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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 17th March 2016, 10:41   #161
Rebelstar
International Material
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,613
Quote:
Originally Posted by Notts Exile View Post
Is it? Maybe it's just a case of saying let's pick our best T20 batsman? Would it be way off the mark?
Gayle has scored 4 T20I hundreds, but their records aren't that different other than landmarks like hundreds.

T20Is
Gayle (46) - 1506 runs @ 37.65 (HS 117, 100 x2, 50 x13, SR 145.65)
Pietersen (37) - 1176 runs @ 37.94 (HS 79, 100 x0, 50 x7, SR 141.52)

If there is an advantage to opening Gayle leads that figure 44-3, but KP is not far behind in SR, ahead slightly on average and not outs (5-4)

In ODIs KP again is ahead on average and indeed SR, Gayle has played twice as many so his 22-9 lead on hundreds is no surprise and has a HS of 215 which dwarves KP's 130.


But picking KP does seem rather like going back begging cap in hand when days weren't all that great with him in the side most of the time so I can kinda understand why the selectors have burned the bridge with no signs of reconstruction.



Won't he be playing for outer Mongolia, Rhodesia, the Marshall Islands, Gibraltar, Jersey or someone soon anyone..........? Not sure it was the batting cost England yesterday anyway. Scored at a reasonable 8 and a bit to 15 overs, scored near enough 12 an over for the last 5 overs, but windies raced to 151/4 at a smidge over 10 an over off their 15 overs and that's what cost England.

Topley has struggled in his last 3 ODIs, yesterday his only wicket in that time and at 10 rpo. Willey snared an early wicket but also was expensive, and frankly I don't really rate any of Stokes, Jordan or Ali to do a consistent job even if Jordan was the one England bowler to escape punishment.

To be fair the way Gayle went about his business England had to get him out or lose, I have to ask if Stokes who seems to be a fixture in every format is ever going to show consistent enough form with the ball to be included as an all-rounder.....

Stokes

T20Is (12) - 101 runs @ 14.43 (HS 31, SR 146.38) & 4 wkts @ 59.50 (ER 9.52)
ODIs (39) - 685 runs @ 21.41 (HS 70, SR 91.82) & 36 wkts @ 36.53 (ER 6.16)
Tests (23) - 1383 runs @ 33.73 & 57 wkts @ 38.07 (ER 3.52, SR 64.95)

I've included his batting purely because he needs to score runs as an all-rounder and with his current 'promoted' status into the upper order. But the main focus is on his bowling, pretty poor return in every format, not terrible in ODIs, but for a modest batting average (hence the inclusion) he does need to up his game in one skill or t'other.

And if you just look at economy in the LOIs, an ER of 9.52 equates to around 190 runs per T20I and in ODIs 6.16 to 308 which as an average total not including extras England would do well to win maybe 1/3 of the time at best.



The debate on here some weeks ago about needing 6 bowlers, I'd have less issues about playing six bowlers if they were all good enough or perhaps I should say perform to a standard enough it is 6 bowlers and not 2-3 bowlers feeling their way (Topley, Rashid and Willey) and 2-3 bowlers very hit and miss, almost a lottery as to how many if any of the 6 will take a wicket, not be expensive and if any might turn in a match winning performance.

3+ wickets in a T20I

2 in 6 Willey
2 in 12 Jordan
1 in 6 Topley
0 in 8 Stokes (BB 2/24, 12 T20Is)
0 in 11 Ali (BB 2/22, 13 T20Is)
0 in 12 Rashid (BB 2/18, 13 T20Is)

Sure you can win T20Is without someone taking 3+ wickets, and it may be possible to win with bowlers taking only 1 wicket, but even their 2+ wickets count is weak on the whole - Willey 3, Jordan 3, Rashid 1, Ali 1, Stokes 1, Topley 1.

It is inexperienced relatively speaking, although you can't really argue that it is totally inexperienced or shouldn't be capable of better given Ali, Stokes and Jordan have ODIs and Test experience to boot as to a certain extent do the others. You have to question if it isn't quantity (of bowlers) over quality.
Rebelstar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th March 2016, 11:12   #162
Maty
Posting God
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Team(s): Derybshire
Age: 29
Posts: 13,305
Send a message via MSN to Maty
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chin Music View Post
Did England find out anything today that they didn't already know?

