WhyLikeThis
Something, something, something
I’m trying to find a positive spin on Archer but it’s looking like we won’t see his full potential in test cricket. Poor fucker.
England Cricket 2023
- Thread starter planetgeli
- Start date
Really, really don't get the obsession with Archer
www.theguardian.com
So he's currently getting paid by England, Sussex and his IPL franchise and has been for two years. And very very occasionally manages to bowl an over. Nice work if you can get it.
England still unable to get enough of Jofra Archer after latest elbow flareup | Ali Martin
The fast bowler’s return from the IPL and a visit to a specialist are sensible but the clock is ticking for the first Test against Australia in June
So he's currently getting paid by England, Sussex and his IPL franchise and has been for two years. And very very occasionally manages to bowl an over. Nice work if you can get it.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Not by Sussex. Centrally contracted players are not also paid by their counties. And he won't have been paid by his IPL franchise for last year. Players who are injured before the tournament are not paid. Players injured during the tournament are paid in full. Players who turn up with a niggle and play a bit, it depends.Really, really don't get the obsession with Archer
England still unable to get enough of Jofra Archer after latest elbow flareup | Ali Martin
The fast bowler’s return from the IPL and a visit to a specialist are sensible but the clock is ticking for the first Test against Australia in June
So he's currently getting paid by England, Sussex and his IPL franchise and has been for two years. And very very occasionally manages to bowl an over. Nice work if you can get it.
But yes, he's taken his England contract money for the last two years. I don't have too much of a problem with England showing loyalty to fast bowlers. Fast bowling is a hard thing to do.
He's being paid the full deal by the IPL this year
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Yeah, well he played then broke down, so that makes sense. Up to the franchise if they take a punt on a contract for an injury-prone player.
I think star cricketers, like many other top sports people, are paid far too much, but I don't begrudge him being paid when he's injured.
You call it 'nice work'. I would bet he would far, far, far, far rather be playing every game.
planetgeli
There's no future in England's dreaming
I think a few of us welcome this.
But this is stupid, if fairly inconsequential
In another ICC change, any runs scored off a free hit when the ball hits the stumps will now be given as runs, rather than byes.
'Soft signal' given by umpires to be scrapped by International Cricket Council
The 'soft signal' given by on-field umpires when referring a catch will be scrapped this summer as part of an update to ICC playing conditions.
www.bbc.co.uk
But this is stupid, if fairly inconsequential
In another ICC change, any runs scored off a free hit when the ball hits the stumps will now be given as runs, rather than byes.
Last edited:
I think a few of us welcome this.
'Soft signal' given by umpires to be scrapped by International Cricket Council
The 'soft signal' given by on-field umpires when referring a catch will be scrapped this summer as part of an update to ICC playing conditions.www.bbc.co.uk
But this is stupid, if fairly inconsequential
In another ICC change, any runs scored off a free hit when the ball hits the stumps will now be given as runs, rather than byes.
About time. Now let's get rid of 'umpire's call' and we're almost there. The fact you can now appeal against no-balls and wides means I can see a future where umpires will be completely unnecessary.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Hmmm. It should be dead ball when the ball hits the stumps from the fielding side's throw imo. At the moment you have the ridiculous situation where a batter can be clean bowled by a free hit and get runs for it because of the ricochet.I think a few of us welcome this.
'Soft signal' given by umpires to be scrapped by International Cricket Council
The 'soft signal' given by on-field umpires when referring a catch will be scrapped this summer as part of an update to ICC playing conditions.www.bbc.co.uk
But this is stupid, if fairly inconsequential
In another ICC change, any runs scored off a free hit when the ball hits the stumps will now be given as runs, rather than byes.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
So they've done what I thought they might and hoped they wouldn't - retained Crawley and dropped Foakes.
Archer out for the whole summer.
Just a reminder that Foakes has a batting average during Bazball that is higher than Crawley and Pope. Foakes currently averages 52.80 with the bat this summer. The fact that he's perceived as the best 'natural' keeper seems to actually work against him.
Archer out for the whole summer.
Just a reminder that Foakes has a batting average during Bazball that is higher than Crawley and Pope. Foakes currently averages 52.80 with the bat this summer. The fact that he's perceived as the best 'natural' keeper seems to actually work against him.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
And Bairstow flourished last year, including scoring centuries after fielding, which he had never done before, without the keeping gloves. Giving Bairstow the gloves is not a free lunch. For what? To find a place in the team for Crawley! 
Stokes looks like another doubt. He's basically getting selected for his captaincy these days.
www.theguardian.com
Ben Stokes a fitness doubt for England’s first Test of summer against Ireland
The Test captain is the latest England player whose fitness is in doubt, after the coach of his IPL team admitted that Stokes is currently unable to bowl
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
He can play as a specialist bat/captain. That's bad news for Jack Leach, though, if Stokes's bowling days are nearly over, which they may be. And bad news for Foakes, stupidly.
I don't think Stokes is going to be around for that much longer. We've maybe got one more year left from him.
I don't think Stokes is going to be around for that much longer. We've maybe got one more year left from him.
Monkeygrinder's Organ
Dodgy geezer swilling vapid lager
And Bairstow flourished last year, including scoring centuries after fielding, which he had never done before, without the keeping gloves. Giving Bairstow the gloves is not a free lunch. For what? To find a place in the team for Crawley!
In a way the funny thing about it is that it's really quite conventional thinking. Lots of people, including some of us, going 'just stick one of the middle order players in to open' and that's what they've decided against. We might not think Crawley is much of an opener but it still seems to be the thinking.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
It's also mostly been England's thinking re wicketkeeping since Stewart. Chuck the gloves to one of the batters if you can, and just ignore the fact that his batting suffers as a result.
