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 30th December 2015, 11:43   #741
Jock McTuffnel v3
World Class
 
Jock McTuffnel v3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Cambridge
Team(s): England
Posts: 6,628
Quote:
Originally Posted by Notts Exile View Post
Moeen MoM? Bizarre. Doubt a bowler has ever gained that award having taken so few top order wickets. Completely undeserved. Compton was far more deserving. Even Taylor. Or Edgar.
A pitch described as a " snake pit" by Swanny and only 3 lower order wickets to spin in the 4th innings.
__________________
Jock McTuffnel v3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th December 2015, 11:47   #742
1000yardstare
Posting Goddess
 
1000yardstare's Avatar
JA 830 Cummins 149 Wagner 147 TCurran 21 SCurran 9
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: London
Posts: 20,866
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rebelstar View Post
He should consider himself lucky to have been so critical then, and still now, regardless of what management did right or wrong he should STFU and get on with it.

Actions speak louder than words yet he's still mouthing off..............



I agree. I'm trying a MOTM points system just out of interest, 2 points for a major/key contribution that is either a big/decisive score, or key/top order wickets, and 1 point for supporting wickets.

That puts 18 efforts on the board, 7 Englanders and 4 saffers :

3 Compton, Taylor, Bairstow, Elgar, Broad
2 Ali, Root, Finn, Steyn, De Villiers, Piedt

Compton and Taylor's batting, and in partnership, was key to England reaching 300 which paved the way for taking the important 1st innings lead for which they get 2 each, as does Steyn for his bowling efforts.

Bairstow and Broad get a point apiece for their batting, Bairstow making 41 when England were 196/5 and Broad helping add (50) extra runs.

Elgar obviously carrying his bat scored over half the saffer runs, De Villiers gets a point for making 49. Broad gets 2 points for taking out the only 3 of the top 4 to be dismissed, might seem a tad harsh but Ali gets just 1 point for his 4/69 as only 1 was of the top six and 3 were taken after the saffers were already 5 down.

Compton and Taylor get a point apiece for their 2nd innings efforts, Root and Bairstow 2 apiece although England were comfortable before Bairstow even came to the crease - but 129 runs were added whilst he was at the crease giving the cushion England ended up with. Piedt has to get 2 points for his 5wi, especially given 4 were top six - he took more top order than Ali, just not quite more wickets.

And last up Finn gets 2 for his 3 top order wickets, Moen a point for his efforts, whilst Elgar and De Villiers showed about as much resistance as was shown - could argue a point for Van Zyl and Duminy, although Duminy was left stranded thanks to the consequences of playing the nightwatchman (shifts capable batsmen down the order and rarely achieves a lot)




Personally I'd have given it to Compton, he occupied the crease whilst 244 of England's 303 runs were added 1st innings, that's more than 'carry my bat' Elgar did, and stayed their whilst 106 runs were added 2nd innings, 350 runs scored whilst he batted which is more than half England's runs.

Besides, England bowled South Africa for around 200 or less both innings, the main instigaters were different in each innings (Broad and Finn) whilst neither side scored over 350 so I think batting contributions have to be considered over a bowler unless one bowler stood out - which they didn't

Wickets taken

7 Ali
6 Finn, Piedt
5 Broad, Morkel
4 Steyn
3 Van Zyl
2 Abbott
1 Stokes, Woakes

Ali edging in front, but I think 8+ would need to have been taken by a bowler or say taken out 3 of the top 4-5 wickets both innings or something. Had he scored a few more runs to boot maybe I could go with Ali, but 0 and 16 and supporting rather than leading wickets I'd have plumped for a batsman
The wicket of de Villiers today was very important. He could have held on with someone at the other end.
1000yardstare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th December 2015, 11:49   #743
Sir Virgs and Zamora
Posting God
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,416
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jock McTuffnel v3 View Post
A pitch described as a " snake pit" by Swanny and only 3 lower order wickets to spin in the 4th innings.
What was moeen's strike rate in this match compared to a bowler you described as "potent"

It must be horrible for you to see England win with Moeen mom.