A firstly that one or two of our batsman are more than a little unreliable

B that our bowling is way off the standard needed.


In essence I think not. I didn't think 182 would be enough to keep Windies short unless they shot themselves in the foot.
I don't like to bring KP up yet again but he wasn't best pleased at Root assessing 180 as being a good score. Obviously you don't want to read to much into Root's comments, i notice he does seem to always go with a positive spin but there's little doubt that England were someway short. It was also interesting that Darren Sammy commented on England never really looking to move beyond 9 an over at any point.

Still as Sharky said there's little you can do when Gayle gets going like that.
Maty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th March 2016, 11:17   #163
Sir Virgs and Zamora
Posting God
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 18,738
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maty View Post
I don't like to bring KP up yet again but he wasn't best pleased at Root assessing 180 as being a good score. Obviously you don't want to read to much into Root's comments, i notice he does seem to always go with a positive spin but there's little doubt that England were someway short. It was interesting as well that Darren Sammy commented no England never really looking to move beyond 9 an over at any point.
Fair comments. It might have been different if jos had hit that pie for six rather than getting out but that would not have changed Roy and hales. I am starting to wonder whether Roy has any big shots apart from charging the bowler and mowing him over mid on/ cow corner. Obviously he has a decent slice over third man but does he have many other options?
Sir Virgs and Zamora is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th March 2016, 11:27   #164
geoff_boycotts_grandmother
Posting God
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 27,317
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricky_Rabbit View Post
If we had a Colly-esque player that can bat 6 and bowl 2-3 overs of wicket to wicket dobbers that would be ideal but we don't.
If only we had one who'd just been voted player of the tournament in the PSL.

(Although I'd bat him 7)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rebelstar View Post
But picking KP does seem rather like going back begging cap in hand when days weren't all that great with him in the side most of the time so I can kinda understand why the selectors have burned the bridge with no signs of reconstruction.
Other than of course the only time we won a World Cup.


Not wanting to go back cap in hand is also a strange concept. It's like we should do it but ego's getting in the way. And of course if there's one thing we hate it's ego.
__________________
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 17th March 2016, 11:54   #165
Jock McTuffnel v3
World Class
 
Jock McTuffnel v3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Cambridge
Team(s): England
Posts: 6,106
Darren Gough dismantled England's bowling approach in 5 mins on Talksport last night - basically we fed Gayle's key areas and should have been bowling wider of off stump.
__________________
Jock McTuffnel v3 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 17th March 2016, 11:56   #166
Chin Music
Administrator
 
Chin Music's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: la sala de opinion equivocada
Team(s): ****
Posts: 23,752
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maty View Post
I don't like to bring KP up yet again but he wasn't best pleased at Root assessing 180 as being a good score. Obviously you don't want to read to much into Root's comments, i notice he does seem to always go with a positive spin but there's little doubt that England were someway short. It was also interesting that Darren Sammy commented on England never really looking to move beyond 9 an over at any point.

Still as Sharky said there's little you can do when Gayle gets going like that.
Like Sir Virgs, I do think that the approach at various times through the innings seemed muddled. 180odd would have been okay if England had proven wicket-takers but they don't so there you go. Also there must be some scope for being more imaginative in using Willey for the last few overs when you can tell him to come in and swing. He's clearly a better late order player than several who are currently ahead of him in the line-up.

I like Stokes a lot but he got pummeled with the ball when his old mucker Samuels saluted his presence at the bowling crease by hitting him all over the place.
Chin Music is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th March 2016, 12:56   #167
CDogg16
Established International
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 4,000
Quote:
Originally Posted by geoff_boycotts_grandmother View Post
If only we had one who'd just been voted player of the tournament in the PSL.

(Although I'd bat him 7)
You say Taylor isn't dynamic enough for the one day side but want somebody with a strike rate of less than 100 in the T20 side.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rebelstar View Post


Stokes

T20Is (12) - 101 runs @ 14.43 (HS 31, SR 146.38) & 4 wkts @ 59.50 (ER 9.52)
ODIs (39) - 685 runs @ 21.41 (HS 70, SR 91.82) & 36 wkts @ 36.53 (ER 6.16)
Tests (23) - 1383 runs @ 33.73 & 57 wkts @ 38.07 (ER 3.52, SR 64.95)

I've included his batting purely because he needs to score runs as an all-rounder and with his current 'promoted' status into the upper order. But the main focus is on his bowling, pretty poor return in every format, not terrible in ODIs, but for a modest batting average (hence the inclusion) he does need to up his game in one skill or t'other.

