Do England have a shot at making the top 4 in this iteration of the World Test Championship, if they keep up this form? It’s a bit hard to tell, as they’ve played a lot more games than anyone else for some reason, so their average is still relatively low. But presumably some of their rivals will take points off each other in the course of this evening itself out.
Follow up question: does every test match count towards the rankings, or just the result of the whole series? If the former, that would seem to restrict trying out new players once a series has been decided.
It’s a bit more complicated, since some series don’t count towards the WTC, but generally if a series counts, every game within it counts. It’sv designed to prevent the final games of dead rubbers being essentially worthless.
Short answer is “no”. After their awful start to the cycle (one win in the first 12 games), even nine wins in ten couldn’t get them back above 50% - nowhere near the top 4, let alone the top 2.
This link has slightly-out-of-date details for all the teams involved…
Thank you - I’d forgotten it was the top 2 only who contest the trophy, thought there might be semifinals along the way.
Next Test for England is the Ashes, starting in June - will be very interesting to see if they can maintain this form and style against Australia.
We’re going to New Zealand for a series early next year. There’s also an ODI series in South Africa, but there’s no test matches there.
2nd Test @ MCG AUS v SA Day3
There are times in cricket where fair play sorta evolves into kicking a man whilst he’s down. Day 3 was a bit that way. Self-inflicted, of course. SA were unable to convert a moderate start into a middling 250 run first innings via a tail end collapse. Being bowled out for 189 and AUS 1-45 at stumps Day1 condemned the Saffers to a long Day2 in the field; few chances were created and a couple of those spilled. It was hot, though not insufferable but the conditions tested the bowling unit who only took the wicket of Smith and a runout. Plus 2 retired hurts.
Trivia question.
Who is the only batsman in Test cricket to score 200 and be dismissed first ball?
Carey’s 100, the 7th by an AUS keeper and the first since Hadden in 2013 was just the cherry on a very imposing top.
Faced with the Herculean prospect of nearly 400 to make AUS bat again, for a team that struggles to reach 200 and their best credentialled bat in Elgar already out is an improbable ask. Hope they can make a show of it and their endeavors will be assisted by the injuries to Starc and Green. Suspect that Lyon will bowl a power of overs.
Wow, things must be bad for South Africa if an Aussie fan is showing sympathy 
.
It’s still a little early to say, but how do you see the next Ashes panning out? If England can maintain their fearless approach, and avoid too many injuries, I could see them sneaking it 2-1, with home advantage being just enough to get them over the line. But I’m very much in the ‘eternal optimist’ camp (despite decades of experience).
Am more concerned about the relative injury toll. There are a fair few aging bodies in both camps. Archer in will be a big difference in ENG’s favour. Suspect that Boland will perform something akin Terry Alderman on typical English pitches. Anderson and Broad have been faithful servants to the cause, especially on home decks but I wouldn’t expect they will both play the whole series. More likely they’ll get two Tests each interspersed…
They’ll need to beat up on higher quality opposition than WI/SA but AUS’s middle order of Head, Greene and Carey are excellent prospects. Smith and Labuschagne are world class so it’s only the openers to finalise. Don’t think Warner will be going. Am a big fan of Khawaja. There are a couple of options for opening though none have Warner’s record or approach.
If Bazball is truely the way and the future of Test cricket then ENG is going to have to win the Ashes a whole lot more emphatically than 2-1 at home ie should be min 3-0.
Yeah well, there go good intentions.
SA were bowled out in 68.4 overs in their first innings and 68.5 overs in the second.
Needing 400 runs and two full days to play, for the team to lose two wickets as runouts is inexcusable.
SA reached 200 (barely) for the first time in quite a while. Much easier to do this, even 270-300 if you can bat 100 overs. They are playing one bowler too many, though this assumes their squad has another Test standard batter. Kyle Verreynne has been handy with his innings, indeed better than his glovework but he’s coming in at #6. Carey bats at #7.
Warner clearly thinks he has one more Ashes in him (well, of course he does) and on current form it’s hard to disagree, but if by the above you mean the alternatives don’t have Warner’s record of being Broad’s bunny, maybe replacing him is good news for you .
I am not looking forward to having this quoted back at me when Warner flays Broad around some ground or other next summer, but you’ve got to get the banter in while you can.
I agree that a 2-1 home win wouldn’t exactly be a vindication of Bazball (if they did it in Australia that’s a different matter) but any Ashes win is a good one, however achieved. And hopefully this series we will see 2 decent squads playing out a high-quality contest, as opposed to some recent series which have been 2 mediocre teams seeing if they can use their home advantage to help them over the line.
As someone who has only been able to watch world cricket closely for about a decade, the concept behind “Bazball” seemed obvious to me. If ODI teams are putting up 350+ over 50 overs, why not play test innings the same way? I think I asked the question a few years ago in this thread. So to me, the old way needs to be vindicated. I know conventional wisdom for test innings is still to be conservative, preserve wickets, and bat long. But similar to how analytics in baseball has shown us that some the strategies and tactics based on intuition and experience were outright wrong, perhaps the same is the case for cricket.
