music]

After the dreadful KL Rahul slog sweep having just completed his 50 precipitating a shocking collapse from India, it would be a dereliction of duty that this thread, designed to be gratuitously nasty about players who do things like that if it didn't move to the International forum. In any case, DVS felt it was unfair he couldn't have a go at Williamson when he does similar.

[DanielVettoriSpin]

de Kock managing a triplet of pretty little fifties before getting out to very slightly misplaced leg-side heaves in this NZ-RSA ODI series.

It had all looked so effortless up to that point for him.

[Fatslogger]

Originally Posted by Chin Music

After the dreadful KL Rahul slog sweep having just completed his 50 precipitating a shocking collapse from India, it would be a dereliction of duty that this thread, designed to be gratuitously nasty about players who do things like that if it didn't move to the International forum. In any case, DVS felt it was unfair he couldn't have a go at Williamson when he does similar.

I see you edited for punctuation but not for actual events: he ran down the track trying to hit down the ground, probably aiming slightly on side of straight and outside edged it to long off.

[Chin Music]

Originally Posted by Fatslogger

I see you edited for punctuation but not for actual events: he ran down the track trying to hit down the ground, probably aiming slightly on side of straight and outside edged it to long off.

It was an awful hoick, I admit that my use of 'slog sweep' was wrong on reflection, yet my contempt for the choice of shot is undimmed as it always was when having loads of opportunities to bemoan the wastefulness of the player whom this thread was (subsequently) dedicated to.

[Chin Music]

Sam Billings in the first ODI and Jason Roy adds his 4th entry into this year's wasted opportunity roll of dishonour.

[Ali TT]

Rahul doubles up in the current test match.

The thing with Roy's pretty(?) fifty is that while frustrating he got out, the pace he scored at meant that England were never struggling with the asking rate even when six down. It's not all about converting to centuries.

[Chin Music]

Originally Posted by Ali TT

Rahul doubles up in the current test match.

The thing with Roy's pretty(?) fifty is that while frustrating he got out, the pace he scored at meant that England were never struggling with the asking rate even when six down. It's not all about converting to centuries.

I will admit that I didn't see Roy's fifty as I didn't even know the game was on until I switched the tv on. I was out for most of yesterday. MF had admitted tuning into the game and finding out that Roy had got to 50 and got out straight afterwards. I couldn't help be reminded that this was a trait particular to someone else that we all know and some love...............

Anyways some of Roy's 50's in the India series were lovely to watch even if maybe not in the same level of that someone else!

[Ali TT]

Roy is an attacking batsman who has to take a lot of risks to score at the rate he does, so there is always a good chance he will be out sooner than later. His fifties are more spectacular than pretty though.

With he-who-this-thread-is-named-after, he often made batting look so easy that it was always inexplicable that he got out for those middling 30+ scores, certainly in tests. In ODIs I think he lacked the innovation in his batting to keep the scoring going after the power play, as the fielding side could then sit back and stem his runs.