The Cricket Thread

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Schad said:
As someone who only watches cricket occasionally...except in situations where you're running out the clock, would it be better for England if they let the Bairstows and Buttlers play in one-day mode even in Test cricket? The side features so many players who seem more comfortable thrashing away, and can't resist making bad shots here and there...perhaps you're better off having them make a quick 30-40 than a patient 20.
Click to expand...

The better option still would be someone who can make a patient (or otherwise) 120 than a patient 20.
 
st_brendy said:
The better option still would be someone who can make a patient (or otherwise) 120 than a patient 20.
Click to expand...

Definitely, but they've been cycling various people through looking for that consistent middle-order batsman for a good couple years now, and have not had much success finding one. Until such time as that person presents themselves, it might be better to play to the strengths of the players they do have.
 
The Ides of March said:
Or Essex declare, inviting Warwickshire to get quick runs to set Essex a target in their second innings. It has been done in the past, none more so than when Middlesex and Yorkshire connived on the last afternoon 4 years ago in a game that was drifting to a draw. Hopefully it doesn´t happen, a draw is the result leaving Essex 7 points adrift going into the last two rounds of matches.

For the last match, Somerset could well have the services of Leach. Maybe they´ll have his services for the Hampshire match.
Click to expand...
No way Warwickshire will risk losing this one, they could still face relegation don’t forget!
 
Schad said:
As someone who only watches cricket occasionally...except in situations where you're running out the clock, would it be better for England if they let the Bairstows and Buttlers play in one-day mode even in Test cricket? The side features so many players who seem more comfortable thrashing away, and can't resist making bad shots here and there...perhaps you're better off having them make a quick 30-40 than a patient 20.
Click to expand...
You have to factor in the fact that the red ball has completely different characteristics from the white ball used in ODI’s and T20. The red ball changes subtly throughout the 80 overs of its life, from a bright, hard bullet which swings and seams, to a softer, duller missile which can reverse swing. White balls just don’t vary as much as red balls, rarely swing, and certainly don’t reverse. They don’t seam off the pitch in the same way as red balls either.

You simply can’t expect a batsman to play the same way in Test cricket as they do in white ball cricket, because eventually they will get found out. What we saw at Headingley from Stokes was truly exceptional, a man well-versed in limited overs, but who is technically suitable for Tests. He took several hours to play himself in and then exploit an increasingly tiring and desperate fielding side. The likes of Roy, Buttler, and Morgan just can’t cut it in the longer format. Bairstow can, but has yet to show good form in this series.

What we need more than anything is more 4 day cricket at county level, so that players get more practice in that format. At the moment the financial rewards from bish-bash-bosh cricket are seducing the ECB away from the purer form of the game, to the cost of the Test side.
 
ChilcoSaint said:
You have to factor in the fact that the red ball has completely different characteristics from the white ball used in ODI’s and T20. The red ball changes subtly throughout the 80 overs of its life, from a bright, hard bullet which swings and seams, to a softer, duller missile which can reverse swing. White balls just don’t vary as much as red balls, rarely swing, and certainly don’t reverse. They don’t seam off the pitch in the same way as red balls either.

You simply can’t expect a batsman to play the same way in Test cricket as they do in white ball cricket, because eventually they will get found out. What we saw at Headingley from Stokes was truly exceptional, a man well-versed in limited overs, but who is technically suitable for Tests. He took several hours to play himself in and then exploit an increasingly tiring and desperate fielding side. The likes of Roy, Buttler, and Morgan just can’t cut it in the longer format. Bairstow can, but has yet to show good form in this series.