But yeah, it's clear that Crawley isn't an opener anyway.
He'd be way better off coming in at five. Brook's probably done too well. If he'd just done medium-well, they might have moved him, ditched Crawley and kept Foakes.Monkeygrinder's Organ
Dodgy geezer swilling vapid lager
Yeah I'd agree with that tbh. I've no doubt he'd make a much better fist of opening than Crawley would but you don't move someone playing the way he's played do you.
I don't really disagree with shoehorning Bairstow in tbh. However you do it creates issues whether that's dropping Foakes or sticking someone else in to open but his form before his injury was incredible - I do think he's earned the chance to try and recreate it. I'd have gone with the other option personally but there you go.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
I've no issue with throwing Bairstow back in. Has to happen. But his incredible form came without the gloves. If we're about not changing things that are working, Bairstow not keeping was working every bit as well as Brook coming in at five.
It's quite the stat: Bairstow has never scored a century after a spell of keeping in the field. That's potentially what we lose with him behind the stumps.
It's quite the stat: Bairstow has never scored a century after a spell of keeping in the field. That's potentially what we lose with him behind the stumps.
Last edited:
WhyLikeThis
Something, something, something
Plus Bairstow is going through a portly phase atm which will unlikely help with run scoring after keeping.
Yep, Brooks has the level of skill to adapt to opening but as Key playing selector, Crawley is going nowhere.
Yep, Brooks has the level of skill to adapt to opening but as Key playing selector, Crawley is going nowhere.
WhyLikeThis
Something, something, something
Some Crawley stats:
“Crawley has long flattered to deceive at Test level and if he is selected for England’s pre-Ashes clash with Ireland at Lord’s, he will pad up with a career average of 25.19, which ranks him the sixth worst in history among players who have opened at least 48 innings.”
“Crawley has long flattered to deceive at Test level and if he is selected for England’s pre-Ashes clash with Ireland at Lord’s, he will pad up with a career average of 25.19, which ranks him the sixth worst in history among players who have opened at least 48 innings.”
Ashes burning questions, one month out: Batting woes, injured quicks, Bazball factor, who should be favourites?
There is exactly one month to go before cricket's oldest rivalry reignites.
www.theroar.com.au
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
It's not Crawley's fault that he keeps being picked, but he seems to be a bit in denial about his test record. Perhaps that's a good place for him to be in.
This makes sense. And certainly openers need to be phlegmatic about their inevitable low scores.
However, over a long enough period of time - 33 test matches in a variety of conditions against a variety of opponents, perhaps - stats do tell a story in cricket. Great batters don't average 27. Crawley has had plenty of innings when he's played terribly from ball one. Not so many when he's played brilliantly for 20 then got a good ball.
This makes sense. And certainly openers need to be phlegmatic about their inevitable low scores.
Zak Crawley 'doesn't care' about social media critics after Test retention
However, over a long enough period of time - 33 test matches in a variety of conditions against a variety of opponents, perhaps - stats do tell a story in cricket. Great batters don't average 27. Crawley has had plenty of innings when he's played terribly from ball one. Not so many when he's played brilliantly for 20 then got a good ball.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Small mistake in that article. His average of 25 is under 'bazball'. He has a career average of 27.Some Crawley stats:
“Crawley has long flattered to deceive at Test level and if he is selected for England’s pre-Ashes clash with Ireland at Lord’s, he will pad up with a career average of 25.19, which ranks him the sixth worst in history among players who have opened at least 48 innings.”
Ashes burning questions, one month out: Batting woes, injured quicks, Bazball factor, who should be favourites?
There is exactly one month to go before cricket's oldest rivalry reignites.www.theroar.com.au
It would help his cause if he were an outstanding fielder. Sadly he isn't. He's also a liability at slip.
Monkeygrinder's Organ
Dodgy geezer swilling vapid lager
Yeah I understand he probably needs to stick to that sort of line for his own wellbeing, but it's basically nonsense isn't it. In fact the sort of thing he's talking about is exactly why average is used as a measure - yes every batter can get an unplayable delivery and get out for a low score but the reason an elite player has an average of twice what he does isn't because they just happened to get half as many.
I also don't get the logic that seemingly applies to him only that it doesn't matter that he continually gets out for very low scores indeed as long as he gets the odd century. I know the likes of Alistair Cook would say they were more upset to get out once they were in than to get out very early, but in reality I think a team needs the 30s and the 40s as well as the centuries. If you get 30 something runs you're not going to win the game but you have contributed. If you get out for less than ten yet again, not so much.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
It's not rocket science tbh. He goes hard at the ball when the new ball is swinging, and if he nicks it, it flies to slip. There's a reason many batters have copied Kane Williamson's soft-hands-angled-bat technique. Williamson also gets nicks early on, but they mostly don't carry. And yeah, his average is twice that of Crawley.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Sorry, misread. The article is right. He does average 25 when opening, which was the article's point.
WhyLikeThis
Something, something, something
Another bowler crook: Robinson faces ankle scan while Glamorgan hit back
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Hope that's nothing serious. Robinson's been on fire this summer and I think he's England's most important bowler right now.
Matt Potts could be playing in the ashes at this rate. I like him, but I wasn't expecting him to feature too much.
WhyLikeThis
Something, something, something
Fingers crossed these injuries to England’s bowlers is one almighty psyop. With Archer, Anderson & Robinson turning up to Edgbaston bright eyed and bushy tailed.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
For Anderson, the parallels with 2019 are eerily similar. Plays for Lancs early season. Breaks down. Misses the Ireland test as a precaution. We all know what happened next.
WhyLikeThis
Something, something, something
I mean Broad, Woakes & Wood is a very good set of bowlers especially in English conditions. Not quite Archer, Anderson & Robinson.
