The Official Cricket Thread

[Mahoney]

I was quite hoping Broad would get the 5fer, but never mind. Are they going to give him a shot at the 10?

[Biffer]

Bit of a daft comment on the BBC cricket reporting just now. Referring to Broad and Anderson it says "To have two bowlers take 500+ Test wickets, in the modern day with the amount of cricket they play, is truly remarkable."

No - it is the amount of cricket they play that makes it possible!

I think that came from someone (Vaughan?) saying he wasn't sure if there would be many 500+ wicket takers in future due to there being so much one day and T20 where you can make money.

[frodder]

2005 v's 2020 - which is England's best bowling line up?

[Woddy]

2005 was a more varied pace attack. This current one may be better in classically English conditions, especially with it swinging.

Amazing to think that Anderson was around but not picked for the 2005 series, having a bad time as They were trying to remodel his action. Thank God he told them to naff off in the end.

[JM2K6]

Series averages: https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engin ... ype=series

Stokes miles ahead with the bat. Good work from the two openers and Root. Buttler presumably saves his spot with that last gasp half century. Pope did OK.

Bowling... well. Broad gets dropped and ends up with 16 wickets at 10.93. Woakes has 11 at 16.6 - I think those flatter him slightly, but a great return nonetheless - and Stokes again with 9 @16.33. Jimmy was OK, Curran picked up some important wickets in his one match, Bess was mediocre, Archer didn't seem on it at all and Wood was a waste of time.

Not too worried about Jofra given the extraordinary circumstances and then all the drama around his detour. As the least experienced pace bowler in the group I'm willing to give him a pass, but he didn't have a good series at all. Brings his Test average over 30...

[Saint]

When was the last time we had 2 openers averaging over 40 in a series?

[JM2K6]

When was the last time we had 2 openers averaging over 40 in a series?

We've done it twice in a row actually - the 2019/20 tour to SA we ended up with Burns and Sibley averaging over 40. Crawley averaged 32 and played more than Burns though.

Otherwise you're looking at the Sri Lanka tour where Jennings and Burns did the job nicely.

[Un Pilier]

Bit of a daft comment on the BBC cricket reporting just now. Referring to Broad and Anderson it says "To have two bowlers take 500+ Test wickets, in the modern day with the amount of cricket they play, is truly remarkable."

No - it is the amount of cricket they play that makes it possible!

It is a dumb comment. Although both seem to have played for years without many injuries, especially Borad. Jimmy has had some back issues....

I don’t think it’s so dumb. Test cricket and first class cricket are in decline and the attraction of the short forms in terms of financial reward and less workload is just about irresistible. Didn’t Broad himself suggest he might not have achieved this had he not given up the white ball game a couple of years ago?

[And 1 guest]

The 500+ list doesn't contain any players who are less than excellent, however for various reasons some excellent bowlers aren't on it. I don't see any other current players joining it.

[Woddy]

The 500+ list doesn't contain any players who are less than excellent, however for various reasons some excellent bowlers aren't on it. I don't see any other current players joining it.

how far off is Nathan Lyons?

Statistics give weird messages. In the future, students of the game will look back at the England team of c.4 years ago and wonder how a side that contained such standouts as Cook, Strauss, Pietersen, Root, Anderson, Broad and Swann did not beat everyone all the time.

[And 1 guest]

The 500+ list doesn't contain any players who are less than excellent, however for various reasons some excellent bowlers aren't on it. I don't see any other current players joining it.

how far off is Nathan Lyons?

Statistics give weird messages. In the future, students of the game will look back at the England team of c.4 years ago and wonder how a side that contained such standouts as Cook, Strauss, Pietersen, Root, Anderson, Broad and Swann did not beat everyone all the time.

Good point with Lyon, 390 wickets and he's younger than I thought at 32.

Strauss' team did get to no1 in the world, pre-Root and also had Trott, Bell and Prior. They kind of fell apart on the Oz tour when Trott and Swann went home and KP pissed everyone off.

[Woddy]

The 500+ list doesn't contain any players who are less than excellent, however for various reasons some excellent bowlers aren't on it. I don't see any other current players joining it.

how far off is Nathan Lyons?

Statistics give weird messages. In the future, students of the game will look back at the England team of c.4 years ago and wonder how a side that contained such standouts as Cook, Strauss, Pietersen, Root, Anderson, Broad and Swann did not beat everyone all the time.

Good point with Lyon, 390 wickets and he's younger than I thought at 32.

Strauss' team did get to no1 in the world, pre-Root and also had Trott, Bell and Prior. They kind of fell apart on the Oz tour when Trott and Swann went home and KP pissed everyone off.