And if you just look at economy in the LOIs, an ER of 9.52 equates to around 190 runs per T20I and in ODIs 6.16 to 308 which as an average total not including extras England would do well to win maybe 1/3 of the time at best.
Stokes' bowling in limited overs cricket is a liability. To take four wickets in twelve matches, going at nearly ten an over, shows he doesn't offer much with the ball. Is he one of best six T20 batsmen? I would argue no. How many games should a player be given in this format before you can say they aren't good enough. Robson and Lyth got seven Test matches before they were discarded. Maybe if we crash out at the group stage it might be looking at who is being picked on merit and who are getting in because of their name.
CDogg16 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th March 2016, 13:00   #168
Maty
Posting God
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Team(s): Derybshire
Age: 29
Posts: 13,305
Send a message via MSN to Maty
Why are we back to this one game a day model?

Part of the World T20's appeal was it's short and snappy nature but it seems the ICC is hell bent on dragging thr life out of every tournament.

Last edited by Maty : 17th March 2016 at 13:28.
Maty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th March 2016, 13:20   #169
Chin Music
Administrator
 
Chin Music's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: la sala de opinion equivocada
Team(s): ****
Posts: 23,752
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maty View Post
Why are we back to this one game a day model?

Psrt of the World T20s appeal was it's short and snappy nature but it seems the ICC is hell bent on dragging out every tournament.
I moaned about that at the start of thread. Very silly indeed. Anyway I can't watch the game today and will not see the first one tomorrow so I guess I won't get the overload.
Chin Music is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th March 2016, 13:31   #170
Psyduck
Posting God
 
Psyduck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Manchester
Team(s): England, Lancashire, Man Utd
Posts: 15,720
Credit to Chris Gayle for his performance yesterday - yes England's bowling was poor (and the dew didn't help) but when he hits his stride there is very little you can do.

It was a strange batting performance from England - contrary to their usual spiel they seemed content to get a par score on the board. Hales' innings was downright bizarre.

Hopefully Morgan will win the toss tomorrow as I think chasing at Mumbai is definitely the way to go. Lose and they're effectively out.
Psyduck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th March 2016, 13:57   #171
geoff_boycotts_grandmother
Posting God
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 27,317
Quote:
Originally Posted by CDogg16 View Post
You say Taylor isn't dynamic enough for the one day side but want somebody with a strike rate of less than 100 in the T20 side.
1. Your stats are wrong
2. I want him primarily for his bowling
__________________
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 17th March 2016, 14:27   #172
1000yardstare
Posting Goddess
 
1000yardstare's Avatar
JA 810 Wagner 118 TCurran 15 SCurran 0
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London
Posts: 20,405
Well if England want to say we bat all the way down to 10 or 11 they have to put up with bowlers who go at 8 or 9 an over. I don't think Bayliss/Farbrace are worried. Previously Bresnan 8.01 and Dernbach 8.72 were dropped because of their economy rate. Rankin 6.10 and Gurney 6.87 probably because of their fielding.

Jordan 8.58
Topley 9.23
Woakes 9.37
Willey 9.46
Stokes 9.52

The thing is that those 10/11 have to get more runs than normal to make up for the bowling.

We don't have Starc 6.72, Steyn 6.52, Bumrah 5.93, Cummins 6.69, Amir 6.92, Kumar 6.16. Even our spinners go at nearly 8.0. Swann 6.36 and Yardy 6.50.

The more games we lose the more the batsmen play with less freedom.
1000yardstare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th March 2016, 14:32   #173
Chin Music
Administrator
 
Chin Music's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: la sala de opinion equivocada
Team(s): ****
Posts: 23,752
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1000yardstare View Post
Well if England want to say we bat all the way down to 10 or 11 they have to put up with bowlers who go at 8 or 9 an over. I don't think Bayliss/Farbrace are worried. Previously Bresnan 8.01 and Dernbach 8.72 were dropped because of their economy rate. Rankin 6.10 and Gurney 6.87 probably because of their fielding.