What we need more than anything is more 4 day cricket at county level, so that players get more practice in that format. At the moment the financial rewards from bish-bash-bosh cricket are seducing the ECB away from the purer form of the game, to the cost of the Test side.
Click to expand...
Agree with most of this except I would say Buttler is definitely able to play test cricket. Admittedly he hasn't had the greatest series but he has shown previously that he can get himself in and score. A test average of 33 is very similar to Bairstow's 35 after all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ChilcoSaint
MLsfc said:
Agree with most of this except I would say Buttler is definitely able to play test cricket. Admittedly he hasn't had the greatest series but he has shown previously that he can get himself in and score. A test average of 33 is very similar to Bairstow's 35 after all.
Click to expand...
Yes I agree about Buttler, but I was trying reverse psychology on his current innings!
 
Buttler's biggest problem is the six guys ahead of him.

I often hear the comparisons to Gilchrist, and I very much understand them. The damage Gilchrist would often do, in no time at all batting at 7, is absolutely something which Buttler has the ability to replicate. However Gilchrist was often coming in after the likes of Ponting, Clarke, Hayden, Langer, Waugh, Hussey etc had piled on the runs. So not only was Gilchrist often coming to the crease with no pressure, but also - more importantly - he was he was facing bowlers who had a number of overs in their legs already. They were tiring, wilting, and Gilchrist would come in and just squash them into the mud.

It wasn't Gilchrist's job to come in and rescue the innings for Australia (although he could do so).

Thanks to the top six, Buttler is more used to walking to the crease at 120-5 rather than 320-5. And that's when I question his place in the team, given that he plays as an out-and-out batsmen at number 7 (albeit he's up at 6 this match, because of Stokes' bowling fitness).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ronnie Hotdogs (MLsfc)
st_brendy said:
Buttler's biggest problem is the six guys ahead of him.

I often hear the comparisons to Gilchrist, and I very much understand them. The damage Gilchrist would often do, in no time at all batting at 7, is absolutely something which Buttler has the ability to replicate. However Gilchrist was often coming in after the likes of Ponting, Clarke, Hayden, Langer, Waugh, Hussey etc had piled on the runs. So not only was Gilchrist often coming to the crease with no pressure, but also - more importantly - he was he was facing bowlers who had a number of overs in their legs already. They were tiring, wilting, and Gilchrist would come in and just squash them into the mud.

It wasn't Gilchrist's job to come in and rescue the innings for Australia (although he could do so).

Thanks to the top six, Buttler is more used to walking to the crease at 120-5 rather than 320-5. And that's when I question his place in the team, given that he plays as an out-and-out batsmen at number 7 (albeit he's up at 6 this match, because of Stokes' bowling fitness).
Click to expand...
Interesting point and I think you are certainly on to something. I think we would be better off being patient with Buttler and hoping the top order is sorted out over the next 1/2 years with the new coach. No doubt the new coach will have his own ideas of who should be batting at #2 & #3 - if they are sorted out I think the likes of Root/Bairstow & Buttler will suddenly start to look like their old selves.
 
MLsfc said:
Interesting point and I think you are certainly on to something. I think we would be better off being patient with Buttler and hoping the top order is sorted out over the next 1/2 years with the new coach. No doubt the new coach will have his own ideas of who should be batting at #2 & #3 - if they are sorted out I think the likes of Root/Bairstow & Buttler will suddenly start to look like their old selves.
Click to expand...

That would be the ideal.

But don't forget that Bayliss isn't currently a selector, and there are no indications that the new coach will be a selector either. Sure they will have a say to an extent - particularly if there's a type of batsmen they want, rather than a specific person - but at the end of the day they'll pick their XI from the squad which Ed Smith and James Taylor give them each time.

I'd suggest that an English coach would be seeking to be more involved with squad selection than an overseas coach, for a simple reason that an English coach is more likely to know about county cricket. Bayliss has always been quite open with the fact that he doesn't watch county cricket, and therefore relies heavily on the selectors.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ronnie Hotdogs (MLsfc)
garysfc said:
Denly & Burns; smash this years Ashes opening pairing average with a mind blowing 27 <laugh> Warner & Harris bring the average down even further with a 5. Numbers tell you everything!
Click to expand...

Although given Labuschagne and Smith's combined average is 206, it doesn't really matter for them does it
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back