They were a very good team and had some excellent players (Bell and Trott being two of my personal favourites, and Prior is England's best-ever wicketkeeper on weighted scoring according to Cricinfo's statto) but they were not all-conquering like the 80s Windies or late 90s / early 00s Aussies. That may look surprising on the stats alone as they contained England's two highest-ever wicket-takers and run-scorers, and our highest wicket-taking spinner. On the face of it, that's strange. Ever stranger when you consider the other players they had at any time were not mediocre duffers (Strauss, Trott, Bell, Root, Prior, Finn (fastest to 100 wickets for England?) etc).

[Sandstorm]

No team has perfected the middle order collapse like England. Great group of individuals in the early to mid noughties, but they weren’t always a team.

[And 1 guest]

how far off is Nathan Lyons?

Statistics give weird messages. In the future, students of the game will look back at the England team of c.4 years ago and wonder how a side that contained such standouts as Cook, Strauss, Pietersen, Root, Anderson, Broad and Swann did not beat everyone all the time.

Good point with Lyon, 390 wickets and he's younger than I thought at 32.

Strauss' team did get to no1 in the world, pre-Root and also had Trott, Bell and Prior. They kind of fell apart on the Oz tour when Trott and Swann went home and KP pissed everyone off.

They were a very good team and had some excellent players (Bell and Trott being two of my personal favourites, and Prior is England's best-ever wicketkeeper on weighted scoring according to Cricinfo's statto) but they were not all-conquering like the 80s Windies or late 90s / early 00s Aussies. That may look surprising on the stats alone as they contained England's two highest-ever wicket-takers and run-scorers, and our highest wicket-taking spinner. On the face of it, that's strange. Ever stranger when you consider the other players they had at any time were not mediocre duffers (Strauss, Trott, Bell, Root, Prior, Finn (fastest to 100 wickets for England?) etc).

But the two teams you mention were all time greats of the game. At their best they had players going out and developing to come in that no others have enjoyed.

[JM2K6]

how far off is Nathan Lyons?

Statistics give weird messages. In the future, students of the game will look back at the England team of c.4 years ago and wonder how a side that contained such standouts as Cook, Strauss, Pietersen, Root, Anderson, Broad and Swann did not beat everyone all the time.

Good point with Lyon, 390 wickets and he's younger than I thought at 32.

Strauss' team did get to no1 in the world, pre-Root and also had Trott, Bell and Prior. They kind of fell apart on the Oz tour when Trott and Swann went home and KP pissed everyone off.

They were a very good team and had some excellent players (Bell and Trott being two of my personal favourites, and Prior is England's best-ever wicketkeeper on weighted scoring according to Cricinfo's statto) but they were not all-conquering like the 80s Windies or late 90s / early 00s Aussies. That may look surprising on the stats alone as they contained England's two highest-ever wicket-takers and run-scorers, and our highest wicket-taking spinner. On the face of it, that's strange. Ever stranger when you consider the other players they had at any time were not mediocre duffers (Strauss, Trott, Bell, Root, Prior, Finn (fastest to 100 wickets for England?) etc).

Andy Flower innit. The Mood Hoover had one gameplan and when that stopped working he had nothing except the desire to grind his own players into dust.

[Un Pilier]

First time I saw the Windies in the flesh was in the hot summer of 1976 at Queens Park in Chesterfield. It was in the era Clive Lloyd was developing the all conquering pace attack that led to their domination of test cricket. Lloyd, Viv Richards, Alvin Kalicharran, Gordon Greenidge, Lawrence Rowe and Gomes - they could bat a bit. Andy Roberts, a young Michael Holding, Wayne Daniel and Vanburn Holder could trundle the odd tricky ball down with a noticeable absence of pies.

A great summer. Happy days.

[Woddy]

Good point with Lyon, 390 wickets and he's younger than I thought at 32.

Strauss' team did get to no1 in the world, pre-Root and also had Trott, Bell and Prior. They kind of fell apart on the Oz tour when Trott and Swann went home and KP pissed everyone off.

They were a very good team and had some excellent players (Bell and Trott being two of my personal favourites, and Prior is England's best-ever wicketkeeper on weighted scoring according to Cricinfo's statto) but they were not all-conquering like the 80s Windies or late 90s / early 00s Aussies. That may look surprising on the stats alone as they contained England's two highest-ever wicket-takers and run-scorers, and our highest wicket-taking spinner. On the face of it, that's strange. Ever stranger when you consider the other players they had at any time were not mediocre duffers (Strauss, Trott, Bell, Root, Prior, Finn (fastest to 100 wickets for England?) etc).

