good point, though it looks like (recently at least, though this article is a year old) his record away from home is none too shabby.
Over the past seven years, Anderson has taken 107 wickets away from home at an average of 23.35 – nobody in the world has taken more away wickets at a lower average than Anderson in this period. In the 12 away series Anderson has taken part in since the start of 2015, he has averaged less than 30 in nine of them and averaged less than 20 in six.
Those are surprisingly good figures, not what I expected.
Yes, that’s the real issue. His old bones are good for a concentrated burst but I suspect he won’t play Ireland and will also take a break for at least one ashes test.
Still, could be possible. I’m sure it’d be emotional for all concerned. I know Jimmy was a huge admirer of Warne.
I must say I enjoyed Pujara’s (probably unintentional) flex in his post-match interview, in which he basically said the sweep/reverse sweep wasn’t a good tactic on a turning pitch. Though by that stage, it wasn’t exactly the most insightful analysis .
It was also disingenuous.
There are some guys who can play the sweep naturally and some for whom it’s an act of desperation.
Further sweeping is much safer than playing straight on pitches which turn and bounce.
Where the turn is slow and bounce is low, as we have had so far, then getting forward and playing straight works best, as evidenced by the Indian batting line-up
In the ICC Women’s T20 World Cup 2023 IND womens captain Harmanpreet Kaur demonstrates it’s not only the guys who can butcher opportunities.
Being on 52 and barely troubled with her side wanting a gettable 40 off 32 for an upset SF win over AUS and then forgets a couple of basics to be run out and then her team finishes 5 runs shy.
He seems like the real deal, his junior record certainly suggests that he has what it takes and he’s taken to senior tests like the proverbial duck, (if that word makes any sense to him).
Bazball seems a mile away when you are put in on a green surface and are 21-3.
However, it seems it can even accomodate that, it still has room for the relatively steady (Root - a century off 182 balls which under normal circumstances would be considered fast-paced) and the almost sarcastically swift Brooks ( 184 at better than a run a ball).
So ultimately that pair put on nearly 300 at 5 an over. This is impressive stuff.
The thing that really makes me hopeful is that plenty of other test teams have the raw materials to play that way, of course they do. Will they? Is that an attractive option? Will it be the norm in future? It is a heck of a committment and mindset-shift is needed but it could herald a resurgence in test-match interest and I’m all for that.
What I find particularly unforgiveable about that is that in the previous game India suffered an even more egregious lapse that led to a run out - so making sure of things like this should have been front-of-mind for them all.
Someone texted the BBC commentary when England were about 50 for 3 saying this had either 120 all-out or 450 all-out written all over it. Including the latter was a bold call at the time - and now England will be disappointed if they don’t exceed it! The partnership of 294 for the fourth wicket is already at 21 on the all-time list for tests.
Nearly 450, Root looked in good touch so absent the declaration they may have got there. NZ in all sorts of trouble now, almost 300 behind and only 3 wickets left.
Anderson is the gift that keeps on giving, he is currently the top rated test bowler in the world and, as pointed out by the Guardian in their OBO coverage
Jimmy Anderson now has 10 wickets in the series, 10 for 67 at an average of 6.7. He has 28 wickets since turning 40, at an average of 13.60. “What’s he going to be like,” one of the Kiwi commentators says, “when he’s 50?”
The Women’s National Cricket League WNCL is the national domestic 50-over competition for women’s cricket in Australia. The final was played last night beween Tasmania and South Australia in .
Tasmania, sent in, were all out for a highly competitive 264 off the last ball of their 50 overs.
When South Australia batted they were in trouble at 5-185, needing 80 off 52. But with some sound batting they made a strong recovery and with 6 overs to play were 5 runs ahead on DLS when rain intervened.
With the match reduced by 3 overs, the target reduced to 243 and two set batters the odds swung to favour SA who advanced the score to 5-239. So with the last over SA required 4 runs to win.
Thanks for this, doubt I would have seen it otherwise. This will be the inspiration for bowling sides to never give up for decades to come.
Meanwhile, NZ have fought back well with 70+ from Southee in their first innings, followed by an opening stand of 149 following on. 3 wickets towards the end leave the match nicely poised, England still very much with the advantage.
I notice this NZ XI contains 6 players with a double L in their names (Williamson, Blundell, Mitchell, Bracewell, Nicholls, and Will Henry) - is this a record?
Taking note of the NZ v ENG series I think I have worked out the strategy to play vs Bazball.
Just bat well, and long. Don’t try to emulate them.
Set a good target and leave them to get it on a wearing deck.
Which isn’t much different to the best strategy to win cricket games since the sport was begun.
England’s bowling has not really been the problem. What Bazball has done is improve our batting scores, and do so in a way that takes the draw or of the equation. Bazball would not work if the bowling attack didn’t support it, but our bowlers have been suffering from no batting support for ages before this revival.
I don’t think England will struggle to get these runs.
Thing is, there has to be an allowance built into this mindset for failure.
Because it will. Sometimes an opposition bowler will hit a streak of brilliance, sometimes the bowlers will misfire. You are just betting that it works more often than it fails and the previously unlikely wins outweigh the competely expected draws.
The fast batting rate and optimisitic declarations are designed to give space for those victories. This pitch is a good example of where 3/over with no declaration means it had a draw written all over it.
But now? barring weather we are likely to see a result, but even if England fail they are chasing 250+, batting last after losing the toss. Hardly a catastrophe.
My concern the best approach to counter the strategy.
If ENG can score @ 6+/over and through that accelerated scoring rate create opportunities to win then all hale to their mighty arm…
The threat of Bazball to AUS is IMHO to the ingrained machismo.
The belief that:
It won’t work against a Cummins, Hazlewood, Starc, Boland & Lyon. But it will.
AUS can score just quickly. I’m not sure they can but my view is that it’s a mistake to follow suit for the sake of following suit.
If the ENG strategy is scoring 350 off 70 overs, then a valid response is to match that score off 150 overs. Take the time “created” out of the game with reduced risk.
The one game that Bazball has lost was lost due to the opposition bowling well:
I genuinely think that the best opposition to Bazball is to play ‘properly’, All it’s really done is to give English batsmen a bit of confidence - they aren’t scoring unmanageably huge totals, they are just scoring fast (the exception being the road in Pakistan), but before this they were scoring even less, and not supporting the bowlers. 3-400 gives the English pacemen something, which is more than the 1-200 they were getting before.
Honestly, I don’t think Bazball will ‘work’ in Australia. England will score fast, but they won’t score huge.
Just tuned into the ending (one way or another) of this Nz-Eng test, and noticed Root has a chance at not-out centuries in both innings. I assume that’s not very commin.
Trawling through Cricinfo’s Statguru, there have been 20 instances of batters being not out in both innings of a Test whilst scoring an aggregate of 200+ for the match.
The only one to score double undefeated centuries was:
PA (Aravinda) de Silva (SL) 138* and 103* v Pakistan at Colombo 26-Apr-97
Honourable mention goes to:
S Chanderpaul (WI) 128* and 97* v England at Lord’s 22-Jul-2004
.