Cricket fred

User avatar
Stom
Posts: 4416
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 10:57 am

Re: Cricket fred

Postby Stom » Tue Jul 28, 2020 3:18 pm

Banquo wrote:Woakes giving selectors a good problem to have.


I'm not sure he has, tbh. He's always been a superb bowler when it's overcast in England. But as soon as you put him in a dry, sunny Aussie pitch, his average almost doubles.

I'm not so sure Archer is right yet, though, either. I mean, he has some wonderful disguised variations - perfect for short form cricket - but he goes for a lot of runs and doesn't seem to have the same ability to keep the pressure on that the best bowlers do.

I think he needs to do a lot of work before he's up to the standard we need, tbh. And I'm a big Wood fan, even though he's a bit of a one trick pony, he does that one trick well.

User avatar
Galfon
Posts: 5663
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 8:07 pm

Re: Cricket fred

Postby Galfon » Tue Jul 28, 2020 3:22 pm

Banquo wrote:It was a technical issue with Broad, which he sorted.

maybe some of it, he was slowly becoming just 'good' and not as good as jimmy, or reliable with bat as Woakes.New real quickies arrived.. he has made his mark again and big plus for the squad.

Banquo
Posts: 12593
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:52 pm

Re: Cricket fred

Postby Banquo » Tue Jul 28, 2020 10:53 pm

Galfon wrote:
Banquo wrote:It was a technical issue with Broad, which he sorted.

maybe some of it, he was slowly becoming just 'good' and not as good as jimmy, or reliable with bat as Woakes.New real quickies arrived.. he has made his mark again and big plus for the squad.

No, it was a genuine issue- he changed to bowling cutters, and that changed his technique and he had to reverse out of that and rediscover his wrist action.

Banquo
Posts: 12593
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:52 pm

Re: Cricket fred

Postby Banquo » Tue Jul 28, 2020 10:56 pm

Stom wrote:
Banquo wrote:Woakes giving selectors a good problem to have.


I'm not sure he has, tbh. He's always been a superb bowler when it's overcast in England. But as soon as you put him in a dry, sunny Aussie pitch, his average almost doubles.

I'm not so sure Archer is right yet, though, either. I mean, he has some wonderful disguised variations - perfect for short form cricket - but he goes for a lot of runs and doesn't seem to have the same ability to keep the pressure on that the best bowlers do.

I think he needs to do a lot of work before he's up to the standard we need, tbh. And I'm a big Wood fan, even though he's a bit of a one trick pony, he does that one trick well.

So its a good problem to have when selecting a side to play in England, nicht wahr.....which is the immediate question. If Stokes can bowl, who do you leave out of the next home tests v Pakistan? Archer....even though with nurturing and more red ball cricket he would be a big threat in Oz? I suspect others figures don't look as clever abroad, either.

Big D
Posts: 4034
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:49 pm

Re: Cricket fred

Postby Big D » Tue Jul 28, 2020 11:17 pm

Banquo wrote:
Stom wrote:
Banquo wrote:Woakes giving selectors a good problem to have.


I'm not sure he has, tbh. He's always been a superb bowler when it's overcast in England. But as soon as you put him in a dry, sunny Aussie pitch, his average almost doubles.

I'm not so sure Archer is right yet, though, either. I mean, he has some wonderful disguised variations - perfect for short form cricket - but he goes for a lot of runs and doesn't seem to have the same ability to keep the pressure on that the best bowlers do.

I think he needs to do a lot of work before he's up to the standard we need, tbh. And I'm a big Wood fan, even though he's a bit of a one trick pony, he does that one trick well.

So its a good problem to have when selecting a side to play in England, nicht wahr.....which is the immediate question. If Stokes can bowl, who do you leave out of the next home tests v Pakistan? Archer....even though with nurturing and more red ball cricket he would be a big threat in Oz? I suspect others figures don't look as clever abroad, either.


Has to be Archer or Jimmy IMO depending on conditions. Anderson hasn't picked up any wickets in the second innings in this series but keeps it tight enough and Archer hasn't picked up many wickets full stop.

I'd drop Archer but not against dropping Jimmy as he is at that age where his past heroics don't necessarily indicate future performance.

User avatar
Puja
Posts: 9293
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 9:16 pm

Re: Cricket fred

Postby Puja » Tue Jul 28, 2020 11:22 pm

Big D wrote:
Banquo wrote:
Stom wrote:
I'm not sure he has, tbh. He's always been a superb bowler when it's overcast in England. But as soon as you put him in a dry, sunny Aussie pitch, his average almost doubles.