But the two teams you mention were all time greats of the game. At their best they had players going out and developing to come in that no others have enjoyed.

Well, quite. But on paper from stats on weight of runs and wickets of its major players, the Aussie team at least would look pretty similar to England's: two highest-ever wicket-takers, (probably, I haven't checked) two of its highest-ever run-scorers, best batting wickie. Obviously there was quite a gulf in ability to win matches against all comers.

[Biffer]

2005 was a more varied pace attack. This current one may be better in classically English conditions, especially with it swinging.

Amazing to think that Anderson was around but not picked for the 2005 series, having a bad time as They were trying to remodel his action. Thank God he told them to naff off in the end.

I consider Peak Harmison to be the bet England bowler of the last 20 years. Unfortunately the peak didn't last long.

[A6D6E6]

2005 was a more varied pace attack. This current one may be better in classically English conditions, especially with it swinging.

Amazing to think that Anderson was around but not picked for the 2005 series, having a bad time as They were trying to remodel his action. Thank God he told them to naff off in the end.

I consider Peak Harmison to be the bet England bowler of the last 20 years. Unfortunately the peak didn't last long.

I'll take peak Jimmy first (ideally bowling on a cloudy day in Nottingham).

If we are in the second innings and the opposition have several left handers, I'd also seriously consider taking Swann ahead of Harmison).

[Woddy]

2005 was a more varied pace attack. This current one may be better in classically English conditions, especially with it swinging.

Amazing to think that Anderson was around but not picked for the 2005 series, having a bad time as They were trying to remodel his action. Thank God he told them to naff off in the end.

I consider Peak Harmison to be the bet England bowler of the last 20 years. Unfortunately the peak didn't last long.

I'll take peak Jimmy first (ideally bowling on a cloudy day in Nottingham).

If we are in the second innings and the opposition have several left handers, I'd also seriously consider taking Swann ahead of Harmison).

Agreed on Peak Harmison (for playing on different pitches). Ideal combined pace attack would be Harmison, Anderson, Broad, Jones (with Archer/Wood coming in if playing at the Gabba). Swan would be the spinner, but we wouldn't need him against lefties if 2018-20 Broad is playing.

[A6D6E6]

I consider Peak Harmison to be the bet England bowler of the last 20 years. Unfortunately the peak didn't last long.

I'll take peak Jimmy first (ideally bowling on a cloudy day in Nottingham).

If we are in the second innings and the opposition have several left handers, I'd also seriously consider taking Swann ahead of Harmison).

Agreed on Peak Harmison (for playing on different pitches). Ideal combined pace attack would be Harmison, Anderson, Broad, Jones (with Archer/Wood coming in if playing at the Gabba). Swan would be the spinner, but we wouldn't need him against lefties if 2018-20 Broad is playing.

If we are playing at the Gabba, it probably doesn't matter who we pick - we almost inevitably lose anyway. Do you mean WACA though if you are picking an extra quick?

I wouldn't turn to Archer or Wood though. For an extra quick I'd be looking at Flintoff or Gough. Possibly even Finn if I can be sure of getting him at his peak.

Having said that, if peak Harmison, Anderson, Broad and Jones aren't enough (plus presumably Stokes as 5th seamer), then another one isn't going to make any difference.

[Woddy]

My mistake re GABA / WACA - thanks for correction.

I meant Archer / Wood in place of one of the four rather than instead of, to provide that extra 5-10mph; not sure any of the others are that quick (possibly Harmy). We'd have Stokes (in preference to Flintoff on batting) anyway.

Can anyone provide the physics behind Flintoff's "heavy ball" btw?

[A6D6E6]

My mistake re GABA / WACA - thanks for correction.

I meant Archer / Wood in place of one of the four rather than instead of, to provide that extra 5-10mph; not sure any of the others are that quick (possibly Harmy). We'd have Stokes (in preference to Flintoff on batting) anyway.

Can anyone provide the physics behind Flintoff's "heavy ball" btw?

Not really, but if there is any truth in it (beyond the perception / expectation of the batsman) it might have something to do with the combination of the length he bowled and the speed / seam position generating a bit more bounce than expected (off a relatively short and slow run up) so the ball would on occasion hit higher on the bat giving the perception of a "heavy" ball.

Personally though I suspect there is little really in it.

[Un Pilier]

My mistake re GABA / WACA - thanks for correction.

I meant Archer / Wood in place of one of the four rather than instead of, to provide that extra 5-10mph; not sure any of the others are that quick (possibly Harmy). We'd have Stokes (in preference to Flintoff on batting) anyway.

Can anyone provide the physics behind Flintoff's "heavy ball" btw?

