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 22nd April 2016, 10:43   #1001
Summer of '77
World Class
 
Summer of '77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: London-Essex
Team(s): Kent, Essex, Surrey Stars
Posts: 7,936
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Virgs and Zamora View Post
I don't remember robson's well. Was it chanceless of did he get lives like lyth? I remember lyth batting brilliantly but then seeming to lose the plot as he approached the ton.
D'you know, I can't for the life of me remember. I can't recall much at all about that SL series.
Summer of '77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd April 2016, 10:45   #1002
CDogg16
Established International
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 4,000
Quote:
Originally Posted by cabinboy View Post
And Vince at 3 seems a no brainer. He's the man in form, he's got youth on his side, he looks to have the ability and technique. Get him in.
Average (Runs Scored)

Robson 168 (337)
Cook 134 (268)
Bairstow 125 (251)
Bell 94 (188)
Lyth 63 (126)
Vince 55 (165)
Ballance 8 (16)

Apart from Ballance, Vince has the least impressive average of the England batsmen in action, so saying 'he's the man in form' is pushing it a bit.
CDogg16 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd April 2016, 12:17   #1003
geoff_boycotts_grandmother
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 27,538
Last year was a down year for him, but the two previous seasons Vince averaged over 60 in fc cricket.

Why wasn't he more of a candidate then?
__________________
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 22nd April 2016, 12:25   #1004
1000yardstare
Posting Goddess
 
1000yardstare's Avatar
JA 815 Cummins 149 Wagner 147 Curran 21
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: London
Posts: 20,592
Quote:
Originally Posted by geoff_boycotts_grandmother View Post
Last year was a down year for him, but the two previous seasons Vince averaged over 60 in fc cricket.

Why wasn't he more of a candidate then?
Because they hadn't seen him play 20/20s. Player of the Series against Pakistan.
1000yardstare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd April 2016, 12:34   #1005
geoff_boycotts_grandmother
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 27,538
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1000yardstare View Post
Because they hadn't seen him play 20/20s. Player of the Series against Pakistan.
He did play those T20s like tests.
__________________
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 22nd April 2016, 12:47   #1006
CDogg16
Established International
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 4,000
Quote:
Originally Posted by geoff_boycotts_grandmother View Post
He did play those T20s like tests.
41 (36)
38 (24)
46 (45)

Those scores really are Boycottesque. Would 6 off 2 balls have been better?

Quote:
Originally Posted by geoff_boycotts_grandmother View Post
Last year was a down year for him, but the two previous seasons Vince averaged over 60 in fc cricket.
Why wasn't he more of a candidate then?
That was in Division Two. The fact his average has dropped since moving up a division should be concerning, as he will be up against better bowlers still in Test cricket.

When he was in the runs Ballance was doing a stellar job at three, and Root and Bell were doing a good job at four and five. Unfortunately for Vince, when there have been chances to get in the side has form has gone off.
CDogg16 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd April 2016, 13:25   #1007
Sir Virgs and Zamora
Posting God
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 19,332
Quote:
Originally Posted by geoff_boycotts_grandmother View Post
He did play those T20s like tests.
A strike rate of 125 runs off 105 balls so sr 119 was good enough for us. A certain renowned fast scorer currently has 73 off 60 at 122 in ipl. I suppose that is acceptable?