Jordan 8.58
Topley 9.23
Woakes 9.37
Willey 9.46
Stokes 9.52

The thing is that those 10/11 have to get more runs than normal to make up for the bowling.

We don't have Starc 6.72, Steyn 6.52, Bumrah 5.93, Cummins 6.69, Amir 6.92, Kumar 6.16. Even our spinners go at nearly 8.0. Swann 6.36 and Yardy 6.50.

The more games we lose the more the batsmen play with less freedom.
Using e/r stats from a few years ago seem to be almost pointless because teams are starting to score bigger and bigger. That Dernbach seemingly has an almost acceptable e/r now is that he was playing at a time where he invariably seemed to be the worst bowler in the team.
Chin Music is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th March 2016, 14:40   #174
CDogg16
Established International
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 4,000
I could never understand why Gurney was dropped. He would be an asset in Indian conditions. In many ways he's a more polished version of Topley.
CDogg16 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th March 2016, 14:54   #175
cabinboy
Posting God
 
cabinboy's Avatar
Do Gooder
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 13,186
England can't expect to win if they don't pick their one and only superstar.
cabinboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th March 2016, 15:12   #176
1000yardstare
Posting Goddess
 
1000yardstare's Avatar
JA 810 Wagner 118 TCurran 15 SCurran 0
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London
Posts: 20,405
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chin Music View Post
Using e/r stats from a few years ago seem to be almost pointless because teams are starting to score bigger and bigger. That Dernbach seemingly has an almost acceptable e/r now is that he was playing at a time where he invariably seemed to be the worst bowler in the team.
From 2015 5+ matches

Rahman 5.61, Kumar 6.05, Rabada 7.52, Bumrah 5.93, Milne 6.37, Irfan 6.61, Amir 6.70.

Batsmen will pick their bowlers to get runs from.
Dernbach was still a wicket taker with a s/r of 18, the same as Broad.
1000yardstare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th March 2016, 15:18   #177
Chin Music
Administrator
 
Chin Music's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: la sala de opinion equivocada
Team(s): ****
Posts: 23,752
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1000yardstare View Post
From 2015 5+ matches

Rahman 5.61, Kumar 6.05, Rabada 7.52, Bumrah 5.93, Milne 6.37, Irfan 6.61, Amir 6.70.

Batsmen will pick their bowlers to get runs from.
Dernbach was still a wicket taker with a s/r of 18, the same as Broad.
Yet we have a selection of England bowling stats from the newer players this year and they just don't stack up, and I actually believe that Finn's injury and possibly Broad apart there really isn't anyone that we've left at home who would improve things. There are always going to be exceptions to the rule like the ones you have stated.
Chin Music is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th March 2016, 15:22   #178
Sir Virgs and Zamora
Posting God
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 18,738
Quote:
Originally Posted by cabinboy View Post
England can't expect to win if they don't pick their one and only superstar.
FYI kieswetter suffered an unfortunate injury so he is not available.
Sir Virgs and Zamora is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th March 2016, 15:24   #179
cabinboy
Posting God
 
cabinboy's Avatar
Do Gooder
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 13,186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Virgs and Zamora View Post
FYI kieswetter suffered an unfortunate injury so he is not available.
Ho ho.

Still doesn't disguise the fact that England's faults are all of it's own making.
cabinboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th March 2016, 15:37   #180
blackeyedangles
County 1st Team
 
blackeyedangles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 410
here's an interesting question: what is Hales' role in the side?

I always thought that the blueprint for a good England innings batting first (and you know such a thing exists) is that Hales and Roy get us off to a flying start, then Root and Morgan come in and play the anchor role (inasmuch as you can have an anchor in T20) while the big hitters hit around them. But others have argued that Hales is supposed to stay there until the end while everyone else (including Roy, Root, Morgan etc) bats around him.

I don't think that's wise. In T20 wickets are a resource you should be more willing to trade for runs. Seeing Stokes, Ali etc. come in with an over or so to go just makes you feel like we didn't make the best use of our resources. It felt like the team were afraid of a collapse at least initially...
blackeyedangles 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 00:44.



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