warehamgas
Predictions League
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,600 
|
Post by warehamgas on Jul 11, 2020 16:11:40 GMT
Watching on Saturday afternoon some things come to mind.
As to who will do the donkey work in that team, with the team as it is I think it’s Dom Bess. I would always be worried that his economy rate would be expensive and stop him holding an end down but his bowling yesterday was excellent, he maintained an attacking off/middle and off attack and kept an economy rate under 3. Very unlike Dom tbh but he also looked a threat and when they did take a chance holed out to mid-off. Wood was unlucky instead of 1 wicket he could have had 2/3 but Archer didn’t look very good to be honest and Broad could be looking at the selectors knowingly! However when there has been little cricket the fast bowlers will need to be rotated. It looks to be a strange decision after day 3 but let’s see what it looks like after day 5. Whatever Archer will need to bowl better to save his place for the second test.
Typically, the media and TV appeared to think all England had to do was turn up, bowl and bat and they would win. The WI are a serious team who have some very good players. Was impressed with John Holder obviously but the way that guy plays and carries out his duties is impressive and he has earns great respect from his players and others. He looks as if he runs a strict team all pulling in the same direction. The batting looks far more secure than before. Dowrich looks as if he’s learnt from other visits to England. Hope and Braithwaite also look ok. The bowling is steady, nothing more I dont think but they pose a danger and after no competitive cricket for so long I’m not sure what happened in the England first innings was a surprise. Jack, you’re right about Joe Denly, he looks as if he can bat for long periods. And of course there’s a case to be made that we came into this match without our bets player, Root.
Pitch seems t9 be holding up well. Bess will be important on Sunday but I expect England to bat deep just to ensure that we get the draw. No silly declarations just to try and get a result. The next 4 sessions are going t9 be important for Archer, Bess, Wood and perhaps Pope and Buttler, each to do what they are best at.
|
|
irishrover
Global Moderator
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 3,372
|
Post by irishrover on Jul 11, 2020 21:47:42 GMT
Yes exactly. I think the English cricket media has become obsessed with the Windies decline narrative and is being very slow to recognise that there's actually the nucleus of a pretty competitive test side now. OK it's still quite a flawed and inconsistent one but there's this real steeliness running through the side that we haven't seen in years. The Windies are not just awesome or terrible - there's a spectrum just like for anyone else! Also, it's not like England's been particularly successful against the Windies in recent years. Yes we've won the home series but they gave us a contest in 2017 and they beat is in the Carribean deservedly the winter before last and generally we have not done as well as many expected there over the last decade or so. It's time to shift the narrative. We shouldn't be surprised by this performance - the Windies clearly have it in them to cause us problems and have done for some time. That bowling lineup could give any Test side problems on its day especially in English conditions.
On a very basic level they've made us work much harder for runs and wickets then we've made them, which is why they go into the last day with a better chance of winning than we do. There's no doubt that Windies batting is underpowered but I was so impressed with the way they grafted their way to a score yesterday. It was an excellent team effort. England have been far more sketchy in that regard. Today was a classic case of giving it away after the hard work had been done. When Stokes and Crawley were nearing the end of their partnership Sky put up this (pretty ropey I thought to be honest) graphic that said the draw was now the favourite at 60% with an England win at about 30% and Windies at only around 10%. So comfortable did Crawley and Stokes look at the time that I kind of bought that and began to write the game off as a draw, although I will take credit for texting my Dad that there was still the 2nd new ball due for us to navigate......It made for an excellent day's test cricket though - I really enjoyed the ebb and flow of it all.
So there's the age old debate about where you assign blame - the guys who were set but gave it away or the ones who came after who just folded. Stokes and Crawley both gave it away pretty meekly and let the Windies bowlers in with the new ball and they duly bowled themselves back into a dominant positon. Obviously you can't go overboard on 2 batsmen who played the best innings in the match for England and have given us a genuine shot at winning this game now but they were poor dismissals and there was a bit of an over relaxed 'job done' attitude about both of them. Personally I hope Windies win tomorrow and finish the job. They've played the best and most consistent Test cricket of the 2 sides throughout this game. They've been much more disciplined, much more intense and had much better plans than England have. We have more of a balance of talent but they deserve to win overall and that sets up the series quite well and gives England the boot up the backside they have coming from this performance. I honestly think we've been quite poor. But there's still a decent chance of us winning this if Bess looks as good as he did in the first innings and the wicket starts misbehaving for Wood and Archer - I just don't think we'd particularly deserve it!
|
|
jackthegas
David Pritchard
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 313
|
Post by jackthegas on Jul 13, 2020 10:22:44 GMT
What a great test match! I think the better side won and, in the interests of seeing a competitive series, I'm glad the Windies got over the line. I was really impressed with their discipline with both bat and ball. I think they have a limited batting line up, but, in this test match, they knuckled down, and made the most of what they've got. If you get 300 in your first innings when the ball is swinging around, then you're usually in the game.
I do disagree with you slightly actually Wareham, regarding their bowling attack. I think it's really competitive. Roach is a superb leader of the attack. Forget the pace Holder bowls at, he has the ability to extract bounce and nip from the wicket when others are struggling. He is absolutely relentless and gives batsmen nothing. One thing I think England could look at though is how they play Chase. I think it's worth a bit of a calculated gamble to try and hit him out of the attack. This would mean Holder has to bring back one of his quicks before they are properly rested. At the very least, do what Stokes and Crawley did, hit a few over the top, push the field back and take some low risk singles. We can't just do what Sibley did, which is basically look to work him into the onside exclusively, where the Windies had a packed ring of fielders. He ended up going for less than 2 an over at one point.