Odd you celebrated Lyon for taking lower order wickets And criticised Moeen for fewer wickets even though tended to be top order in the ashes. Oh well.
Sir Virgs and Zamora is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th December 2015, 11:52   #744
Fatslogger
Self Confessed Mentalist
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hitchin
Team(s): England and Liverpool
Age: 42
Posts: 43,375
Quote:
Originally Posted by cabinboy View Post
I would have given MOM to Broad, think it had to be a bowler and his first innings spells were world class, knocked over the top order and set up the platform to win.
Tough one this. I think I agree, given how prime the first innings wickets Broad took were and how cheap, plus a very useful first innings knock to get England above 300 helps his case. England won the game in the first innings, I would say. Perfectly decent cases can be made for the excellent Moeen and Compton too though.

Interesting that England won so comfortably with only one of their four really top class players performing, with Anderson injured, Cook scoring nothing and Root only contributing a moderately good second innings score having failed first dig. Great team effort.
__________________
Work is the curse of the drinking classes - Wilde
Fatslogger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th December 2015, 11:55   #745
Sir Virgs and Zamora
Posting God
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,416
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fatslogger View Post
As mentioned, Steyn, Amla and AB all did despite not being nearly the players they've subsequently become. Morkel would have been in too, yes.

For England, Root for Butch / Key, Broad for Harmison (who was on the slide by then, although went in to the series as a monster of a bowler) or Jones (who only reached the level of exceptional performance we remember him for in the 2005 Ashes series). Not sure how you get Cook in, possibly at 3 as hard to say he's better than Tres, let alone new to the side scoring tons all over the place Strauss, although then where does Root fit in? Would Anderson displace Hoggard? Ali for Giles?

Don't think it's just misty eyed reminiscence making me think that those two sides leave the current two looking very feeble by comparison. While you could argue that the career records of many of the England players weren't amazing, most of the line up were in prime form around then:

Tres
Strauss
Butcher (Key replaced him after injury and neither ever played again after that tour)
Vaughan
Thorpe
Flintoff
Jones
Giles
Hoggard
Jones
Harmison
Cook and root both play. In fact I would only have Fred for stokes otherwise 5 bowlers would be Finn, Jimmy, broad and Moeen. Bairstow over gojo.
Sir Virgs and Zamora is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th December 2015, 11:55   #746
Fatslogger
Self Confessed Mentalist
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hitchin
Team(s): England and Liverpool
Age: 42
Posts: 43,375
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jock McTuffnel v3 View Post
A pitch described as a " snake pit" by Swanny and only 3 lower order wickets to spin in the 4th innings.
You're describing AB and Bavuma as lower order wickets? I think you need to take a long hard look at yourself Jock. Some of the criticisms of Moeen you've raised over time are legit, although we still don't have anyone better but you're reaching the point of absurdity now.
__________________
Work is the curse of the drinking classes - Wilde
Fatslogger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th December 2015, 12:08   #747
stevieh
Administrator
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Team(s): England, Kent, Canada
Posts: 7,037
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Virgs and Zamora View Post
Yet another match without a five wicket haul for Mo. Drop him.
It gets tough for anyone to take five wickets when you have a balanced five bowler attack.
stevieh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th December 2015, 12:12   #748
Fatslogger
Self Confessed Mentalist
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hitchin
Team(s): England and Liverpool
Age: 42
Posts: 43,375
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Virgs and Zamora View Post
Cook and root both play. In fact I would only have Fred for stokes otherwise 5 bowlers would be Finn, Jimmy, broad and Moeen. Bairstow over gojo.
Don't agree about the bowling, although of course it depends on which point of the bowlers' careers you're judging them on so it's easy to make a case either way. Which batsmen are making way for Cook and Root?
__________________
Work is the curse of the drinking classes - Wilde
Fatslogger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th December 2015, 12:15   #749
mustardcharlie
Established International
 
mustardcharlie's Avatar
You know there ain't no devil: It's just God when he's drun
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bedfordshire
Team(s): Yorkshire, England, LUFC, Otley RFC.
Age: 66
Posts: 4,789
Was looking forward to chatting online but my internet connection has been rubbish since the weekend. I've only had radio so it's hard to comment about MoM. I don't remember them ever giving it to a member of the losing side so that rules out the Saffers eg Elgar. I thought Bairstow might get it but the missed stumping probably cost him. On reflection Moeen was probably the right choice. We can't gripe about his wickets mostly being tailenders. How often have England rattled out the tail in the last few years? Overall it was great to see England win convincingly without any scares for once?
__________________
Answers 3d
Answers (requiring thought) 6d
Answers (correct) 1s
mustardcharlie is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 30th December 2015, 12:21   #750
Chin Music
Administrator
 
Chin Music's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: la sala de opinion equivocada
Team(s): ****
Posts: 24,208
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fatslogger View Post
Don't agree about the bowling, although of course it depends on which point of the bowlers' careers you're judging them on so it's easy to make a case either way. Which batsmen are making way for Cook and Root?
In this notional team I don't see that I'd have replace Tresco and Strauss from the 2004/5 series. The latter was breathtakingly good that series and the former was very good too and allowed us more impetus up top. You could argue that a Thorpe being on the wane that series Root and that Cook could have batted at first drop instead of Butcher.

