Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

England Cricket 2022

Pace yes, SA are clearly superior. However, in England that shouldn’t be everything and it hasn’t been historically. The bean pole‘s swing was impressive.

England’s batting was timid, weak and at times dumb.
 
Nortje is the flat-out paceman who might not always be effective. Trouble is that Rabada is just a brilliant bowler full stop. And yes, Jansen has swing and control. He almost looks like he's placing the ball where he wants it, but it's still coming out at 85 mph. And he's the slow one. :D

Mind you, today's fiasco all started with two England batters missing non-spinning straight deliveries from Maharaj.
 
Zak Crawley is only the third male player in Test history - and only specialist batter - to have a high score that is more than 10x his batting average. Out of 3,093 men to play test cricket since 1877, only Crawley, Wasim Akram and Jason Gillespie are in this club
 
Zak Crawley is only the third male player in Test history - and only specialist batter - to have a high score that is more than 10x his batting average. Out of 3,093 men to play test cricket since 1877, only Crawley, Wasim Akram and Jason Gillespie are in this club

That's a very niche stat :D Please tell me you didn't come up with that one yourself.
 
So they all would've got 15k for this anyway on top of their regular salaries, and they get the weekend off! Nice.
 
I don't see how England can keep picking him now, although we have the problem that none of his possible replacements has been playing red ball cricket recently.

Almost as if fucking off the county championship for weeks in the middle of summer in favour of a crisp marketing exercise was a shit idea or something.
 
Me? I can wave a bat in the general direction of the ball and I won't charge seven hundred grand.

You can’t do any worse than Crawley. Yer in!

Now for your opening partner…

Ben Compton: 1119 Championship runs this season at an average of 62
Haseeb Hameed: 912 runs at an average of 57
Keaton Jennings: 827 @ ave 68
Dawid Malan: 500 odd @ 66

Compton & Jennings are old school and definitely not on the Baz bus. Haseeb Hameed has been dicked about and is probably still nursing England scars. Dawid Malan is not a proper opener but has good technique with explosive potential.
 
Jennings has a weakness against extreme pace. He would fail against this SA attack.

Malan could maybe work.

I know the name of Compton and his numbers but nothing else about him.

Hameed? Dunno. I'd probably rather give him another year of consistent scoring in the CC.

I'd take Malan, Compton or Hameed over Crawley. Not Jennings.


If I were forced to bet on it, though, my money would be on Crawley playing again next match. If England lose that match and so the series, he'll be offski for the dead rubber.
 
Ironically, Compton, Hameed and Jennings have all been doing well in the RLC, a 50-over competition that is mostly populated by red-ball specialists like them. Cos, yeah, that makes sense.

The 50-over game has been sacrificed to the Hundred. It will happen soon that good young white ball players will make their odi debuts without ever having played a List A game. Somerset's Tom Lammonby, for instance, has played 29 FC matches, 58 t20 matches (inc 100), and never played in a 50-over game.
 
The 50-over game has been sacrificed to the Hundred. It will happen soon that good young white ball players will make their odi debuts without ever having played a List A game. Somerset's Tom Lammonby, for instance, has played 29 FC matches, 58 t20 matches (inc 100), and never played in a 50-over game.

Will Smeed looks like the likeliest candidate - although tbf he's played one fifty over game, for England Lions.
 
S.Africa are all but giving up on test cricket. This should concern everyone.

The International Cricket Council has released the playing schedule for 2023 to 2027. England will play 43 Tests, Australia 40, India 38 and South Africa, the third-oldest Test nation, only 28. They will play three Tests against Australia this winter, renewing one of the sport’s great rivalries, and after that they have four years of two-Test series.

They are essentially playing as little of it as they can get away with.

It is not even clear when, if ever, South Africa will be back to play another Test series in England. It is certainly not going to be any time in the next five years.


Because?

T20. That's why because.
 
The commentators mentioned in that very short test, rightly, that the likes of Rabada will never be able to touch the records of Warne etc as they'll never play as many tests. Tis sad indeed. I know sport changes but if you look at baseball for instance in the states, it's barely changed in all its time and is still immensely popular. Cricket seems to like to fuck with a winning formula constantly for the sake of it.
 
Haseeb Hameed just made 99 not out this afternoon. Not that it’ll make much difference.
The star of the comp so far has been Cheteshwar Pujara. :D

His stats are something else. Fantastic strike rate tbf.

Screenshot 2022-08-22 at 01.01.19.png

That does show something, though. I think the 50-over game is closer to test cricket than to T20. Accumulators have their place in 50-over cricket. 'Pure' cricketers like Pujara can still thrive. Six-hitting finishers also have their place, but only after an innings has been built. In t20, increasingly, and the Hundred even more so, you need six-hitting finishers from the start. That's what the marketing people want.

I'd love to watch a Cheteshwar Pujara 174 in a 50-over game. Far more enjoyable than someone smacking a 20-ball 50. But that's the comp that doesn't matter, that nobody wants to watch, apparently.
 
The marketing people have no idea what the fuck cricket is. Who the hell wants to just watch ball after ball being dropped by a drunkard in the crowd to much hilarity from Harry Kane in the commentary van? I'm genuinely furious about whats happened to the sport i love. I've got a 5yo son who I'm teaching the basics but he's gonna think cricket is just the shit that dickhead from the ECB left us with before taking his bonus and legging it.

I know ive probably mentioned it before, but i once interviewed with the ECB for a job under the marketing director there, who used to be the head of marketing for a cider brand and openly admitted he didnt know much about the game before he joined. He knew absolutely nothing about the game and one of his questions, in a clearly doomed interview anyway, was whether i preferred test cricket or t20. His face when I answered. There were tube strikes that day too so yes a bad day all round. sorry. rant over.
 