I have had a bit of a downer on the England Test team for a while but, I find myself feeling a bit more optimistic despite the defeat. It was very difficult to see England progressing without a competent top order. The all-rounders were going backwards and I couldn't see where the replacement for Anderson or Broad was going to come from. At least now, I think we have a plan. Sibley and Burns are unlikely to become all time greats, but I thought they left the ball really well on Friday night. They are both getting better and seem to adapt to challenges. I think they have a very well defined role which helps. Compare that to someone like Nick Compton. He had a good start and then his coach started giving interviews to TV and Radio stating that he wanted 2 aggressors in the top 3. Cook was inked in, so Compton must have felt under pressure. That cannot have helped. I wonder whether things might have worked a little differently had he been told that his role in the side was just to bat time and build a platform.
I can see the logic in picking Denley for the last test, it would have been harsh to pick Lawrence for one game and then leave him out for Root, but I think now is the time to move on. Crawley isn't the finished article but he seems to be getting better quickly at the moment.
Buttler is on borrowed time too but I think he will play the next two Tests. He is such a talent that I can see why they are desperate for him to succeed. If we drop him then I don't think he'll come back in to the Test side again because he doesn't play first class cricket. He has had 20 odd tests in this run to try and figure out how to play the longer format. He's also had a break to see whether burnout had caused his form to dip. Ultimately, I just don't think his defensive technique stands up to the rigorous of Test Cricket, and he can't play the moving ball.
I thought Bess did well and was a bit unlucky with a couple of LBW decisions yesterday. He was probably a little under-bowled. He is also learning on the job, but I think his combative nature, batting and fielding make him an attractive prospect. Even if there isn't much in it for a spinner, I feel that he may be capable of influencing Test Matches. I hope they stick with him.
I know a lot has been made about Broad's omission, but I am not sure we'd have won the game with him in the side. I though Wood was a bit unlucky and, while Archer wasn't at his best in the first innings, he bowled really well yesterday. Ultimately, I think we were 50 runs short of par in the first innings and missed the chance to set a really competitive total in our 3rd innings. I think we should have bowled first, but we do need to find a way of staying in the game when batting is tough. I would rest Anderson and Wood for the next test. Woakes and Broad to come in.
|
|
irishrover
Global Moderator
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 3,372
|
Post by irishrover on Jul 13, 2020 11:42:24 GMT
What a great test match! I think the better side won and, in the interests of seeing a competitive series, I'm glad the Windies got over the line. I was really impressed with their discipline with both bat and ball. I think they have a limited batting line up, but, in this test match, they knuckled down, and made the most of what they've got. If you get 300 in your first innings when the ball is swinging around, then you're usually in the game. I do disagree with you slightly actually Wareham, regarding their bowling attack. I think it's really competitive. Roach is a superb leader of the attack. Forget the pace Holder bowls at, he has the ability to extract bounce and nip from the wicket when others are struggling. He is absolutely relentless and gives batsmen nothing. One thing I think England could look at though is how they play Chase. I think it's worth a bit of a calculated gamble to try and hit him out of the attack. This would mean Holder has to bring back one of his quicks before they are properly rested. At the very least, do what Stokes and Crawley did, hit a few over the top, push the field back and take some low risk singles. We can't just do what Sibley did, which is basically look to work him into the onside exclusively, where the Windies had a packed ring of fielders. He ended up going for less than 2 an over at one point. I have had a bit of a downer on the England Test team for a while but, I find myself feeling a bit more optimistic despite the defeat. It was very difficult to see England progressing without a competent top order. The all-rounders were going backwards and I couldn't see where the replacement for Anderson or Broad was going to come from. At least now, I think we have a plan. Sibley and Burns are unlikely to become all time greats, but I thought they left the ball really well on Friday night. They are both getting better and seem to adapt to challenges. I think they have a very well defined role which helps. Compare that to someone like Nick Compton. He had a good start and then his coach started giving interviews to TV and Radio stating that he wanted 2 aggressors in the top 3. Cook was inked in, so Compton must have felt under pressure. That cannot have helped. I wonder whether things might have worked a little differently had he been told that his role in the side was just to bat time and build a platform. I can see the logic in picking Denley for the last test, it would have been harsh to pick Lawrence for one game and then leave him out for Root, but I think now is the time to move on. Crawley isn't the finished article but he seems to be getting better quickly at the moment. Buttler is on borrowed time too but I think he will play the next two Tests. He is such a talent that I can see why they are desperate for him to succeed. If we drop him then I don't think he'll come back in to the Test side again because he doesn't play first class cricket. He has had 20 odd tests in this run to try and figure out how to play the longer format. He's also had a break to see whether burnout had caused his form to dip. Ultimately, I just don't think his defensive technique stands up to the rigorous of Test Cricket, and he can't play the moving ball. I thought Bess did well and was a bit unlucky with a couple of LBW decisions yesterday. He was probably a little under-bowled. He is also learning on the job, but I think his combative nature, batting and fielding make him an attractive prospect. Even if there isn't much in it for a spinner, I feel that he may be capable of influencing Test Matches. I hope they stick with him. I know a lot has been made about Broad's omission, but I am not sure we'd have won the game with him in the side. I though Wood was a bit unlucky and, while Archer wasn't at his best in the first innings, he bowled really well yesterday. Ultimately, I think we were 50 runs short of par in the first innings and missed the chance to set a really competitive total in our 3rd innings. I think we should have bowled first, but we do need to find a way of staying in the game when batting is tough. I would rest Anderson and Wood for the next test. Woakes and Broad to come in. Agree with most of that.
It was a terrific Test match between 2 sides that have distinctly different strengths and weaknesses which made it intriguing. I've already said everything I want to say about Windies I think but it was a very impressive performance that maximised every inch of talent from the team. I think on some level you do have to accept that this is a fairly young and inexperienced England batting lineup so there will be some inconsistancies. Generally I think I like the approach most of them have to the game though. Denly has to go now surely. He could have given the selectors a problem if he'd converted one of those 2 start into at least 60-70 and he had a golden opportunity to do that in the 2nd innings. It's cruel if that's his last shot in Test cricket but it certainly seems like that at this stage.