I think that is what you are suggesting too.
__________________
Quote:
"One of the greatest problems of our time is that many are schooled but few are educated" - Thomas More
Chin Music is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 30th December 2015, 12:25   #751
Zebroston Chase
Not Lara or Chanderpaul but the best you've got
 
Zebroston Chase's Avatar
When Hope is gone, I will appear.
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Glasgow
Team(s): AFC Hornchurch, Essex, England
Age: 34
Posts: 18,509
Hoggy over everyone.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by High Druid Nathan Barley View Post
I'm fully aware of his thinking, which merely underlines the point that he's an idiot.
Zebroston Chase is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th December 2015, 12:26   #752
Sir Virgs and Zamora
Posting God
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,416
Unless the side was being picked on 2003 (or was it 2002) then Vaughan would go for either of them. As would butcher and Thorpe was also on the decline.
Sir Virgs and Zamora is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th December 2015, 12:35   #753
stevieh
Administrator
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Team(s): England, Kent, Canada
Posts: 7,037
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jock McTuffnel v3 View Post
A pitch described as a " snake pit" by Swanny and only 3 lower order wickets to spin in the 4th innings.
Eh? He bagged ABdV didn't he?
stevieh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th December 2015, 12:39   #754
Psyduck
Posting God
 
Psyduck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Manchester
Team(s): England, Lancashire, Man Utd
Posts: 16,149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rebelstar View Post
He should consider himself lucky to have been so critical then, and still now, regardless of what management did right or wrong he should STFU and get on with it.

Actions speak louder than words yet he's still mouthing off..............



I agree. I'm trying a MOTM points system just out of interest, 2 points for a major/key contribution that is either a big/decisive score, or key/top order wickets, and 1 point for supporting wickets.

That puts 18 efforts on the board, 7 Englanders and 4 saffers :

3 Compton, Taylor, Bairstow, Elgar, Broad
2 Ali, Root, Finn, Steyn, De Villiers, Piedt

Compton and Taylor's batting, and in partnership, was key to England reaching 300 which paved the way for taking the important 1st innings lead for which they get 2 each, as does Steyn for his bowling efforts.

Bairstow and Broad get a point apiece for their batting, Bairstow making 41 when England were 196/5 and Broad helping add (50) extra runs.

Elgar obviously carrying his bat scored over half the saffer runs, De Villiers gets a point for making 49. Broad gets 2 points for taking out the only 3 of the top 4 to be dismissed, might seem a tad harsh but Ali gets just 1 point for his 4/69 as only 1 was of the top six and 3 were taken after the saffers were already 5 down.

Compton and Taylor get a point apiece for their 2nd innings efforts, Root and Bairstow 2 apiece although England were comfortable before Bairstow even came to the crease - but 129 runs were added whilst he was at the crease giving the cushion England ended up with. Piedt has to get 2 points for his 5wi, especially given 4 were top six - he took more top order than Ali, just not quite more wickets.

And last up Finn gets 2 for his 3 top order wickets, Moen a point for his efforts, whilst Elgar and De Villiers showed about as much resistance as was shown - could argue a point for Van Zyl and Duminy, although Duminy was left stranded thanks to the consequences of playing the nightwatchman (shifts capable batsmen down the order and rarely achieves a lot)




Personally I'd have given it to Compton, he occupied the crease whilst 244 of England's 303 runs were added 1st innings, that's more than 'carry my bat' Elgar did, and stayed their whilst 106 runs were added 2nd innings, 350 runs scored whilst he batted which is more than half England's runs.