Or alternatively is three matches not enough?
Sir Virgs and Zamora is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd April 2016, 13:47   #1008
Fatslogger
Self Confessed Mentalist
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hitchin
Team(s): England and Liverpool
Age: 42
Posts: 43,316
Will depend a bit on context but while 38 off 24 is a pretty useful T20 knock, the other two were poor. If you've got your eye in, scoring at only a little over a run a ball is feeble. It's only three games and with one decent innings I'd hardly be writing him off but neither would I be awarding any credit. He also did poorly against Afghanistan, of course.
__________________
Work is the curse of the drinking classes - Wilde
Fatslogger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd April 2016, 13:56   #1009
CDogg16
Established International
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 4,000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fatslogger View Post
Will depend a bit on context but while 38 off 24 is a pretty useful T20 knock, the other two were poor. If you've got your eye in, scoring at only a little over a run a ball is feeble. It's only three games and with one decent innings I'd hardly be writing him off but neither would I be awarding any credit. He also did poorly against Afghanistan, of course.
Strange that somebody who had two out of three knocks that were 'poor' was named man of the series. He will probably get over the fact you aren't giving him any credit as he was given credit by enough people to pick up his man of series award.
CDogg16 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd April 2016, 14:08   #1010
Sir Virgs and Zamora
Posting God
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 19,332
Quote:
Originally Posted by CDogg16 View Post
Strange that somebody who had two out of three knocks that were 'poor' was named man of the series. He will probably get over the fact you aren't giving him any credit as he was given credit by enough people to pick up his man of series award.
Quite. And it is good to see that one of only three batsmen (only specialist bat) to contribute anything worthwhile vs afghans is being written off. I had assumed this would happen re moeen but vince is the first victim.
Sir Virgs and Zamora is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd April 2016, 15:14   #1011
Ali TT
Posting God
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 17,833
So, Vince is or isn't an option for the test side over the English summer because he scored too quickly/slowly in three t20s in the UAE?
__________________
WARNING
Reading the above post may cause bouts of nausea.
Ali TT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd April 2016, 15:43   #1012
Sir Virgs and Zamora
Posting God
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 19,332
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ali TT View Post
So, Vince is or isn't an option for the test side over the English summer because he scored too quickly/slowly in three t20s in the UAE?
is. I thought that board members liked to champion players based on t20 and one first class innings?
Sir Virgs and Zamora is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd April 2016, 17:20   #1013
Fatslogger
Self Confessed Mentalist
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hitchin
Team(s): England and Liverpool
Age: 42
Posts: 43,316
Quote:
Originally Posted by CDogg16 View Post
Strange that somebody who had two out of three knocks that were 'poor' was named man of the series. He will probably get over the fact you aren't giving him any credit as he was given credit by enough people to pick up his man of series award.
Do you have any meaningful arguments of your own on the topic?

If it had been a consistently low scoring series the decision might have been right and he did at least contribute one really good innings but anyone who pays sensible amounts of attention to T20 knows that you need to be a good way over a run a ball to have produced a passable innings, on anything that isn't a dog of a track. Anyone can get out early but taking up around 40 balls getting around 45 runs remains poor, irrespective of whether man of the series adjudicators realise that. Perhaps one of them was Nick Knight.

Also lol at 22 off 18 getting any credit (that other batsmen did worse didn't make Vince good) and saying that Vince is being written off, when nobody has done any writing off and I'd specifically said I wasn't writing him off. A pretty blatant straw man job even by your standards, SVaZ.
__________________
Work is the curse of the drinking classes - Wilde
Fatslogger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd April 2016, 17:24   #1014
CDogg16
Established International
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 4,000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fatslogger View Post
Do you have any meaningful arguments of your own on the topic?

If it had been a consistently low scoring series the decision might have been right and he did at least contribute one really good innings but anyone who pays sensible amounts of attention to T20 knows that you need to be a good way over a run a ball to have produced a passable innings, on anything that isn't a dog of a track. Anyone can get out early but taking up around 40 balls getting around 45 runs remains poor, irrespective of whether man of the series adjudicators realise that. Perhaps one of them was Nick Knight.
I don't know who decides who man of the series is, but they usually get it right. Vince consistently gave England a solid base for the big hitters to play around. The pitches weren't a batsmen paradise. Give credit where it's due.