I'm boring people on Buttler now but I've always said that he's never figured out a method for the red ball game. 2nd innings dismissal was a flat out technical flaw. To me England should move on and set Buttler the challenge of becoming one of the All-Time great white ball players. I think he has that in him and to some extent should embrace that destiny. No shame in that. Personally, I want Bairstow back because I think he has a 2nd act in him but I wouldn't be against turning to Foakes and even Bracey is getting consideration in some quarters now. I don't see why we wouldn't stick with Bess for the forseeable. He played a useful innings as well as looking a threat and that versatility has high value for this particular England side. There's a slight interest in seeing what the wicket at Old Trafford is like. While it's a long way from the turner of old before they turned the ground around it still does take more spin than most and the Windies in particular might be tempted to go with another spinner. It's possible Leach would get a look in too if for no other reason than to protect the seamers a bit.
For me the Broad thing was more about balance of attack and protecting Archer and Wood throughout the summer than anything else. I thought we weren't varied enough in the 1st innings. It's all very well having 2 fast bowlers but if the opposition get used to it then you're attack becomes a bit one paced. Neither Wood nor Archer move it laterally much so if they're not causing problems off the pitch then it's a bit of an issue and we know the Rose Bowl is always slow. That is not where I'd have picked them together.
|
|
jackthegas
David Pritchard
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 313
|
Post by jackthegas on Jul 13, 2020 13:42:19 GMT
What a great test match! I think the better side won and, in the interests of seeing a competitive series, I'm glad the Windies got over the line. I was really impressed with their discipline with both bat and ball. I think they have a limited batting line up, but, in this test match, they knuckled down, and made the most of what they've got. If you get 300 in your first innings when the ball is swinging around, then you're usually in the game. I do disagree with you slightly actually Wareham, regarding their bowling attack. I think it's really competitive. Roach is a superb leader of the attack. Forget the pace Holder bowls at, he has the ability to extract bounce and nip from the wicket when others are struggling. He is absolutely relentless and gives batsmen nothing. One thing I think England could look at though is how they play Chase. I think it's worth a bit of a calculated gamble to try and hit him out of the attack. This would mean Holder has to bring back one of his quicks before they are properly rested. At the very least, do what Stokes and Crawley did, hit a few over the top, push the field back and take some low risk singles. We can't just do what Sibley did, which is basically look to work him into the onside exclusively, where the Windies had a packed ring of fielders. He ended up going for less than 2 an over at one point. I have had a bit of a downer on the England Test team for a while but, I find myself feeling a bit more optimistic despite the defeat. It was very difficult to see England progressing without a competent top order. The all-rounders were going backwards and I couldn't see where the replacement for Anderson or Broad was going to come from. At least now, I think we have a plan. Sibley and Burns are unlikely to become all time greats, but I thought they left the ball really well on Friday night. They are both getting better and seem to adapt to challenges. I think they have a very well defined role which helps. Compare that to someone like Nick Compton. He had a good start and then his coach started giving interviews to TV and Radio stating that he wanted 2 aggressors in the top 3. Cook was inked in, so Compton must have felt under pressure. That cannot have helped. I wonder whether things might have worked a little differently had he been told that his role in the side was just to bat time and build a platform. I can see the logic in picking Denley for the last test, it would have been harsh to pick Lawrence for one game and then leave him out for Root, but I think now is the time to move on. Crawley isn't the finished article but he seems to be getting better quickly at the moment. Buttler is on borrowed time too but I think he will play the next two Tests. He is such a talent that I can see why they are desperate for him to succeed. If we drop him then I don't think he'll come back in to the Test side again because he doesn't play first class cricket. He has had 20 odd tests in this run to try and figure out how to play the longer format. He's also had a break to see whether burnout had caused his form to dip. Ultimately, I just don't think his defensive technique stands up to the rigorous of Test Cricket, and he can't play the moving ball. I thought Bess did well and was a bit unlucky with a couple of LBW decisions yesterday. He was probably a little under-bowled. He is also learning on the job, but I think his combative nature, batting and fielding make him an attractive prospect. Even if there isn't much in it for a spinner, I feel that he may be capable of influencing Test Matches. I hope they stick with him. I know a lot has been made about Broad's omission, but I am not sure we'd have won the game with him in the side. I though Wood was a bit unlucky and, while Archer wasn't at his best in the first innings, he bowled really well yesterday. Ultimately, I think we were 50 runs short of par in the first innings and missed the chance to set a really competitive total in our 3rd innings. I think we should have bowled first, but we do need to find a way of staying in the game when batting is tough. I would rest Anderson and Wood for the next test. Woakes and Broad to come in. Agree with most of that.
It was a terrific Test match between 2 sides that have distinctly different strengths and weaknesses which made it intriguing. I've already said everything I want to say about Windies I think but it was a very impressive performance that maximised every inch of talent from the team. I think on some level you do have to accept that this is a fairly young and inexperienced England batting lineup so there will be some inconsistancies. Generally I think I like the approach most of them have to the game though. Denly has to go now surely. He could have given the selectors a problem if he'd converted one of those 2 start into at least 60-70 and he had a golden opportunity to do that in the 2nd innings. It's cruel if that's his last shot in Test cricket but it certainly seems like that at this stage.