Besides, England bowled South Africa for around 200 or less both innings, the main instigaters were different in each innings (Broad and Finn) whilst neither side scored over 350 so I think batting contributions have to be considered over a bowler unless one bowler stood out - which they didn't

Wickets taken

7 Ali
6 Finn, Piedt
5 Broad, Morkel
4 Steyn
3 Van Zyl
2 Abbott
1 Stokes, Woakes

Ali edging in front, but I think 8+ would need to have been taken by a bowler or say taken out 3 of the top 4-5 wickets both innings or something. Had he scored a few more runs to boot maybe I could go with Ali, but 0 and 16 and supporting rather than leading wickets I'd have plumped for a batsman
Are there any actual parameters around this MOTM "system" or is it just your opinions masquerading as statistics?
Psyduck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th December 2015, 12:45   #755
Psyduck
Posting God
 
Psyduck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Manchester
Team(s): England, Lancashire, Man Utd
Posts: 16,149
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevieh View Post
Eh? He bagged ABdV didn't he?
And Bavuma, to go with Du Plessis and Duminy in the first innings. Perhaps Jock is concerned about the lack of wickets Moeen is taking with the new ball.
Psyduck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th December 2015, 12:47   #756
Ali TT
Posting God
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 18,806
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rebelstar View Post
He should consider himself lucky to have been so critical then, and still now, regardless of what management did right or wrong he should STFU and get on with it.

Actions speak louder than words yet he's still mouthing off..............



I agree. I'm trying a MOTM points system just out of interest, 2 points for a major/key contribution that is either a big/decisive score, or key/top order wickets, and 1 point for supporting wickets.

That puts 18 efforts on the board, 7 Englanders and 4 saffers :

3 Compton, Taylor, Bairstow, Elgar, Broad
2 Ali, Root, Finn, Steyn, De Villiers, Piedt

Compton and Taylor's batting, and in partnership, was key to England reaching 300 which paved the way for taking the important 1st innings lead for which they get 2 each, as does Steyn for his bowling efforts.

Bairstow and Broad get a point apiece for their batting, Bairstow making 41 when England were 196/5 and Broad helping add (50) extra runs.

Elgar obviously carrying his bat scored over half the saffer runs, De Villiers gets a point for making 49. Broad gets 2 points for taking out the only 3 of the top 4 to be dismissed, might seem a tad harsh but Ali gets just 1 point for his 4/69 as only 1 was of the top six and 3 were taken after the saffers were already 5 down.

Compton and Taylor get a point apiece for their 2nd innings efforts, Root and Bairstow 2 apiece although England were comfortable before Bairstow even came to the crease - but 129 runs were added whilst he was at the crease giving the cushion England ended up with. Piedt has to get 2 points for his 5wi, especially given 4 were top six - he took more top order than Ali, just not quite more wickets.

And last up Finn gets 2 for his 3 top order wickets, Moen a point for his efforts, whilst Elgar and De Villiers showed about as much resistance as was shown - could argue a point for Van Zyl and Duminy, although Duminy was left stranded thanks to the consequences of playing the nightwatchman (shifts capable batsmen down the order and rarely achieves a lot)




Personally I'd have given it to Compton, he occupied the crease whilst 244 of England's 303 runs were added 1st innings, that's more than 'carry my bat' Elgar did, and stayed their whilst 106 runs were added 2nd innings, 350 runs scored whilst he batted which is more than half England's runs.

Besides, England bowled South Africa for around 200 or less both innings, the main instigaters were different in each innings (Broad and Finn) whilst neither side scored over 350 so I think batting contributions have to be considered over a bowler unless one bowler stood out - which they didn't

Wickets taken

7 Ali
6 Finn, Piedt
5 Broad, Morkel
4 Steyn
3 Van Zyl
2 Abbott
1 Stokes, Woakes

Ali edging in front, but I think 8+ would need to have been taken by a bowler or say taken out 3 of the top 4-5 wickets both innings or something. Had he scored a few more runs to boot maybe I could go with Ali, but 0 and 16 and supporting rather than leading wickets I'd have plumped for a batsman
Hmm...
__________________
WARNING
Reading the above post may cause bouts of nausea.
Ali TT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th December 2015, 13:04   #757
1000yardstare
Posting Goddess
 
1000yardstare's Avatar
JA 830 Cummins 149 Wagner 147 TCurran 21 SCurran 9
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: London
Posts: 20,866
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Virgs and Zamora View Post
South Africa have not had a century stand all year. That is staggering.

