England Cricket 2022
- Thread starter RileyOBlimey
- Start date
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Same as Alastair cook.
Cook would not be in this side
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Yes he would. It is still test cricket and still 5 days. It is still how many not how long 9 times out of 10.
Monkeygrinder's Organ
Dodgy geezer swilling vapid lager
Cook would 100% be in the side. Aggressive play or not they've not totally chucked everything out of the window.
Cook is the absolute anthesis of this new approach. Brilliant player of course, but no - can't see McCullum selecting him. Early days. Let's see if he does go for horses for courses.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
You don't drop a batter averaging 45 for one averaging 30. Bazball or no bazball
WhyLikeThis
Something, something, something
^^^That’s my guess what they’ll do.
However, I’d stick Foakes @ 6 (to allow more time to play his natural batting style) and Stokes @ 7 (to play the daft batting style he’s currently feigning and so he be emotional support to the tail).
I’d also promote Wood to 8, for his ambitious batting developments and demote Robinson to 9 for eating too many pies.
planetgeli
There's no future in England's dreaming
I'm not advocating it and I already said what you just repeated about one-sided games. I'm saying I think the authorities are more than capable of using 'Bazball' for their own purposes.
McCullum's from the IPL. They don't even bother putting up the batsman's average when they swagger to the crease, just the strike rate. This approach is about scoring fast. If someone fails, or even a few fail, one or two will bludgeon it and they'll be ahead of the game regardless. Cook/Trott etc would not be able to cope with it. I'd rather someone averaging 30, striking at 120+ rather than Cook inching along to a century while everyone else around him falls.
WhyLikeThis
Something, something, something
Flintoff’s done himself a mischief: Freddie Flintoff airlifted to hospital after crash during Top Gear filming
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
I very much doubt either Stokes or McCullum think like that. It's not about strike rate, it's about number of runs. The calculation here is that you will get more runs by attacking. But it will depend on the players you have available. And on context. It's fine if you don't score for a bit in the face of good bowling. Sometimes bowlers are on top, and staying in for a bit is a victory. Stokes himself at his best has shown that. His Headingley miracle innings showed it. And actually he's a better batter when he remembers it.
We're all believers now. Have to be. But I suspect that this approach will develop more nuance as it goes on. Pakistan have been unlucky with injuries to bowlers, but in truth their bowlers have been underwhelming, especially in the first test. Shaheen Shah Afridi would have made a big difference in this series. It's smart to see off a good bowler's spell sometimes. That's not changed.
I don't think you quite get the approach. As Stokes said after the game, they would have scored maybe the same number of runs going at Cook/Sibley pace once a few wickets fell, but probably fewer, and taken loads of time out of the game resulting in a draw. It's about time. That's why they're playing like this. There are so many things that can sap time from a game of test cricket so don't fuck about. That's what I see their thinking is anyway.
Bazball is about ignoring the batsmen going down around you and just keep going, don't shut up shop as is the norm in test cricket. Score fast, yeh, get out on 10 or 150, who cares, someone else will make a score, then let the bowlers take over. It's fantastic. So simple. It'll kill test cricket as we know it of course.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
This last game ended 1.5 days early so it wasn't about time. And they did change approach a bit second innings when time was no longer an issue.
In the first game yes of course it was about time on that pitch.
In both games you can argue that they let Pakistan back in more than they should have done at certain points - on second morning in 1st test and 3rd morning in 2nd. If they're really thinking about this, they'll be looking at that.
Wrong to band cook with sibley. Cook was not as a slow as you make out. The big criticism against silbey - and why he ultimately failed - was that he failed to score off bad balls.
In the first game yes of course it was about time on that pitch.
In both games you can argue that they let Pakistan back in more than they should have done at certain points - on second morning in 1st test and 3rd morning in 2nd. If they're really thinking about this, they'll be looking at that.
Wrong to band cook with sibley. Cook was not as a slow as you make out. The big criticism against silbey - and why he ultimately failed - was that he failed to score off bad balls.
Monkeygrinder's Organ
Dodgy geezer swilling vapid lager
Sibley is a good example of how England seem to have managed to move on not because he was slow scoring but because he obviously felt that pressure on him to the degree that he eventually stopped taking any risks even with the limited scoring shots he did have, got totally bogged down, and ultimately stopped scoring almost entirely. Cook never did that - he was very clear about his limits but when the ball was there for him to play one of his scoring shots he always would. I think the current setup would pair him with someone more aggressive but they'd absolutely love to have him still.
The idea that it's all about scoring rate now and actual number of runs are irrelevant is bizarre - it would need them to have forgotten the actual basic rules of test cricket (even T20 isn't that extreme tbh). The first test isn't the standard now.
The idea that it's all about scoring rate now and actual number of runs are irrelevant is bizarre - it would need them to have forgotten the actual basic rules of test cricket (even T20 isn't that extreme tbh). The first test isn't the standard now.
WhyLikeThis
Something, something, something
Wood on Stokes “He asked me to change the game and he was very pleased I did that. He said you can have a big bear hug for that.”
Aaaww, bless.
Aaaww, bless.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
They would never have got Cook out on that first pitch. And he would not have scored slowly. On a flat pitch against average bowling, he'd have scored at a brisk enough rate. Excellent foil for the others blasting at the other end. Looking it up, the last two double hundreds of his career both came at a strike rate of 59.