I'm boring people on Buttler now but I've always said that he's never figured out a method for the red ball game. 2nd innings dismissal was a flat out technical flaw. To me England should move on and set Buttler the challenge of becoming one of the All-Time great white ball players. I think he has that in him and to some extent should embrace that destiny. No shame in that. Personally, I want Bairstow back because I think he has a 2nd act in him but I wouldn't be against turning to Foakes and even Bracey is getting consideration in some quarters now. I don't see why we wouldn't stick with Bess for the forseeable. He played a useful innings as well as looking a threat and that versatility has high value for this particular England side. There's a slight interest in seeing what the wicket at Old Trafford is like. While it's a long way from the turner of old before they turned the ground around it still does take more spin than most and the Windies in particular might be tempted to go with another spinner. It's possible Leach would get a look in too if for no other reason than to protect the seamers a bit.
For me the Broad thing was more about balance of attack and protecting Archer and Wood throughout the summer than anything else. I thought we weren't varied enough in the 1st innings. It's all very well having 2 fast bowlers but if the opposition get used to it then you're attack becomes a bit one paced. Neither Wood nor Archer move it laterally much so if they're not causing problems off the pitch then it's a bit of an issue and we know the Rose Bowl is always slow. That is not where I'd have picked them together.
I always think though that on a quick pitch, most bowlers are in the game. I think that in general, our batsmen have struggled on quick pitches in recent years, but the bowlers have been aright. Until last years Ashes, we hadn't lost a Test at Old Trafford for more than 15 years. It's on a really dead pitch that you need someone like Wood who can bowl fast and very full in order to take the pitch out of the equation. I think I am in the minority with that view though. Archer is really impressive because he can do a bit of everything. I think that's why England will need to manage his workload so carefully, because he will be effective in all conditions. I also think that Stokes is really under-rated with the ball. His average isn't great, but he is always brought into the attack as an after-thought, usually when the situation is starting to look hopeless. He rarely gets to bowl at the tail or in prime conditions. The TV guys were talking about why he is so effective when the ball is reversing yesterday, but he can also bowl fast and he can swing it conventionally too. I can see the appeal of bringing Bairstow back. I really thought he would go on to have a stellar test career until he found his way into the white ball team. I just think he stays leg side of the ball, which is great in an ODI but leaves him susceptible in red ball cricket. He may have worked on that during the break, but of course no one outside of the England set up can take a view on that. I also think Foakes' more controlled game measures up well next to our middle order stroke makers. I do find it a bit strange that the Windies don't pick Holder at 6 and Dowrich at 7, with a specialist spinner at 8. Their top order has been so poor that you might as well pick a bowler who can score a few runs rather than a batsman who rarely scores any runs. I guess England tried moving people up the order though - and look how that turned out! |
|
irishrover
Global Moderator
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 3,372
|
Post by irishrover on Jul 13, 2020 15:23:48 GMT
Agree with most of that.
It was a terrific Test match between 2 sides that have distinctly different strengths and weaknesses which made it intriguing. I've already said everything I want to say about Windies I think but it was a very impressive performance that maximised every inch of talent from the team. I think on some level you do have to accept that this is a fairly young and inexperienced England batting lineup so there will be some inconsistancies. Generally I think I like the approach most of them have to the game though. Denly has to go now surely. He could have given the selectors a problem if he'd converted one of those 2 start into at least 60-70 and he had a golden opportunity to do that in the 2nd innings. It's cruel if that's his last shot in Test cricket but it certainly seems like that at this stage.
I'm boring people on Buttler now but I've always said that he's never figured out a method for the red ball game. 2nd innings dismissal was a flat out technical flaw. To me England should move on and set Buttler the challenge of becoming one of the All-Time great white ball players. I think he has that in him and to some extent should embrace that destiny. No shame in that. Personally, I want Bairstow back because I think he has a 2nd act in him but I wouldn't be against turning to Foakes and even Bracey is getting consideration in some quarters now. I don't see why we wouldn't stick with Bess for the forseeable. He played a useful innings as well as looking a threat and that versatility has high value for this particular England side. There's a slight interest in seeing what the wicket at Old Trafford is like. While it's a long way from the turner of old before they turned the ground around it still does take more spin than most and the Windies in particular might be tempted to go with another spinner. It's possible Leach would get a look in too if for no other reason than to protect the seamers a bit.
For me the Broad thing was more about balance of attack and protecting Archer and Wood throughout the summer than anything else. I thought we weren't varied enough in the 1st innings. It's all very well having 2 fast bowlers but if the opposition get used to it then you're attack becomes a bit one paced. Neither Wood nor Archer move it laterally much so if they're not causing problems off the pitch then it's a bit of an issue and we know the Rose Bowl is always slow. That is not where I'd have picked them together.
I always think though that on a quick pitch, most bowlers are in the game. I think that in general, our batsmen have struggled on quick pitches in recent years, but the bowlers have been aright. Until last years Ashes, we hadn't lost a Test at Old Trafford for more than 15 years. It's on a really dead pitch that you need someone like Wood who can bowl fast and very full in order to take the pitch out of the equation. I think I am in the minority with that view though. Archer is really impressive because he can do a bit of everything. I think that's why England will need to manage his workload so carefully, because he will be effective in all conditions. I also think that Stokes is really under-rated with the ball. His average isn't great, but he is always brought into the attack as an after-thought, usually when the situation is starting to look hopeless. He rarely gets to bowl at the tail or in prime conditions. The TV guys were talking about why he is so effective when the ball is reversing yesterday, but he can also bowl fast and he can swing it conventionally too. I can see the appeal of bringing Bairstow back. I really thought he would go on to have a stellar test career until he found his way into the white ball team. I just think he stays leg side of the ball, which is great in an ODI but leaves him susceptible in red ball cricket. He may have worked on that during the break, but of course no one outside of the England set up can take a view on that. I also think Foakes' more controlled game measures up well next to our middle order stroke makers. I do find it a bit strange that the Windies don't pick Holder at 6 and Dowrich at 7, with a specialist spinner at 8. Their top order has been so poor that you might as well pick a bowler who can score a few runs rather than a batsman who rarely scores any runs. I guess England tried moving people up the order though - and look how that turned out! Yes - I also wonder why they don't go with that balance. Maybe it really is as simple as not trusting their batting so feeling like they need the additional batsmen. I certainly think Holder is at least a spot too low in the order. Also, I'm just desperate for them to find a way to get Rakheem Cornwall into the team during this series - bring back big cricketers!