I'm not so sure Archer is right yet, though, either. I mean, he has some wonderful disguised variations - perfect for short form cricket - but he goes for a lot of runs and doesn't seem to have the same ability to keep the pressure on that the best bowlers do.

I think he needs to do a lot of work before he's up to the standard we need, tbh. And I'm a big Wood fan, even though he's a bit of a one trick pony, he does that one trick well.

So its a good problem to have when selecting a side to play in England, nicht wahr.....which is the immediate question. If Stokes can bowl, who do you leave out of the next home tests v Pakistan? Archer....even though with nurturing and more red ball cricket he would be a big threat in Oz? I suspect others figures don't look as clever abroad, either.


Has to be Archer or Jimmy IMO depending on conditions. Anderson hasn't picked up any wickets in the second innings in this series but keeps it tight enough and Archer hasn't picked up many wickets full stop.

I'd drop Archer but not against dropping Jimmy as he is at that age where his past heroics don't necessarily indicate future performance.


I'd agree on Jimmy, but for different reasoning. We want to eke as much out of Jimmy as we can and if that means playing him one test a series, I'm okay with that. I think Archer has to be invested in though - Woakes does the business in England, but we don't play all our games in England and I strongly suspect he would get laughed at on Australian pitches. Archer has the potential to be a real threat there.

Of course, base on this series, the obvious person to drop for the first test is Stuart Broad.

Puja
Backist Monk

User avatar
Galfon
Posts: 5663
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 8:07 pm

Re: Cricket fred

Postby Galfon » Wed Jul 29, 2020 12:10 am

Banquo wrote:No, it was a genuine issue- he changed to bowling cutters, and that changed his technique and he had to reverse out of that and rediscover his wrist action.

That means it was probably a mental issue, possibly borne from general grind and slog from a long and successful career - bowlers never forget arm/wrist/finger technique that brings dividend I would say, if anything learn new tricks along the way.
He looks alot sharper and fired up, maybe the rest helped.

Banquo
Posts: 12593
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:52 pm

Re: Cricket fred

Postby Banquo » Wed Jul 29, 2020 7:47 am

Galfon wrote:
Banquo wrote:No, it was a genuine issue- he changed to bowling cutters, and that changed his technique and he had to reverse out of that and rediscover his wrist action.

That means it was probably a mental issue, possibly borne from general grind and slog from a long and successful career - bowlers never forget arm/wrist/finger technique that brings dividend I would say, if anything learn new tricks along the way.
He looks alot sharper and fired up, maybe the rest helped.

He was our best bowler before the rest, statistically. It was described by Hussein as a technical issue- he learned a new trick, but it affected his action. Even high quality bowlers do lose their technique- see Gillespie.

Banquo
Posts: 12593
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:52 pm

Re: Cricket fred

Postby Banquo » Wed Jul 29, 2020 7:50 am

Puja wrote:
Big D wrote:
Banquo wrote:So its a good problem to have when selecting a side to play in England, nicht wahr.....which is the immediate question. If Stokes can bowl, who do you leave out of the next home tests v Pakistan? Archer....even though with nurturing and more red ball cricket he would be a big threat in Oz? I suspect others figures don't look as clever abroad, either.


Has to be Archer or Jimmy IMO depending on conditions. Anderson hasn't picked up any wickets in the second innings in this series but keeps it tight enough and Archer hasn't picked up many wickets full stop.

I'd drop Archer but not against dropping Jimmy as he is at that age where his past heroics don't necessarily indicate future performance.


I'd agree on Jimmy, but for different reasoning. We want to eke as much out of Jimmy as we can and if that means playing him one test a series, I'm okay with that. I think Archer has to be invested in though - Woakes does the business in England, but we don't play all our games in England and I strongly suspect he would get laughed at on Australian pitches. Archer has the potential to be a real threat there.

Of course, base on this series, the obvious person to drop for the first test is Stuart Broad.

Puja

Quite. But he does need some advice imo, and again, hasn't played much red ball cricket really.

User avatar
Stom
Posts: 4416
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 10:57 am

Re: Cricket fred

Postby Stom » Wed Jul 29, 2020 8:10 am

Banquo wrote:
Puja wrote:
Big D wrote:
Has to be Archer or Jimmy IMO depending on conditions. Anderson hasn't picked up any wickets in the second innings in this series but keeps it tight enough and Archer hasn't picked up many wickets full stop.

