Without seeing inside the black box this feels a lot like, to mix metaphors, putting your thumb on the scales. I mean, yes, an average is a crude measure and there are definitely times when 30 at a 200 strike rate is worth more than 80 at 110 or whatever but the point of comparing averages across players is that these things cancel out. Unless there’s some reason to think that England find themselves on tricky wickets more than other players, why should Denly’s 30 not compare to someone else’s 40 perfectly fairly?
For a new player, average can swing a lot and a couple of great deliveries can make someone look worse than they are: that’s when you rely on first class average plus your judegement of their ability. But then you start to get more info about how they handle the game at this level and it comes out in their average. I’m a big fan of statistical analysis and I’m sure you can get a lot of insight by digging deep and creating new measures, but when they start to tell you that a player who consistently struggles to get past 30 is actually worth 60 you have to ask whether you’re fooling yourself.
I think, as you’ve pointed out, that there is a kernel of truth in the thinking but without knowing what they’re doing to the numbers, it all feels a bit voodoo - an attempt to justify with no real proof, sticking with players that they want to. It’s far easier to look at Denly, as the example, and his dismissals at Test level and suggest that he’s got a real problem with the ball that seams back into him, due to his inability to readjust his front foot after his trigger movement. And then to suggest that this problem, unless rectified, is going to cause him serious problems at a level where the bowlers are quicker and better than he sees in county cricket.
Bairstow has been dropped but he’s another one.
If I were to offer you Batsman A and say, he’s averaging 45 for his career from the off apart from an 18 month period in the middle where he averaged 30 and then went back to averaging 45 straight after and ask you to describe that middle period, you’d probably say it was a blip or an outlier or similar.
Batsman B is the same but averages 30 or thereabouts for his Test career but for an 18 month period where he averaged 50. Describe the 18 month period for B and, if we’re being consistent, you’d say it’s also a blip/outlier.
Bairstow is Batsman B but has been persisted with, despite the alarming frequency with which he is bowled - a far higher percentage of his dismissals than should be the case for a Test batsman.
When you get the selectors then wittering on about black box stuff, you really have to wonder what is in the box and what it’s telling them because the basic stats and a half-decent judge’s (if I say so myself) eye test don’t fall into line with their selection.
I think there probably is reason behind some of it - England is a seamer’s paradise and dominant batsmen can struggle up here when you factor in how much the ball moves, particularly early in an innings (witness David Warner for example) - so facing good seam up bowling in home conditions and grinding out 30 may well be extremely worthwhile. But if that’s the case, Denly should be cracking lots of runs at a decent clip against seamers away from home, and he’s not.
WI 108/2, having just lost Hope (hehehe). The Cricinfo comms just referred to this as “The Old Normal”, and it’s hard to argue - England throwing wickets away, the opposition settling in and grinding out scores against good bowling. It’s still early in the match, and maybe England will burst through and restrict WI to a lead less than 50, but the WI on top here.
And it’s our batting that’s let us down again. Yes, we’re missing Root, but there’s some talented lads in this side.
I don’t think it’s controversial to suggest that we’re missing Broad, either. Wood and Archer are bowling well, but not getting results.
Something I just heard on TMS (working from home full time has its advantages) suggested to me the WI bowlers had their success by bowling a good length whereas so far England have perhaps erred on the short side - another failing we have bemoaned here before.
Increasingly looking like a poor decision at the toss and/or the Windies bowlers are significantly better than the English; Sky flashing up stats about greater degree of swing extracted by the visitors, some of which will be conditions you’d think, but also, as noted above, they bowled a nice, full, length to draw in the shots.
Reasonable amount of batting still to come/at the crease too. Dowrich is no mug and Holder is still in the hutch.
Stokes will be hoping that his team bat substantially better and the ball turns in the 4th innings, otherwise you’d imagine that people will look at the toss decision even more.