There is clearly something in that analysis of Bairstow - I also think he gets bowled far too much for a top class international player that does suggest some footwork issues. Looking after Archer is clearly crucial for England - we went wrong with that in the winter. He is a unique talent and needs to be managed properly. As brutal as it sounds there is some value in just bowling Wood while he's fit I guess. Hard to see him having a long career with that stressful action so I suppose you throw him in there when he's fit.
|
|
jackthegas
David Pritchard
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 313
|
Post by jackthegas on Jul 14, 2020 14:48:55 GMT
irishrover did you get a game of cricket in this weekend? I know Kingsholm, the last club I played for in Gloucestershire got up and running with an interclub match last Saturday. I'm guessing it's still a bit early to have arranged a restart to league cricket? What will the truncated fixture list look like? The GCL and I think WEPL are starting on the 25th and playing for 7 weeks. I wondered whether they might extend the season well into September, but I guess clubs that share with football and rugby will not have this option. I guess a league for 7 weeks and then friendlies for clubs that can keep playing is a good option. I also noticed that they are proposing a kind of matrix league structure where leagues are based on geography and ability. Participation this year is on an opt-in basis. No mention that I've seen of that this means for promotion or relegation though.
|
|
irishrover
Global Moderator
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 3,372
|
Post by irishrover on Jul 14, 2020 15:13:01 GMT
irishrover did you get a game of cricket in this weekend? I know Kingsholm, the last club I played for in Gloucestershire got up and running with an interclub match last Saturday. I'm guessing it's still a bit early to have arranged a restart to league cricket? What will the truncated fixture list look like? The GCL and I think WEPL are starting on the 25th and playing for 7 weeks. I wondered whether they might extend the season well into September, but I guess clubs that share with football and rugby will not have this option. I guess a league for 7 weeks and then friendlies for clubs that can keep playing is a good option. I also noticed that they are proposing a kind of matrix league structure where leagues are based on geography and ability. Participation this year is on an opt-in basis. No mention that I've seen of that this means for promotion or relegation though. We did much the same at my club in Manchester, Whalley Range CC. There was some prep work on the Saturday as the weather was poor up here last week (as usual) so we wanted the extra day to get it ready. Then on Sunday we played 2 intraclub T20 games. One between 1st/2nd team players and the other between 3rds/4ths. It was a good idea because it meant we could brief everyone, give them all the info they need and work out the details of how these games will be organised without having people getting carried away with the competition. We're quite lucky in having a very big ground so creating 3 separate areas round the boundary for both teams and officials was relatively easy. But we still had to think about spectators, use of the clubhouse, what to do when it rains etc. Plus there's a lot of behavioural stuff players have to get used most of it relating to hand sanitising and running between the wicket. It went well though. In the 1st game my team needed 6 to win off the last ball and I was caught on the boundary! It was also originally supposed to be our Presidents Day so we had a few down and the bar was open. So not a bad start.
This weekend we have 3 friendlies organised - 2 on Saturday and one on Sunday. All against local sides. The week after that (25th July) our league season starts. We are playing a 10 week season going to the end of September in 6 team mini-leagues based on a balance of location/competitiveness. 1sts and 2nds on Saturday and 3rds and 4ths on Sunday. There will be trophies apparently! Our 1sts have done well out of this but unfortunately the 2nds, who I play for, haven't because the 2nd teams of the clubs near us are all quite weak whereas we normally play 1st XIs. So I'm worried we won't play very good games. Ho-Hum, that's life we'll just have to mix the teams up a bit and give some of the younger juniors more of a game etc. Happy just to be playing. We're also entering 2 teams in a round robin T20 competition (although it will actually be T15 because of the light). Also we have a full programme of Junior cricket which is important for my club because we have 100 Juniors and we rely on that for our main income. So loads of cricket to pack in!
We play a longer season up here than they do in the Westcountry - tends to be leagues of 12 playing 22 games from April to September. So going to the end of September is actually quite normal anyway. I can't imagine anyone is doing normal leagues with promotion and relegation. I'm assuming Gloucester League and WEPL would do something simiular with mini regional leagues. It makes sense because even if you don't play particularly competitively it makes organising the fixtures easier if it's done from a central point.
|
|
irishrover
Global Moderator
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 3,372
|
Post by irishrover on Jul 17, 2020 12:20:36 GMT
Crikey we need to be careful what we wish for. 'Proper' Test cricket we've wanted and proper Test cricket we have. This is some seriously attritional stuff. Excellent knock from Sibley. People have focused on the number of balls he said but I think it's fact he's only scored 16 runs in boundaries that's striking. Has someone looked at how that ranks with recent/historic performances? Can't be that many 100s hit with lower numbers of boundaries surely.
My feeling is that we have a strategy here to a)bat only once and b)grind down their bowling attack to knock a couple of their quicks out of the next game because their bowling depth is not really there.
Have to question the wicket prep at Old Trafford a bit here. It's a much more sticky track than I'd have expected. You shouldn't have that many overs of spin on the first day outside of the sub-continent.
|
|
jackthegas
David Pritchard
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 313
|
Post by jackthegas on Jul 17, 2020 14:15:30 GMT
It has been attritional but I do think there are mitigating factors. The outfield is the slowest I have seen in the UK for ages. There were so many threes scored yesterday. Stokes only hit 3 4s and a 6 in his 50. The conditions have been really tough, and given that the Windies have the same attack as they fielded at Southampton, wearing the bowlers down is a legitimate tactic.