Well the first thing that needs to be factored in is that cricket has been played longer than baseball. And that doubtless in that time there have been many sub-Test level [ie First class, grade, district, village etc] teams who have attempted or considered replicating the approach and (the very rare odd shooting star at lower levels excepted) the approach has never worked. The sample size is too large for this to be co-incidence
The reason is the rules of the game.
- There is the question of time and 2. the question of reserves.
For baseball these revisions of the most successful strategies and tactics of which you speak apply because the conditions under which the game is played don’t change that much in the duration of the game, and if they do (sunshine/rain/wind/injuries etc.) there isn’t a substantial disadvantage to either side. Further a team can adapt it structure/balance during the game with replacements.
Bench strength has never been a factor in a game of cricket. You may have the best bowler in the comp in your side but if they tweak their hammy in their first over, and become incapacitated, not only do you lose their services, your team plays short handed.
Further the baseball strategy is to win the season. The meme “everybody plays 162 games, everybody will win 54, everybody will lose 54, it’s what you do with the middle 54 games that counts” applies.
In cricket nobody plays half of 54 games in one competition season. Nobody plays double headers. If the primary aim of baseball batting is to get yourself on base or advance a prior batter then you may only get a dozen pitches in a game to achieve this.
The necessity in cricket is to play this game with this selected team. There is also the option of a draw. And the fundamental conditions applicable to the game eg the weather, the ball and the pitch can interact and change profoundly due to the multiday format of the game at the higher levels.
If cricket was played over two innings/team, where there was only needed to be one bowler who could bowl unchanged or be rotated in/out at any time from an unlimited panel of reserves, then the 10 non-bowlers of the batting team would almost certainly play in the manner of Bazball on 'roids.
That it doesn’t happen is due to cricket not allowing reserves.
You need, before the game commences to nominate who is going to play. (now yes, Test & First class now allow a concussion substitute, but that doesn’t apply to 99.9% of cricket played). In the Sydney grade competitions I am associated we play predominantly 2 day games on consecutive Saturdays. It may well be that Day1 is a road for batters but after a week of unsettled weather Day2 will be a greentop for bowlers. A balanced approach is mandated. Which day you get to bat is a toss of the coin.
If all batting involves is swinging at full tosses and aiming for the far fence then not a lot changes. If you play on a track with bounce on Day1 that by Day5 has morphed into a slow low turner then batting techniques change . And batting for survival is a valid, indeed desirable and may be the only viable strategy. In baseball there is no reward/incentive for being not out, indeed IIRC it ends your at bat.
Bazball works, indeed is the norm in T20s and the best teams can achieve something similar in ODIs, because these games are played on unvariably flat unresponsive batting decks where the bowler gets their wickets as batters make mistakes. It will work in Tests where similar pitches preparation are in use. This is is good because boring batting supreme draws can become exciting contests between bat & ball. Nobody would have been considering Bazball as a strategy at the Gabba (1st Test AUS v SA Dec-22). Frankly it would have looked like cowardice.
The hardest thing to do in batting is get a start. Most batters score single figures most of their innings. Most successful T20 teams succeed when most of their runs come from the two openers. If that was virtually assured then you’d pick no more than 4 batters, one of whom would keep and then seven bowlers of the highest quality/variation to suit the conditions. But your top order nicks off, or loses a wicket to a classic catch or runout and the innings may be beyond recovery.
It was notable that Bazball did not work in the T20WC in UAE where there was a pronounced difference (due to the prevalence of dew) between conditions in the two innings. You can’t pick a team for the conditions if the toss of the coin post nomination determines which conditions you will play under.
Playing positively has always been the approach most likely in cricket.
Going the tonk has rarely been a winning strategy.
New Zealand banging along at 9 an over in the 4th innings at Karachi, trying to squeeze a win in, but I think the light will defeat them. They still need 80 runs from 9 overs, but the umpires will take them off in an over or two I’m sure.
You were absolutely right there. Interesting declaration from Babar - can’t really imagine Pakistan could win from there but as I said before, it only takes 10 mistakes to bowl a team out.
Interesting snippet from the 2nd Test AUS v SA
Mitchell Starc snapped a tendon in the middle finger of his bowling hand on Day1 whilst fielding and was unable to straighten his finger.
He’s going to miss the Sydney Test and in the case of surgery will likely miss the India tour.
But he bowled 18 overs in the SA 2nd innings.
And on account of the necessity for him to hold the ball looser and off his index finger he got the ball to swing both more and more consistently. And he is not going to forget that in England.
Starc’s signature dismissal is the inswinging yorker to a right hander and a thing of sheer beauty. Anything that improves that prospect is worth the pain, inconvenience and wait.
What’s this cricket thing you guys keep talking about?
Three years since the OP and 2 1/2 thousand posts later and we sure ain’t got that figured out as yet …but we’re still trying.
Pakistan management’s hasn’t either
Thanks for the thoughtful reply, I have some thoughts on this, and want to revisit it.
But completely different question for now. I didn’t watch any of the recent Aus- SA test match, but noticed on the scorecard that Aus declared their 1st innings at 475, with Khawaja at 195 runs. Why wouldn’t they at least try to get his double century before declaring? I can’t imagine that the calculus of determining when to declare is THAT precise. Plus, I’ve seen captains allow a batter to reach a milestone many times (before declaring immediately after). And the match ended up being a draw anyway.