I'd drop Archer but not against dropping Jimmy as he is at that age where his past heroics don't necessarily indicate future performance.


I'd agree on Jimmy, but for different reasoning. We want to eke as much out of Jimmy as we can and if that means playing him one test a series, I'm okay with that. I think Archer has to be invested in though - Woakes does the business in England, but we don't play all our games in England and I strongly suspect he would get laughed at on Australian pitches. Archer has the potential to be a real threat there.

Of course, base on this series, the obvious person to drop for the first test is Stuart Broad.

Puja

Quite. But he does need some advice imo, and again, hasn't played much red ball cricket really.


I guess you’re right in that he needs to play red ball cricket, I just never like to see players learning their trade at the top level, he should be doing that in county cricket.

Banquo
Posts: 12593
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:52 pm

Re: Cricket fred

Postby Banquo » Wed Jul 29, 2020 8:19 am

Stom wrote:
Banquo wrote:
Puja wrote:
I'd agree on Jimmy, but for different reasoning. We want to eke as much out of Jimmy as we can and if that means playing him one test a series, I'm okay with that. I think Archer has to be invested in though - Woakes does the business in England, but we don't play all our games in England and I strongly suspect he would get laughed at on Australian pitches. Archer has the potential to be a real threat there.

Of course, base on this series, the obvious person to drop for the first test is Stuart Broad.

Puja

Quite. But he does need some advice imo, and again, hasn't played much red ball cricket really.


I guess you’re right in that he needs to play red ball cricket, I just never like to see players learning their trade at the top level, he should be doing that in county cricket.

Its certainly a problem- it also used to be where fast bowlers built up their stamina. But even Anderson has only played 250 f/c games, of which 153 are tests- Broad's are 225 and 140 respectively. Jofra's ratio is better :) but has still only played 38 f/c games...very respectable figures to be fair.

Banquo
Posts: 12593
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:52 pm

Re: Cricket fred

Postby Banquo » Sun Aug 02, 2020 9:52 am

Nice to see YJB in the runs. His ODI record is excellent- personally, I think he should give up keeping if he wants to get his test batting form back- that said, after 70 tests and an average of 34, maybe his time has gone, unless its replacing Buttler :lol:

User avatar
Mellsblue
Posts: 11402
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 7:58 am

Re: Cricket fred

Postby Mellsblue » Sun Aug 02, 2020 10:13 am

He’s test quality but needed to be a middle order batsman or not in the team. Not sure whether the moves around the batting order were him, selectors or a bit of both but it hasn’t helped him. From what I’ve heard and read, the desire to be wk stemmed from a lack of self belief that his batting alone was good enough to keep him in the team. If true, it obvs didn’t work out for him.

User avatar
Stom
Posts: 4416
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 10:57 am

Re: Cricket fred

Postby Stom » Sun Aug 02, 2020 10:26 am

Mellsblue wrote:He’s test quality but needed to be a middle order batsman or not in the team. Not sure whether the moves around the batting order were him, selectors or a bit of both but it hasn’t helped him. From what I’ve heard and read, the desire to be wk stemmed from a lack of self belief that his batting alone was good enough to keep him in the team. If true, it obvs didn’t work out for him.


He also developed a flaw in his game, was told to go away and work on it and came back with the same flaw. Remind you of another Yorkshire batsman who had a wonderful average fit a while before falling off a cliff?

User avatar
Mellsblue
Posts: 11402
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 7:58 am

Re: Cricket fred

Postby Mellsblue » Sun Aug 02, 2020 10:59 am

Stom wrote:
Mellsblue wrote:He’s test quality but needed to be a middle order batsman or not in the team. Not sure whether the moves around the batting order were him, selectors or a bit of both but it hasn’t helped him. From what I’ve heard and read, the desire to be wk stemmed from a lack of self belief that his batting alone was good enough to keep him in the team. If true, it obvs didn’t work out for him.


He also developed a flaw in his game, was told to go away and work on it and came back with the same flaw. Remind you of another Yorkshire batsman who had a wonderful average fit a while before falling off a cliff?

What was the flaw? Did it manifest whilst keeping?