There is too much focus I think on what Sibley can't do, rather than what he can do. He is 24. Has a Test average north of 40, has two hundreds in his first season of test cricket, leaves well and has a couple of low risk scoring shots. That's a terrific starting point. As he begins to feel more comfortable in this set up, I am sure he will start showing us a few more shots. We also have plenty of stroke makers in the side. What a platform for Pope, Buttler, Woakes, Curran and Bess to build on.
I am a huge fan of score board pressure. It's hard enough batting after 50 overs in the field. I find the prospect of batting after almost 2 days in the field almost unimaginable. It's a tactic New Zealand have used to good affect.
I also think it's a bit like when the one day team hit the reset button. They had to recondition by attacking everything even if they ended up all out for less than 150 on occasions. I think the Test team are going through the reverse process. They have to learn to trust their defensive techniques.
We haven't scored 400 in the first innings of a home test match for years. Perhaps today is finally the day!
|
|
jackthegas
David Pritchard
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 313
|
Post by jackthegas on Jul 17, 2020 14:29:06 GMT
Final point - if Buttler can't make runs from this position, then I am not sure when he will make runs
|
|
irishrover
Global Moderator
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 3,372
|
Post by irishrover on Jul 18, 2020 13:08:42 GMT
It has been attritional but I do think there are mitigating factors. The outfield is the slowest I have seen in the UK for ages. There were so many threes scored yesterday. Stokes only hit 3 4s and a 6 in his 50. The conditions have been really tough, and given that the Windies have the same attack as they fielded at Southampton, wearing the bowlers down is a legitimate tactic. There is too much focus I think on what Sibley can't do, rather than what he can do. He is 24. Has a Test average north of 40, has two hundreds in his first season of test cricket, leaves well and has a couple of low risk scoring shots. That's a terrific starting point. As he begins to feel more comfortable in this set up, I am sure he will start showing us a few more shots. We also have plenty of stroke makers in the side. What a platform for Pope, Buttler, Woakes, Curran and Bess to build on. I am a huge fan of score board pressure. It's hard enough batting after 50 overs in the field. I find the prospect of batting after almost 2 days in the field almost unimaginable. It's a tactic New Zealand have used to good affect. I also think it's a bit like when the one day team hit the reset button. They had to recondition by attacking everything even if they ended up all out for less than 150 on occasions. I think the Test team are going through the reverse process. They have to learn to trust their defensive techniques. We haven't scored 400 in the first innings of a home test match for years. Perhaps today is finally the day! Agreed on Buttler - another pretty dissapointing performance and meek dismissal. I suppose you could say that wickets had been tumbling around him so he did need to show restrain and wicket itself was at least him getting out playing an aggressive shot rather than poking about. Jury is definitely out about whether he should play in the Pakistan series right now. England are clearly trying to give him every opportunity but I can't much of a 2nd innings chance presenting itself here so he may just have the one more game to make his case.
Agree on Sibley - he'll do me as they say up here. I grant that Burns-Sibley is the ugliest and dourest opening partnership we've had for some time but it also has the potential to be the most successful one. Cook forged a career on 2/3 attacking shots - opening the innings in England is largely about restraint anyway and he clearly has the concentration levels to play those big anchor innings. A Root/Stokes/Pope lower middle order has the capacity to provide the scoring fireworks if given the necessary base. This match being a prime example.
Can't question the tactics - absolutely the right thing to do. Best chance of winning both this game and the next one. We might be stymied by the weather here though. I imagine Windies would be delighted with a day off - not just for the time out of the game but also for the opportunity to recharge their mental batteries which looked drained. 2 days in the field led to some ragged play. Can't question Holder's ambition in putting us in but you do wonder if it was wise with an unchanged attack that was tired. Not the worst idea to go for the kill under grey skies in Manchester when the momemtum was on their side but I think both teams misread this wicket.
My club's ground is about a mile from Old Trafford and we've had the same issues with the weather that they have had. Obviously they have vastly more resources but the winter was particularly harsh here and most cricket grounds were under water until March. If we had started the season on time it would have been touch and go as to whether we could have gotten our pitch ready in time to an acceptable standard. I know that the same was true at Old Trafford because we spoke to the groundsman and they weren't able to do groundwork until March. So they were definitely behind on prep even before this month which has been utterly dire weather wise. Grey cloud over Manchester since 1st July - it's been ridiculous. So I'm not that surprised they've struggled to prepare a lively wicket.
I thought it was interesting that Curren was generating swing yesterday - only bowler in the game so far to really move it laterally to any significant degree.
|
|
jackthegas
David Pritchard
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 313
|
Post by jackthegas on Jul 20, 2020 11:10:00 GMT
I think England's first innings approach has been vindicated. If you discount the days play we lost for rain, the Windies would have been completely out of contention in this test match.
As it is, they need 312 to win, or England need to take 10 wickets in 85 overs. Great innings by Stokes. He really is a cricketer for ever occasion now, and I think he vindicated Root's decision to open with him and Buttler. I would have declared an over earlier, but I don't think Root is far out with his timing. I feel that, if England could get a couple of early ones, they are well on their way. Hopefully we get it right with the new ball, and Bess can control his length a bit more consistently later on.