Quote:
Also lol at 22 off 18 getting any credit (that other batsmen did worse didn't make Vince good) and saying that Vince is being written off, when nobody has done any writing off and I'd specifically said I wasn't writing him off. A pretty blatant straw man job even by your standards, SVaZ.
It was crucial. Without it England would have been in an even bigger mess.
CDogg16 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd April 2016, 17:41   #1015
Fatslogger
Self Confessed Mentalist
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hitchin
Team(s): England and Liverpool
Age: 42
Posts: 43,316
Quote:
Originally Posted by CDogg16 View Post
I don't know who decides who man of the series is, but they usually get it right. Vince consistently gave England a solid base for the big hitters to play around. The pitches weren't a batsmen paradise. Give credit where it's due.
Giving credit where it's not due is exactly what I'm avoiding. I'll give you that it was against a decent attack on not entirely flat tracks and that both of his slow innings came when England lost early wickets (one where wickets kept falling and he did need to hold the innings together) but England had batting all the way down and didn't need a road block to a bigger score in the first game. That they won both games, one after a super over, was hardly down to Vince scoring at well below the match rate for either side. It was, in fact, in the first match, in spite of him doing so.

Quote:
It was crucial. Without it England would have been in an even bigger mess.
Yes, this kind of giving credit where it's not due is exactly what I'm avoiding. He got 22 off 18 and that wasn't a difficult track or a decent attack, just a terrible, terrible batting performance from England's top order.
__________________
Work is the curse of the drinking classes - Wilde
Fatslogger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd April 2016, 17:53   #1016
CDogg16
Established International
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 4,000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fatslogger View Post
Giving credit where it's not due is exactly what I'm avoiding. I'll give you that it was against a decent attack on not entirely flat tracks and that both of his slow innings came when England lost early wickets (one where wickets kept falling and he did need to hold the innings together) but England had batting all the way down and didn't need a road block to a bigger score in the first game. That they won both games, one after a super over, was hardly down to Vince scoring at well below the match rate for either side. It was, in fact, in the first match, in spite of him doing so.
It wasn't all down to Vince but he was the most consistent performer throughout the series. Not that any of this has anything to do with him getting a Test call up.
CDogg16 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd April 2016, 01:15   #1017
1000yardstare
Posting Goddess
 
1000yardstare's Avatar
JA 815 Cummins 149 Wagner 147 Curran 21
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: London
Posts: 20,592
Mail

Trevor Bayliss mooted the possibility of a return to three for Root at the end of Englandís Test series win in South Africa because thatís where he likes his best batsman to play and the move could be made in a planned batting shake-up.

Yet it would clearly meet with resistance from Root who has had the bulk of his success in the middle order, averaging 73.13 at five in Test cricket and 54.63 in his current position of four. Those world-class figures drop to 32.83 at three.
1000yardstare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd April 2016, 09:50   #1018
Michelle Fivefer
Posting Goddess
 
Michelle Fivefer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: North West England
Team(s): England, Lancashire
Posts: 42,087
How daft to say that the best batsman should play at three. Sometimes the best batsman might be an opener; KP batted at 4 or 5. It's a matter of being really good in the position which best suits the individual. The #3 has to be good, obviously, but is it Root? Or is it that Bayliss despairs of finding anyone else for that position?
__________________
As balanced and focused as the next man
Michelle Fivefer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd April 2016, 10:36   #1019
Redmachine
International Material
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 1,188
Right, I've finally made my mind up in what I'd like the top 7 to be:

1. Cook
2. Hales
3. Vince
4. Root
5. Ballance
6. Stokes
7. Bairstow

It's young. It gives Hales another go. We'd be able to continue without new brand of cricket with attacking cricketers.

I was tempted to swap Hales for Robson, but I agree with people I here who think Hales deserves some home tests to prove himself.
Redmachine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd April 2016, 10:36   #1020
sharky
Posting God
 
sharky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Sunny Sussex
Team(s): Sussex, England
Posts: 10,617
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michelle Fivefer View Post
How daft to say that the best batsman should play at three. Sometimes the best batsman might be an opener; KP batted at 4 or 5. It's a matter of being really good in the position which best suits the individual. The #3 has to be good, obviously, but is it Root? Or is it that Bayliss despairs of finding anyone else for that position?
I wouldn't take anything said in the Mail so seriously. They also think Browne will be opening in the Test series. It seems logical that Root may eventually move up to 3 if the other batsmen available are better off in the middle order. The fact that Root has yet to bat at 3 under Bayliss indicates that he doesn't actually think the best batsman has to bat there.
__________________
She was like a candle in the wind...Unreliable
sharky 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 06:04.



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