Banquo
Posts: 12593
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:52 pm

Re: Cricket fred

Postby Banquo » Sun Aug 02, 2020 12:00 pm

Stom wrote:
Mellsblue wrote:He’s test quality but needed to be a middle order batsman or not in the team. Not sure whether the moves around the batting order were him, selectors or a bit of both but it hasn’t helped him. From what I’ve heard and read, the desire to be wk stemmed from a lack of self belief that his batting alone was good enough to keep him in the team. If true, it obvs didn’t work out for him.


He also developed a flaw in his game, was told to go away and work on it and came back with the same flaw. Remind you of another Yorkshire batsman who had a wonderful average fit a while before falling off a cliff?

He had previously fixed one flaw when rejected first time round, and came back with a new very successful technique; I think there is a different issue now. Its unlike Ballance, who just lost his bottle against pace. But I suspect YJB's time may have gone.

Banquo
Posts: 12593
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:52 pm

Re: Cricket fred

Postby Banquo » Mon Aug 03, 2020 2:44 pm

this shows selection dilemma well

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/53636915

Digby
Posts: 13805
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 11:17 am

Re: Cricket fred

Postby Digby » Mon Aug 03, 2020 3:02 pm

Best players Vs best team.

User avatar
Puja
Posts: 9293
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 9:16 pm

Re: Cricket fred

Postby Puja » Mon Aug 03, 2020 4:38 pm

Banquo wrote:this shows selection dilemma well

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/53636915


Very interesting point of the variety bringing better results out of the other bowlers. I wouldn't want to be the selector at the moment - some very tough calls.

Puja
Backist Monk

Banquo
Posts: 12593
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:52 pm

Re: Cricket fred

Postby Banquo » Mon Aug 03, 2020 5:59 pm

Puja wrote:
Banquo wrote:this shows selection dilemma well

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/53636915


Very interesting point of the variety bringing better results out of the other bowlers. I wouldn't want to be the selector at the moment - some very tough calls.

Puja

Just as having an accurate and dangerous bowler like Anderson brings results at the other end. Think I'd rather be a selector with these problems than a selector with no choices :)

Big D
Posts: 4034
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:49 pm

Re: Cricket fred

Postby Big D » Wed Aug 05, 2020 10:39 am

For me it is Broad plus one of Anderson and Woakes and one of Archer and Wood. With the caveat that Stokes is fit to bowl.

I respect Anderson a lot and half expect him to prove me wrong (good!) but in his last 20 innings he hasn't taken a wicket in 9 of them and has only taken more than one 7 times. In 20 innings the only 3 times Woakes chipped in with 0 were ones he bowled 10, 7 and 3 overs.

The time is coming where Root and the selectors will need to make a big decision.

Stokes not being fit to bowl is huge. Pressure on the batting line up.

Banquo
Posts: 12593
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:52 pm

Re: Cricket fred

Postby Banquo » Wed Aug 05, 2020 11:38 am

Still think Buttler at 6 is too high, as is Root at 3. Stokes being able to bowl or not makes a huge difference. Solid start from Pakistan.

User avatar
Stom
Posts: 4416
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 10:57 am

Re: Cricket fred

Postby Stom » Wed Aug 05, 2020 11:52 am

Banquo wrote:Still think Buttler at 6 is too high, as is Root at 3. Stokes being able to bowl or not makes a huge difference. Solid start from Pakistan.


They can perform in those roles if they apply themselves. I’m a bit more worried about the bowling attack being a little one paced with broad, Anderson and woakes together.

Banquo
Posts: 12593
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:52 pm

Re: Cricket fred

Postby Banquo » Wed Aug 05, 2020 11:55 am

Stom wrote:
Banquo wrote:Still think Buttler at 6 is too high, as is Root at 3. Stokes being able to bowl or not makes a huge difference. Solid start from Pakistan.


They can perform in those roles if they apply themselves. I’m a bit more worried about the bowling attack being a little one paced with broad, Anderson and woakes together.

They are the wrong places for them to bat; Pakistan also have a pretty tasty pace attack. Ill balanced unless Stokes bowls (also batting one place higher than ideal imo, though he has done Ok there :) :) ).

User avatar
Stom
Posts: 4416
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 10:57 am

Re: Cricket fred

Postby Stom » Wed Aug 05, 2020 12:04 pm

Also, when was the last England test where the commentators could not say:

England have bowled a little bit too short.

It’s a plague upon our bowlers.


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Banquo and 8 guests