International cricket rolling thread

The Game Room
743

Yes, this definitely feels like more of a challenge. Pakistan were perhaps a little brave (but not outrageously so) to bat first as it sounds like it’s quite good conditions for bowling, but they’ve got through the first hour unscathed and of course the pay off is the fourth inning spin…

And as I say that, Archer removes Abid Ali!

Your point about Stokes balancing the side is beginning to make me feel like this is one of those strengths that is really a weakness - it’s a nice basket, but there are a lot of eggs in it.

744

Felt that England are playing too many bowlers in this match, but time will tell.

745

I think, when it comes to the Stokes issue, that the real issue there is that there is no like for like replacement.

This sounds like a really obvious thing to say, since he is probably our best batsman and is frequently turned to when we need to break a partnership (and actually does it) but, if he’s out, or is simply batting, there’s no one even half his ability at the moment. If he can’t bowl, your #8 needs to know which end of the bat is which and contribute heavily with the ball, to offset the fact that you can’t carry an extra pure batsman (currently for us at 3 but I guess more usually at 6).

Woakes in Britain is a brilliant bowler but take a look at his batting figures over the last 18 months and they’re pretty desperate. Sam Curran is an odd one - he seems to keep taking wickets in winning causes - but realistically he’s nowhere near the bowler Woakes is, never mind Stokes. The Moeen of 2018 would be very handy as a spinner and batting at 8 but it’s pointless discussing him since a) he’s not in the squad and b) his form with the bat has collapsed and it’s an open question as to whether he is trusted with a red ball in his hand anymore.

Absent a bowling all-rounder at 8, you’re suddenly playing 4 pure(ish) bowlers from 8-11 and hoping like hell that they contribute some runs. We’ve had Bess and Broad contribute against expectations in recent times (and both, in theory, could be better batsmen I reckon) but you’re asking a lot if this is the long term plan.

So yeah, we need someone who can be about 50-60% of Stokes with the bat and offer similar performance to him with the ball, if he can’t do both disciplines, to bat at 8 and there’s not a lot of options there right now. Either that or, like every other successful 4 man bowling attack I can think of, the bowling attack needs at least 1, if not 2, all time greats in it (Warne/McGrath, Wasim/Waqar, Garner/Marshall) and those don’t grow on trees either.

746

Understand the sentiment, but from the experience of over a century of cricket being played, you do know you are have over-egged the expectations?

Everybody remembers that smug, talented bastard from school 1st XI who opened the batting and scored most of the runs, then opened the bowling and took most of the wickets and took all the catches to boot.

Why can’t that be done at Test level, right? Why doesn’t a Garry Sobers or a Jack Kallis or an Imran Khan feature in every team?

The fact is, Test calibre batting all-rounders are rare birds, Test calibre bowling all rounders are much rarer. And they are often ephemeral.

Paul Reiffel had two seasons when he made batting look easy. Michael Bevan had two summers when his chinamen came out of the hand sweetly and consistently.

Bowling 20 overs at 140k isn’t good preparation for a long session batting.

Then there are the factors of age and injury which weigh much more heavily on the bowlers than the batsmen

Steve Waugh made his debut as a medium pacer.

Steve Smith made his debut as leg spinner

Moises Henriques made his debut as a wicket taking first change bowler.

All migrated to the top of the order and let other buggers do the leather flinging hard yakka.

So the PT philosophy after half a century of watching cricket is that you pick your 6 best batsmen (if one can bowl a bit that’s a plus) and expect them collectively to consistently get 250 first innings runs between them, you pick the best guy with the gloves who is competent with the bat then you pick your best four bowlers (if one can bat serviceably, that is a bonus), and at the end of that process you will have a very handy side.

747

I was following the Cricinfo commentary, and during the rain delay, a trivia question was posed: how can a hat trick span 3 overs?

I’m sure one of you experts will gnome up with the answer quickly.

748

Bowler takes a wicket in the 1st innings with 6th ball of an over.
Then takes another wicket in the 1st innings with the first ball of his next next over.
Then takes a wicket with the first ball they bowl in the second innings.
In theory that could all be achieved over three days.