S.Africa are all but giving up on test cricket. This should concern everyone.

The International Cricket Council has released the playing schedule for 2023 to 2027. England will play 43 Tests, Australia 40, India 38 and South Africa, the third-oldest Test nation, only 28. They will play three Tests against Australia this winter, renewing one of the sport’s great rivalries, and after that they have four years of two-Test series.

They are essentially playing as little of it as they can get away with.

It is not even clear when, if ever, South Africa will be back to play another Test series in England. It is certainly not going to be any time in the next five years.


Because?

T20. That's why because.
Let's hope that changes - these things aren't set in stone. I admit that there's a bit of me that wants SA to beat England this summer. The turnaround in England's fortunes hasn't been as good as results might suggest. England are about half a dozen players short of a complete team right now. SA are a couple of batters short. Their bowling is totally sorted. And the team with the better bowlers usually wins.
 
Baseball is the model, mind you, for the likes of the Hundred. It's a complete reversal of the jeopardy.

In baseball, the pitcher is the one who can't afford to make a mistake. The batter just swings - sometimes he connects, sometimes he doesn't. No biggie - he's expected to fail more often than not.

In the Hundred, a bowler can seriously fuck up in one over, sorry set. Batters get out after five balls, hey ho. If they've hit a couple of sixes before slogging one up in the air, they've done ok. And they're expected to fail as often as not. You have 10 wickets to play with in just 100 balls, so if just two of your big hitters get going per match, you're quids in.
 
Baseball is the model, mind you, for the likes of the Hundred. It's a complete reversal of the jeopardy.

In baseball, the pitcher is the one who can't afford to make a mistake. The batter just swings - sometimes he connects, sometimes he doesn't. No biggie - he's expected to fail more often than not.

In the Hundred, a bowler can seriously fuck up in one over, sorry set. Batters get out after five balls, hey ho. If they've hit a couple of sixes before slogging one up in the air, they've done ok. And they're expected to fail as often as not. You have 10 wickets to play with in just 100 balls, so if just two of your big hitters get going per match, you're quids in.

Well, no. That's not entirely true. I follow MLB as well. If a batter (in the 'top order') starts hitting under .300 consistently then there's a problem. Equally if a starting pitcher is consistently pitching something like over 7 runs a game (before he's normally replaced anyway) in about the seventh inning then he's a goner. My dream job would to be a relief pitcher for a MLB team, the third choice keeper for United or the bassist in Coldplay. Nobody knows who the fuck you are and you still rake it in.

Crawley is someone who's hitting far under .300. If he were in the majors he would have been sent to the minors a long time ago. They're ruthless, I would expect McCullum to be the same by now.
 
Last edited:
The marketing people have no idea what the fuck cricket is. Who the hell wants to just watch ball after ball being dropped by a drunkard in the crowd to much hilarity from Harry Kane in the commentary van? I'm genuinely furious about whats happened to the sport i love. I've got a 5yo son who I'm teaching the basics but he's gonna think cricket is just the shit that dickhead from the ECB left us with before taking his bonus and legging it.

I know ive probably mentioned it before, but i once interviewed with the ECB for a job under the marketing director there, who used to be the head of marketing for a cider brand and openly admitted he didnt know much about the game before he joined. He knew absolutely nothing about the game and one of his questions, in a clearly doomed interview anyway, was whether i preferred test cricket or t20. His face when I answered. There were tube strikes that day too so yes a bad day all round. sorry. rant over.

Marketing is one of those things you can apparently do with no knowledge of the field you're working in. Like management. Or government.
 
Well, no. That's not entirely true. I follow MLB as well. If a batter (in the 'top order') starts hitting under .300 consistently then there's a problem. Equally if a starting pitcher is consistently pitching something like over 7 runs an innings (before he's normally replaced anyway) in about the seventh inning then he's a goner. My dream job would to be a reliever pitcher for a MLB team, the third choice keeper for United or the bassist in Coldplay. Nobody knows who the fuck you are and you still rake it in.

Crawley is someone who's hitting far under .300. If he were in the majors he would have been sent to the minors a long time ago. They're ruthless, I would expect McCullum to be the same by now.
I agree that Crawley would be someone hitting way under .300. .300 is still under half, though, which was kind of my point. Batters are out more often than not. A pitcher can fuck up their entire game with a couple of disastrous pitches. In test cricket, the batter is more like a pitcher in terms of the pressure - steady good work can be totally undone by a couple of mistakes. The bowler is more like a baseball batter - a bowler can make up for a bad spell with a couple of wickets.

Basically, in baseball, pitchers succeed more often than not in each individual play, while batters fail more often than not.
In red ball cricket, batters succeed more often than not in each individual play, while bowlers fail more often than not.

But the shorter the format of cricket, the more these pressures switch around. In the Hundred, the bowler is often under more pressure than the batter.
 
Oh yes, of course the shorter form has fucked over bowlers. The whole 'powerplay' thing is particularly harsh as the bowlers brave enough to take that one on see their averages screwed. On reflection, I'd much rather watch a leisurely MLB game than the bullshit that is the Hundred or even the IPL. There's a certain classiness about it.
 
The irony of McCullum is that he comes across as a tough street fighting dude then puts up with this bullshit in his top order
 
Oh yes, of course the shorter form has fucked over bowlers. The whole 'powerplay' thing is particularly harsh as the bowlers brave enough to take that one on see their averages screwed. On reflection, I'd much rather watch a leisurely MLB game than the bullshit that is the Hundred or even the IPL. There's a certain classiness about it.
I like baseball. Got into it when I lived in Cuba, where it's basically the only game in town. There are far more subtleties to it than I first appreciated. tbh it has more of a feel in terms of pace to red ball cricket than T20.
 
Back
Top Bottom