Just great to have a couple of really competitive matches to start this summer. Would be lovely to go to the 3rd one each.
|
|
irishrover
Global Moderator
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 3,372
|
Post by irishrover on Jul 20, 2020 15:25:41 GMT
I think England's first innings approach has been vindicated. If you discount the days play we lost for rain, the Windies would have been completely out of contention in this test match. As it is, they need 312 to win, or England need to take 10 wickets in 85 overs. Great innings by Stokes. He really is a cricketer for ever occasion now, and I think he vindicated Root's decision to open with him and Buttler. I would have declared an over earlier, but I don't think Root is far out with his timing. I feel that, if England could get a couple of early ones, they are well on their way. Hopefully we get it right with the new ball, and Bess can control his length a bit more consistently later on. Just great to have a couple of really competitive matches to start this summer. Would be lovely to go to the 3rd one each. Yes - I think England deserve to be rewarded for getting their tactics right here. |
|
jackthegas
David Pritchard
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 313
|
Post by jackthegas on Jul 21, 2020 14:28:44 GMT
Well that was the most encouraging performance I can remember from the England Test team in a while. Sure, there have been wins against more challenging opponents, but, these have usually been based on England scoring 300 in the first innings, and then managing to skittle their opponents for less than 220. I suppose I felt that trying to get runs by being ultra aggressive in difficult batting conditions would only take us so far. I am really pleased that we seem to have accepted that the tried and tested strategy of relying on a sound defense and batting for long periods of time is a more reliable way of winning matches, especially away from home.
I am convinced that the likes of Curran and Woakes would be more effective overseas if we could put scores that are above par on the board on a consistent basis. The 2010/11 ashes winning side had an attack of Anderson, Tremlett and Bresnan for most of the series. No real pace. All right arm seamers, all-be-it, Tremlett got plenty of bounce. We were successful because our batsmen scored a stack of runs. New Zealand have no express pace in their team, but they are successful because they bat for long periods of time.
I think it would be interesting to see what would happen if the Windies batted first and scored 300. Could we score 400 in our first innings, or would the pressure get to us?
|
|
irishrover
Global Moderator
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 3,372
|
Post by irishrover on Jul 21, 2020 22:22:41 GMT
Well that was the most encouraging performance I can remember from the England Test team in a while. Sure, there have been wins against more challenging opponents, but, these have usually been based on England scoring 300 in the first innings, and then managing to skittle their opponents for less than 220. I suppose I felt that trying to get runs by being ultra aggressive in difficult batting conditions would only take us so far. I am really pleased that we seem to have accepted that the tried and tested strategy of relying on a sound defense and batting for long periods of time is a more reliable way of winning matches, especially away from home. I am convinced that the likes of Curran and Woakes would be more effective overseas if we could put scores that are above par on the board on a consistent basis. The 2010/11 ashes winning side had an attack of Anderson, Tremlett and Bresnan for most of the series. No real pace. All right arm seamers, all-be-it, Tremlett got plenty of bounce. We were successful because our batsmen scored a stack of runs. New Zealand have no express pace in their team, but they are successful because they bat for long periods of time. I think it would be interesting to see what would happen if the Windies batted first and scored 300. Could we score 400 in our first innings, or would the pressure get to us? Agreed - it was impressive stuff. Apart from anything else the winning margin slightly obscures the fact that their were several moments when it wasn't going our way and a period on the final day where the memory of Headingley 2017 was being invoked. But we stuck at it pretty well. I don't feel like Windies gave this one to us - we were made to work hard for it and we did. None more impressive than posting that 1st innings score by compiling a proper Test innings - I agree entirely there.
Famous last words but my gut feeling is that we should win the final test comfortably. That must have been a gut punching result for the Windies and their attack looked visibly knackered. Only 3 days off before the next one is really straining their bowling depth. I think we'll see them play 2 spinners if for no other reason than to rest weary legs in the seam department. Then it's almost like a exponential increasing curve in the challenge of opponents. Pakistan will pose a different set of problems and then off to a very difficult tour of India (assuming it goes ahead).
I'm not sure Test cricket has changed as much as people often claim at has. Yes the game is more agressive but the basics of getting a big score on the board in the 1st innings to pressure the opposition in both scoreboard and time terms have never really changed. In truth in the post-Flower era we have relied a lot on a strong bowling lineup bailing out a flakey batting lineup that generally deliver only just enough most of the time. If the batting can start to take more of the strain it might help address the consistency problems we've had for the last 4/5 years.
|
|
jackthegas
David Pritchard
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 313
|
Post by jackthegas on Jul 24, 2020 9:47:18 GMT
So Cornwall in for Joseph for the Windies (I think picking Gabriel in a 3 man seam attack is risky) and England have picked an extra bowler - which I think is a sensible move personally. Everyone is saying that Anderson and Broad have to play, but I don't see how you can leave Woakes out either. I think if Stokes was fit you could have picked Anderson, Broad and Woakes and used Stokes as the point of difference, but personally, I would have left out Jimmy and picked Archer. Tough call, but he hasn't played much over the last year. It will be interesting to see who they give the new ball to. I guess they could have left out Bess, but I am never really a big fan of picking a side with no front line spinner.
I see the County fixtures have been released today. Poor Northants are in a group with Somerset, Gloucestershire, Worcester, Glamorgan and Warwickshire. Lots of travelling for them, given their proximity to Nottingham and Leicestershire - although I suppose they will at least miss the trip to Durham. Hopefully the trial matches in front of crowds go well and they can let some people in to watch
|
|
irishrover
Global Moderator
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 3,372
|
Post by irishrover on Jul 26, 2020 11:43:03 GMT
So Cornwall in for Joseph for the Windies (I think picking Gabriel in a 3 man seam attack is risky) and England have picked an extra bowler - which I think is a sensible move personally. Everyone is saying that Anderson and Broad have to play, but I don't see how you can leave Woakes out either. I think if Stokes was fit you could have picked Anderson, Broad and Woakes and used Stokes as the point of difference, but personally, I would have left out Jimmy and picked Archer. Tough call, but he hasn't played much over the last year. It will be interesting to see who they give the new ball to. I guess they could have left out Bess, but I am never really a big fan of picking a side with no front line spinner. I see the County fixtures have been released today. Poor Northants are in a group with Somerset, Gloucestershire, Worcester, Glamorgan and Warwickshire. Lots of travelling for them, given their proximity to Nottingham and Leicestershire - although I suppose they will at least miss the trip to Durham. Hopefully the trial matches in front of crowds go well and they can let some people in to watch Northants always get done by that don't they! Whenever there's regionalisation they're the ones who end up friendless which is a bit odd given that they are in the middle of the country surrounded by other cricketing counties! You wouldn't thtink that would be a disadvantage for them but it is. Looking forward with interest to the streaming.