I would argue that 'bazball' is in part a response to the limitations of the set of players that there are to choose from at the moment. Root aside, there wasn't a player of the Cook quality out there, so the question was how to get the best out of what you have. Knowing a bit about McCullum, this is much more likely than the idea that they are trying to replicate t20 'strike rate is all' thinking, which would be mad. In his playing career, McCullum openly admitted that he didn't have the talent of a Kane Williamson (test strike rate 51, so not fast but brisk enough) and that is why he played his shots from the off - he had worked out that this was the best way for him to make the most runs.
ETA:
I was lucky enough to be there to watch Cook score his final century at the Oval. It was a beautiful innings. He was batting with Root and you had to do a double-take to check who was on strike with some of the Cook shots. He always talks himself down on this point, but in full flow, he was great to watch. In the County Championship, he scores more quickly than most of his teammates. He just knew the value of the good leave at crucial moments in a test match.
Last edited:
Ok, Cook might get a game. Coming back to the original point, given you're only allowed 11 players in a side, an excellent keeper but middling batsman is a luxury I don't think is necessary. When Bairstow is fit again surely he takes the gloves. That's an immense batting lineup for the Ashes.
Watching Stokes' post match interview, he certainly inferred that strike rate matters more than average to this team. Will be very interesting to see what they do for the third test. Go for the clean sweep with their current winning formula? Or experiment.
Watching Stokes' post match interview, he certainly inferred that strike rate matters more than average to this team. Will be very interesting to see what they do for the third test. Go for the clean sweep with their current winning formula? Or experiment.
WhyLikeThis
Something, something, something
I was there too. A decent day out.
WhyLikeThis
Something, something, something
Yea, there’s a lot of talk about Bairstow taking the gloves back. I love Mr Bairstow and stuck up for him on these boards during his dark days but I don’t think it’s the best idea.
He still hasn’t recovered from a very serious leg fracture. Those limbs have to be in top condition for the stress of keeping. It’s going to be a close thing if he can get fit AND find form with the bat before the outbreak of hostilities this summer. Chucking the gloves onto the already sketchy timeline would shift the odds unfavourably.
Keeping will also negatively impact his late onset beast mode. He cannot be expected to summon the bristling, dominance with the bat if he’s been keeping all day. We need to nurture the caged ginger.
Cummins, Starc et al. on English wickets in early summer will likely lead to some already brief innings. Foakes more traditional style may be welcome ballast to the potential wobbly England ship.
He still hasn’t recovered from a very serious leg fracture. Those limbs have to be in top condition for the stress of keeping. It’s going to be a close thing if he can get fit AND find form with the bat before the outbreak of hostilities this summer. Chucking the gloves onto the already sketchy timeline would shift the odds unfavourably.
Keeping will also negatively impact his late onset beast mode. He cannot be expected to summon the bristling, dominance with the bat if he’s been keeping all day. We need to nurture the caged ginger.
Cummins, Starc et al. on English wickets in early summer will likely lead to some already brief innings. Foakes more traditional style may be welcome ballast to the potential wobbly England ship.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Stokes has been a bit random in his post match interviews. I think we should take some of it with a pinch of salt. Emotion plus a bit of kiddology.
I also will be intrigued as to what they do for the last match. If it were a decider, you'd ideally want Wood, Anderson and Robinson, and to have spinning bases covered. Will Stokes be fit to bowl? That's one question. Will depend how the quick bowlers pull up, I think.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Bairstow has never made a century after keeping wicket. That's not a coincidence. I hate the idea of giving him the gloves back tbh.
His batting form has been reborn under Stokes/Baz. I don't think it'll be a problem. He's allowed to play his own game now. And he's not coming in at first drop like Pope.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
I did a post a while back about a few players (including McCullum) who had significant runs as keeper and not-keeper. A batter keeping isn't a free lunch - he will very likely score fewer runs because he's keeping. I would not want to change anything with Bairstow now that he's hit such a rich vein of form and confidence, scoring in both first and second innings.
Monkeygrinder's Organ
Dodgy geezer swilling vapid lager
Sangakkara is the best example isn't he. He was still a very good batsman when keeping - you'd never look at his stats and say he wasn't doing a good job for the team - but when he wasn't he was in the genuine world great class.
WhyLikeThis
Something, something, something
Plus Bairstow‘s spritely youth is a fond memory. He’s 33 and as a specialist batter he could have a fair few more test years left in him. With the added stress of keeping a quicker, sadder demise is probable.
As we get older, we get slower and chubbier. Jonny is no different and is a bit sensitive about his weight management. Keeping wicket in the modern age is for the slender or young (take note Rishab Pant).
I‘m still not totally over the injustice of him being robbed of the gloves by Ed Smith. Buttler was a square peg being shoved in Jonny’s arse. But if he can perform for 2 or 3 years at 80% of what he did last summer then the run rate of Foakes will be irrelevant.
As we get older, we get slower and chubbier. Jonny is no different and is a bit sensitive about his weight management. Keeping wicket in the modern age is for the slender or young (take note Rishab Pant).
I‘m still not totally over the injustice of him being robbed of the gloves by Ed Smith. Buttler was a square peg being shoved in Jonny’s arse. But if he can perform for 2 or 3 years at 80% of what he did last summer then the run rate of Foakes will be irrelevant.