52 behind now and not looking too likely to break the 6th wicket partnership, Windies pulling away. They and the draw far more likely than an England win. A draw will require England being much better with the bat than they’ve shown in innings 1.
How badly do Jos Buttler and Joe Denly have to do to get dropped? Denly has perhaps a pass because of who would replace him, but Jos has 41 test matches to get 1 ton, whilst Ben Foakes (5 games, 1 ton, average 10 higher than Jos) isn’t even around the squad.
I suppose Crawley will get dropped next week, unless he gets a second-innings double ton ( I don’t think a single hundred would save him), and we’ll get Root back.
Well, we said 100-1 was good, and we got there, so hat’s off.
On Buttler, I agree he’s been the beneficiary of a lot of faith by the selectors. I think he’s another example of Cumbrian’s Batsman B - a purple patch making such an impression it overshadows the long-term mean performance. But this situation is made for him - he’ll come in with licence to bat destructively and build up that quick big lead that gives our bowlers plenty to work with. this is the role he’s meant to play, so something of a test.
I just think it’s much more likely that he’ll come in, get a 20 ball 30, then get caught in the deep unnecessarily. Stokes, at least, can play more circumspectly.
Well I guess all four results are possible on the final day. Given how crazy this year has been I’m almost tempted to bet on a tie. Great to see some cricket after what seemed like an age though.
Currently, WI 88/3, but there’s been a couple of chances, and you do get the feeling that a break of this partnership soon will swing it back towards England again.
I do think it’s a little on the WI side at the moment, but not by much, but they’ve dragged it over from the brink of 7/2 this morning.
Yeah, from the final day highlights it seemed like England were only one more bit of good fortune away from having a real chance, but in the end they can’t complain about the result - I think Vaughan summed it up well when he said something like they were outplayed in all departments of the game. Well done to the Windies and I hope for an improved England performance next time round.
A good match, in which the Windies bowling was on top of the England batting, leaving England’s bowling with too much to do. If England had been able to scatter 50-70 more runs between their two innings, it might have been slightly tighter, though I expect, given the finish time of the game, it might have brought the draw into the equation rather than an England win.
Suspect that one of the pace bowlers is going to be rotated for Broad (they might even consider Woakes dependent on how they feel about any of Wood/Archer/Anderson’s ability to go again on Thursday). Bess is going to get the whole series, I would have thought, though I didn’t think he was threatening much (though he also didn’t get to bowl on a true 5th day pitch, given the loss of time in the game). I would say Denly has to go for Root and Crawley should bat 3 and Buttler will survive (I think the selectors are probably more invested in Buttler getting it right, and Crawley has probably shown enough to allow Denly to be let go).
Windies might have won by more had they picked Rakheem Cornwall, who is a more threatening spinner than Chase, who nevertheless took a couple of wickets here. I suspect that they don’t want to weaken the batting order though, which goes a far way down. I imagine, injuries/stiffness pending, they’re going to wheel the same team out.
mhendo’s numbers are interesting and broadly support the idea that, until Labuschagne properly arrived, Australia were Smith and bunch of the blokes with the bat (there’s obviously a big period in there where Smith and Warner weren’t available). Up here last summer, there was Smith and everyone else when it came to batting. Australia seem to be on the verge of turning it around with the bat, I’m not so sure that is the case for England. If I get a spare hour or so in between the online courses I am doing, maybe I should look these figures up for India. I imagine that they’re a fair way better than for either England or Australia.
Sorry, I missed this before. That ratio of c.2:1 for “good” vs “bad” starts is interesting. If I get time I might look at some dominant teams (e.g. 90s Australia) and see what they did as a kind of target/benchmark. From memory, there was definitely a period (Strauss/Cook/Trott) where you could after the first 5 overs listen to the opening of England’s innings with half an ear because you were reasonably confident it would tick along. As opposed to now where you never feel anyone is set and a wicket might fall as soon as you leave the room. (And another before you come back.)