There would also be a scenario if a the bowler was injured after taking a wicket, somebody else completed one of the overs.

749

Right. And before the 2nd and 3rd ball, the innings has to end. So the 2nd ball must be the 10th out, or there has to be a declaration.

750

And it has happened.
Merv Hughes Australia v West Indies, Perth, 1988

Merv dismissed Curtly Ambrose with the last ball of his 36th over in the West Indies’ first innings, then dismissed Patrick Patterson with the first ball of his 37th over to end the innings.

Then, more than a day later, Hughes trapped Gordon Greenidge in front with his first ball of the Windies’ second innings to make it three wickets in three balls.

751

Perhaps that is where the trivia question came from.

752

Fantasy scenario.

Team A wins toss and bats out the first day.

To get through to 80 overs for the new ball before stumps the captain throws the cherry to a part timer who takes a wicket with the 6th ball of the 78th or 79th over.

Captain proceeds with original plan and takes the new ball, replacing the part-timer with front line seamers for the rest of the day.

Team A continues to bat through the second day.

To get the second new ball captain again turns to the part timer who takes a wicket with their first ball.

In the post dismissal celebrations the bowler is injured, leaves the field and the over is completed by another part timer, the 2nd new ball is taken and front line seamers bowl for the rest of the day.

Team A goes out to bat on the third morning.

The now fit part timer is given another over and takes a wicket first ball.

Hat trick taken over three overs and three days using three balls in the one innings.

753

OK - lets take a look at some numbers.

Stokes averages 38.42 with the bat in Test cricket. Stokes averages 31.73 with the ball. We are looking for, in the absence of his bowling, someone to bat at number 8 with figures around 23 with the bat (60% of Stokes average) and his bowling average or better. This meaning you can play a 4 man attack without having a rabbit at 8 and then get shot out once you get through your wicket keeper.

Bowling Average - 32 or lower, Batting Average 20 or higher, 50+ wickets taken, 20 matches played

There are 8 guys on this list (who aren’t Ben Stokes) who played Test match cricket in 2020. Out of 55. That’s 14% of the list in a sport that has been going since the 1870s. With Stokes it’s 16% of the total list. Expand a little and 20 of these players (including Stokes) have played Test matches since 2000. That’s 36% of the list.

I would argue, in fact, that it’s never been easier to find someone at Test level to perform within the broad criteria of what I’ve suggested (hell, England have had 3 within the last decade - Swann, Woakes and Stokes - with already given caveats for Woakes on how he performs outside England with the ball). There’s a lot of reasons for this - covered pitches, better bats, expansion of T20 batting techniques giving even limited players more scoring shots - but the major one is probably that teams have looked at their batting line up and said, “to get picked, you can’t be a mug with the bat” since it’s a waste of scoring potential in your side.

Note that these aren’t even really bowling all rounders (if we defined all rounder as batting average > bowling average). Most of them are just bowlers who are competent with the bat.

I don’t really disagree with your formulation of a side (except inasmuch as when England have been good in my lifetime, they’ve generally had a good all rounder to balance the side, with an exception which I’ll come to) but England’s problem is that they currently can’t bowl 4 bowlers in the side, assuming Stokes only bats. This is primarily for 2 reasons: their spinner isn’t tight enough to bowl 30+ overs with the old ball, to spell their pacemen effectively and Jimmy Anderson is increasingly unable to take wickets outside his opening spell or two of the match (no wickets in the 2nd innings of either the games he bowled in v WI, no 5 wicket haul in a second innings since the back end of 2017).

When we did bowl 4 bowlers and were successful - back in Oz 2010-2011 - we had Swann. And there he is, in the run I linked to above. Precisely the type of player (absent all time great bowlers), who allows you to bowl 4 bowlers and have someone competent bat at 8. That 2010-11 side also had Bresnan in it, who knew which end of the bat was which too, even though he doesn’t qualify for the run above.

In short, I don’t think it too outlandish to suggest that England find one of these players - everyone is finding them and England should be able to too. England need a tighter spinner to bowl in a 4 man attack. England need to build the plan for life after Anderson - they may even consider retiring him.