The test has gone fairly swimmingly for England since the Pope-Stokes partnership provided a solid 1st innings based. Pity Pope didn't get a hundred - he was batting like a dream on the last session of Day 1. As predicted Windies do look a bit leggy and mentally shot. Broad has emphatically answered his critics - who knows maybe it was one deliberately designed as a psychological kick up the arse by the selectors. We should have the best part of 2 days to bowl them out in the 4th innings here weather permitting and it has been completely unpredictable here in the last week or so. Weather forecast's have been entirely useless! I was doing cricket summer camps for young players at my club last week and we were supposed to have 2 days wiped out for rain which weren't.
|
|
jackthegas
David Pritchard
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 313
|
Post by jackthegas on Jul 29, 2020 12:53:19 GMT
I think Northants have 3 home fixtures actually, so I guess that softens the blow.
I think all-in-all, it's been a good series for England. The openers have provided some real solidity and I think a 4-6 of Root, Stokes and Pope is about as strong as it gets. Typically, we've struggled a bit for lower order runs recently. It would be nice if Buttler could kick on, but I think it's more likely that he'll continue to struggle. It would also be nice if Woakes could find some form again.
I think Broad is probably bowling better than ever. I am not sure why it took him so long to decide to bowl a bit fuller, but he is reaping the rewards at the moment. I also think Bess demonstrated why they picked him ahead of Leach in this series. Even when his bowling wasn't needed he contributed with a few runs and a brilliant run out.
The Windies have a really nice group of bowlers, but they just don't score enough runs to win consistently. Without rain around in the last two tests, I think England would have won both inside 4 days. They just need a couple of their batsmen to kick on. If you added Sarwan and Chanerpaul circa 2007 to this side then I reckon they would be a tough proposition.
Looking ahead, I think the Pakistan series could be a good one. They've got some bowlers who will make life difficult for England, and their batting line up is better than the Windies. As ever, the challenge will be whether they can play the moving ball. I am looking forward to it.
First we have the one day series. I think it's a bit of a confusing squad actually. I think we know that Vince isn't good enough and picking Denley is just bizarre. How is he a better option than Liam Livingstone? I am not sure what else Sam Hain has to do to be picked either. I thought he would make an excellent deputy for Root.
|
|
irishrover
Global Moderator
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 3,372
|
Post by irishrover on Jul 29, 2020 16:04:25 GMT
I think Northants have 3 home fixtures actually, so I guess that softens the blow. I think all-in-all, it's been a good series for England. The openers have provided some real solidity and I think a 4-6 of Root, Stokes and Pope is about as strong as it gets. Typically, we've struggled a bit for lower order runs recently. It would be nice if Buttler could kick on, but I think it's more likely that he'll continue to struggle. It would also be nice if Woakes could find some form again. I think Broad is probably bowling better than ever. I am not sure why it took him so long to decide to bowl a bit fuller, but he is reaping the rewards at the moment. I also think Bess demonstrated why they picked him ahead of Leach in this series. Even when his bowling wasn't needed he contributed with a few runs and a brilliant run out. The Windies have a really nice group of bowlers, but they just don't score enough runs to win consistently. Without rain around in the last two tests, I think England would have won both inside 4 days. They just need a couple of their batsmen to kick on. If you added Sarwan and Chanerpaul circa 2007 to this side then I reckon they would be a tough proposition. Looking ahead, I think the Pakistan series could be a good one. They've got some bowlers who will make life difficult for England, and their batting line up is better than the Windies. As ever, the challenge will be whether they can play the moving ball. I am looking forward to it. First we have the one day series. I think it's a bit of a confusing squad actually. I think we know that Vince isn't good enough and picking Denley is just bizarre. How is he a better option than Liam Livingstone? I am not sure what else Sam Hain has to do to be picked either. I thought he would make an excellent deputy for Root. Babar Azam and Azhar Ali give Pakistan 2 World Class batsmen to anchor their order around the rest is generally stronger than the Windies so that should be a closer series. Windies have a good attitude but they still lack depth in both departments. I think their batting is flat out not good enough unfortunately. They just don't have the class. I like Brathwaite but that's about it really. I'd have liked to have seen if Hetmeyer could have pushed on. But I think the batting is underpowered and the bowling lacks depth so in a short sharp series they were always likely to struggle at the backend. Considering that they put up a decent fight in the first 2 Tests though before running out of steam.
By contrast England have an embarrassment of riches with the ball (spin department notwithstanding) and it seems like the batting order is really beginning to take shape. We came into this series with a number of question marks over the order and the big one (openers) has been settled for the timebeing. The lower middle order, as you say, now looks like a powerhouse. Pope is beginning to live up to the hype. The question marks that remain are not as critical really. Who bats at 3 is probably the most important and we need Root to return to form to give us that true World Class batsmen at the top. But overall very promising.
I'm still not sold on Bess. The lack of a World Class spinner will hurt us in winning games abroad. Not obvious how that is addressed. I think I'd rather give Leach a run but they obviously like Bess because of the balance he brings. Broad has bounced back so emphatically you wonder if leaving him out was simply a psychological ploy!
I'm assuming the Ireland series will give us a chance to have a look at some different people. I definitely do find it odd that Plunkett was kicked to the curb with the ball but Vince is apparently still considered a potential future option with the bat. Typical example of one rule of batsmen and one for bowlers!
|
|