Not really, but if there is any truth in it (beyond the perception / expectation of the batsman) it might have something to do with the combination of the length he bowled and the speed / seam position generating a bit more bounce than expected (off a relatively short and slow run up) so the ball would on occasion hit higher on the bat giving the perception of a "heavy" ball.

Personally though I suspect there is little really in it.

That’s a good attempt at a logical explanation.

The new WACA isn’t really like the old WACA pitch imo. It’s a drop in wicket venue now isn’t it? They could be anything tbf and too often are pretty dead. The big difference for our bowlers will be the Kookaburra ball. Why that can’t be binned is a constant sauce of frustration for me The damned things anti-cricket.

[Woddy]

My mistake re GABA / WACA - thanks for correction.

I meant Archer / Wood in place of one of the four rather than instead of, to provide that extra 5-10mph; not sure any of the others are that quick (possibly Harmy). We'd have Stokes (in preference to Flintoff on batting) anyway.

Can anyone provide the physics behind Flintoff's "heavy ball" btw?

Not really, but if there is any truth in it (beyond the perception / expectation of the batsman) it might have something to do with the combination of the length he bowled and the speed / seam position generating a bit more bounce than expected (off a relatively short and slow run up) so the ball would on occasion hit higher on the bat giving the perception of a "heavy" ball.

Personally though I suspect there is little really in it.

That’s a good attempt at a logical explanation.

The new WACA isn’t really like the old WACA pitch imo. It’s a drop in wicket venue now isn’t it? They could be anything tbf and too often are pretty dead. The big difference for our bowlers will be the Kookaburra ball. Why that can’t be binned is a constant sauce of frustration for me The damned things anti-cricket.

Can't ketchup?

I too hate the Kookaburra, as it doesn't seem to do anything. Think the Aussies prefer something hard and bouncy to suit their tracks and sense of taking it on the chin. Gutta-percha would seem a good place to start.

[Un Pilier]

Not really, but if there is any truth in it (beyond the perception / expectation of the batsman) it might have something to do with the combination of the length he bowled and the speed / seam position generating a bit more bounce than expected (off a relatively short and slow run up) so the ball would on occasion hit higher on the bat giving the perception of a "heavy" ball.

Personally though I suspect there is little really in it.

That’s a good attempt at a logical explanation.

The new WACA isn’t really like the old WACA pitch imo. It’s a drop in wicket venue now isn’t it? They could be anything tbf and too often are pretty dead. The big difference for our bowlers will be the Kookaburra ball. Why that can’t be binned is a constant sauce of frustration for me The damned things anti-cricket.

Can't ketchup?

I too hate the Kookaburra, as it doesn't seem to do anything. Think the Aussies prefer something hard and bouncy to suit their tracks and sense of taking it on the chin. Gutta-percha would seem a good place to start.

Yeah, Sauce = old habits die hard. Didn’t even think about it!

[Woddy]

Talking of sauces and Aussie tactics: I've found that the sanitisation breaks every 6 overs really help with grip on your hands. Slip catches are sticking for the first time in years!

[And 1 guest]

The Edge is on BBC2 on Sunday. Its a documentary on how England became the number one test team

[Saint]

Ireland 134/7 so far - Curtis Campher making a 50 on debut, but otherwise not much working for Ireland

[Longshanks]

England 84-4.
Highly unlikely Ireland win, but you never know.
Result is almost immaterial, great to have some sport. Well done Ireland

[And 1 guest]

Yeah. It's been good to watch, and with no crowd and nobody having played any meaningful cricket for ages I believe credit is due to all involved

[Mahoney]

Roy managing an average of just over 8 in the series. 24, 0, 1. Amusing (though I doubt he thinks so).

[JM2K6]

It's very "old school England" to ask players to bring their Test form to the ODI arena...

[Mahoney]

It's very "old school England" to ask players to bring their Test form to the ODI arena...

Heh... we will shortly be posting Buttler back to the 50 over squad having well and truly ruined him too.

Vince not wanting to waste any of the money he has spent on that bat.

[JM2K6]

My wicket, that Bairstow one.

[JM2K6]

Morgan gone having thrashed 106 off 84. Spinners must hate the sight of him.

Banton still there with a rapid 50 to his name.

[Mahoney]

Ireland right back in it with those 3 wickets. Might keep it < 250?

[SaintK]

Ireland right back in it with those 3 wickets. Might keep it < 250?

Nope. 330! Should have been a lot more.

[Biffer]

What's the point of a day/night game when there's no crowd?

[Longshanks]

What's the point of a day/night game when there's no crowd?

Because some people like to watch a bit of cricket after work