Also, riffling through the link above, Paul Reiffel was substantially better than I thought. England could use someone with Paul Reiffel’s career now. I knew Ryan Harris, Brett Lee and Mitchell Johnson were all good with the bat but Reiffel’s numbers are damn good, albeit over only 35 matches.

754

Of course, Anderson takes the first wicket of the morning. And it’s Babar The Elegant, who we really needed to get rid of.

755

This is true. It’s true of most cricketing countries. It’s how I’d always select a team until in a moment of acute reflection I thunked out that my heart was doing the selecting, not my head.

Of the best Aussie teams since World Series Cricket (and Ian Chappell’s before it) the teams lead by Taylor, Waugh and Ponting didn’t have an all rounder despite the selectors desperate search for another Benaud and Davidson. Consequently all manner of “not bloody good enough”s got capped, generally fannied around then disappeared. Similarly India doesn’t worry about selecting all rounders.

I think the key is that Australian keepers have had better bats than average. Having Gilchrist or Haddin and a bit behind them Healy at 7 is a good position to be in. Your bowlers only need to be able to hang around and rotate the strike rather than needing to score runs.

756

Your point re: wicketkeepers is dead on and I think is part of the English obsession with making Buttler or Bairstow work with the bat when keeping. It takes the pressure off significantly.

Also worth noting that Taylor, Waugh and Ponting all had SK Warne - who allows you to play 4 bowlers in any case - but also wasn’t bad with the bat (though not qualifying for the list above, averaged 17 with the bat, so could rotate the strike, as you suggest). Ponting also had Lee and, latterly, Johnson who are on that list. So it worked for him all the way down.

The minute Australia don’t have a spinner that can hold down an end with accuracy (as they now have with Lyon) get ready for Mitchell Marsh’s test career to begin to earnest. Ultimately, I think a lot of the 4 man attack argument comes down to needing someone to eat overs with the old ball and not get hit out of the attack. Indeed, none of your 4 can really get hit out of the attack, as it puts huge pressure on the other three. If you’ve got one of those, then I’d agree 6 batsmen and a keeper is the way to go. I think my statement about England in my lifetime is more a reflection on the need for an all-rounder as we haven’t been capable of getting 4 bowlers none of whom get hammered, than a necessary condition for how a side should be constructed.

757

Man, please what have I ever done to you that justifies that sort of abuse?
Would only happen while Langer is on the selection panel. And even then he’d bat at 4-5. The golden haired show pony barely bowls in T20s now.

758

I thought that might attract comment!

You’ll be alright. By the time Lyon retires (assuming he’s got another 5-6 years left in him, as most spinners go on for a long career), Marsh will be done as an international cricketer by then.

Probably.

Marsh was going to be Surrey’s overseas player a couple of years ago but he needed ankle surgery (which might be why he doesn’t bowl anymore too) and the deal fell through. The money was spent on Morne Morkel instead and Surrey won the County Championship. Seems like Surrey did well out of this, to be quite honest.

759

Whatever happened to Ravi Bopara, eh? England have done more than their share of hunting for all rounders and therefore picking players who weren’t good enough with either. One thing I do note is that Flintoff isn’t on that list - I suspect his bowling average is too high, but he only ever seemed to be good at one aspect at once.

England better this morning after a loose afternoon.

760

All those guys - Ravi Bopara, Chris Lewis, Mark Ealham, the list goes on - are all symptoms of the need to find a fifth bowler when we don’t have 4 good ones.

ETA: And yes, Flintoff averaged 32.78 with the ball, so just above the cut off for that list.

761

Would have thought the equation would be that with another Test bat you’d give the 4 bowlers a bigger target to defend and put more pressure on the chasers.
With five trundles taking up 80 overs of the ball then one is going to bowl less than 10 overs, so what’s he in the squad for?

762

But if bowler D is going at 5s, as we frequently were in our down periods, he’s going to bowl no overs and then either bowlers A-C have to bowl 30 odd overs an innings, leading to tiredness and probably injury, or you have a 5th guy to chuck the ball to.

Even in the 10-11 Ashes, England would get 5 overs out of Paul Collingwood with the ball 70 overs old, so as to rest up the three seam up bowlers who were going to take the new ball for 20-25 overs between them, before we brought Swann back on.