I was having a shower so missed it but did TMS give some stats for Moeen in the fourth innings. We have discussed whether he has actually bowled much in fourth innings let alone on day five. It would be interesting to know.
Ali 95.5 overs 14 wickets at 21.21 econ 3.09 s/r 41.0 (6 Tests)
Swann 401.3 40 wickets at 27.52 econ 2.74 s/r 60.2 (19 Tests)
1000yardstare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th December 2015, 13:17   #758
Notts Exile
International Cricketer
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Berkshire
Team(s): Notts and Forest
Posts: 2,387
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1000yardstare View Post
Ali 95.5 overs 14 wickets at 21.21 econ 3.09 s/r 41.0 (6 Tests)
Swann 401.3 40 wickets at 27.52 econ 2.74 s/r 60.2 (19 Tests)
Who would you want though?

Test cricket is in trouble isn't it? The quality on view really isn't there and supporters in many countries are beginning to vote with their feet. Who wants to watch an average part time spinner gaining such figures? Who wants to watch supposedly decent batsmen constantly found out as soon as the ball moves a touch off the straight.
Notts Exile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th December 2015, 13:20   #759
geoff_boycotts_grandmother
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 27,880
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Virgs and Zamora View Post
How many from this current side would get in either of those two teams? The 04/05 side had boeta diepenaar (whose name I never could spell) so Amla could replace him. Possibly morkel to bowl.

Similar with the 09/10 side.
For a start I'd take the current de Villers and Steyn (non-injured) over their 2004/05 versions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rey View Post
Sir Virgs stock answer "Helps if you have the best all rounder of all time"
I'm not sure Flintoff is the best all-rounder of all-time, but his pwning of Kallis in the bowling all-rounder stakes (23 wickets at 24.95 v 4 wickets at 75.75) was basically the difference between the sides in that series.

(Hoggy was cancelled out by Ntini)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ali TT View Post
Genuinely can't share your optimism although not sure why. He bowls a good one, decent pace, easy action yet just seems to be completely non-threatening. Perhaps just a bit of bad luck to have not picked up more wickets and maybe he'll come good. I think he's only taken more than one wicket in an innings one in 8 test innings, is he the bowling equivalent of Marvin Attapattu and will eventually come good?

Yet the opposition scores in the last two years when he's played have been

174, 214, 94, 148, 161, 152, 178, 330 (in response to 569/7d)

And it's hardly minnow bashing as every single one of those has been against a side currently ranked higher than England (ie top 4).

So even if he's not currently taking wickets (and Bairstow dropping catches isn't helping), he seems to be exerting pressure or at least control. With Ali being an attacking spin option, I think Woakes' control forms an important part of the attack.

He's going to miss out in Cape Town and we'll see how England fare without him, but I think we may find ourselves needing to find a place for him somehow.

You description doesn't sound unlike Glenn McGrath in his early test career.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sanskritsimon View Post
Sounds to me like it was a massive failure of management coupled with a massive abuse of power by said management.
Can't expect that not to leave deep scars.
Credit to the guy for still wanting to play for England.
Thank goodness someone spoke out about it. Well, wrote about it in a book a lot of people dismissed as baseless.

Quote:
Originally Posted by slop View Post
They humped the West Indies at the start of the year. Everyone took loads or runs and wickets and looked great. Kinda like Aus just did. How did Aus do against England?
What's amazing is that England failed against the WIndies earlier this year. Like England managed to lose at home to Sri Lanka last year and look how NZ thumped them. The Peter Moores era feels like a distant nightmare but was only 7 months ago.

We've had five coaches in the last 15 years and have been competitive outside of Australia and UAE for all of it except the two spells of Moores when we were dire. If only someone had spoken out about it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cabinboy View Post
I would have given MOM to Broad, think it had to be a bowler and his first innings spells were world class, knocked over the top order and set up the platform to win.
Agreed.
__________________
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 30th December 2015, 13:30   #760
Midnight
Legendary
 
Midnight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Melbourne
Team(s): Australia
Posts: 8,112
Quote:
Originally Posted by slop View Post
They humped the West Indies at the start of the year. Everyone took loads or runs and wickets and looked great. Kinda like Aus just did. How did Aus do against England?

Sorry, carry on. I actually agree about the rest, especially regarding your man Smith's ability to get the team going.

I will concede that but the team was in a much richer vein of form then. Currently there is a confluence of factors affecting performance. It is hard to underestimate what might be the mental scars of the horrendous test series in India. Philander is missing, Steyn is hobbled by injury, Amla actually has to captain (the Windies didn't tax him), some key players are that little bit older and there is allegedly some dissent in the ranks regarding team selection which must impact on morale. Even the rumblings in the press might have unsettled things.
Midnight 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 20:01.



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