International cricket rolling thread

The Game Room
1003

I was impressed with Malan when he was out here and am disapointed he hasn’t been able to hold his place.

Is it the way T20 will go? ie putting all your dosh on black by picking 4 bats, a keeper who can score at 200 and 6 bowlers with a broad mix of variety?
That is if one of your top 4 doesn’t go off like a cracker then a bowler heavy line-up is the best chance to defend a low score. And if one of them does go off then the extra two batsmen of a standard line-up are wasted?
It sounds very artificial, but then again … that’s precisely what T20 is.

Do any teams in the IPL try this approach?

1004

I’m not as up on IPL as I’d like to be, to be honest. Mostly because it frequently bounces around the TV packages up here, so it’s not always easy to find (or even available, if you don’t have the right one). This year I’ll probably watch more since it’s going to be on a package I have - and I am still unemployed, after several months of job search in a not particularly great climate for finding work, so will have the time to look at some. Most of what I pick up on IPL is off podcasts to be honest, so some of this is second hand, and some of it cursory looking at scorecards.

Mentioned up thread that RCB always go big on batting in the auction, and they frequently don’t perform well in IPL. There’s definitely a theory of the auction doing the rounds that, actually, it’s far harder to find good quality T20 bowlers to take wickets and limit the opposition, so better to spend big on those as it’s where you’ll get better variation for your crore. That theory could be taken into the game itself - cover yourself with more bowling options, hope that you’ve got enough batting to set a decent target and then defend it.

A look at Chennai or Mumbai from last year though and their team composition for the sharp end of the tournament had:

Chennai - Dhoni keeping and then 6 players bowling and 4 players batting. BUT - two of their bowlers were Ravindra Jadeja and Dwayne Bravo, both of whom are all rounders, so provide further security down the order should it be needed.

Mumbai - De Kock keeping and opening, and then 6 bowlers and 4 batters with Krunal and Hardik Panda both being all rounders, again to provide some security down the line up.

These teams got to the final and they are not set up too far away from a traditional side - the extra all rounder instead of a batsman being the variation on what England, for instance, would pick for a Test match (obviously, if you’re a 4 bowler side, the difference is more marked). I think it seems sensible that you want 6 players who can cover your bowling, in case someone gets hammered and you can avoid the risk of them bowling more, or play a match up and still have some flexibility with where your bowlers will bowl during an innings.

Obviously, your wicketkeeper must be able to bat. No one is going down the route of a specialist wicketkeeper #11 - and I expect they won’t, to be honest, despite my using it as a hypothetical up thread. Arguably you’d need 3 bloody good all rounders to cover a guy who won’t bat or bowl and still balance your side properly.

Essentially, it seems that all rounders of the ilk that Merrick suggested earlier - able to get through 4 overs and go off for 24 off 12 - are pretty critical to the balance of your side. Without them, you almost want to be going bowler heavy and hoping like hell that your bats can stay in and score quickly, which is definitely putting all your eggs in one basket. The way these successful sides are built though, you still probably need, at minimum, 2 gun bats and a good wicketkeeper bat, and 2 bowlers who can perform well in the PowerPlay and/or at the death to stand any real chance (Mumbai had Bumrah and Malinga for instance).

1005

It’s almost like I posted that sentence to get a rise out of someone…

:slight_smile:

1006

It’s almost like it would be disrespectful to my peers and betters not to rise to the challenge.

:slightly_smiling_face:

1007

England just completely mugged Australia in the second ODI, setting up a ‘final’ for Wednesday.

Aus had Eng at 150/8, but we managed to creep up over to 231. And then Aus were strolling it at 144/2… and then they suddenly lost it. But even there, Alex Carey should have been able to carry them over the line, but he played the most bizarre innings I’ve seen for a long time, seeming to hide from the strike and expose his partners (especially Zampa). There were a lot of reasons that Aus lost that game, but that’s the one that stands out that perhaps Aus could do something about.

1008

Weird how the Aussies appear to be so sharp in the field and their bowlers are looking incredibly good after such a long time without competitive cricket, whilst England looked so out of form despite playing regularly. However I think the Aussie batsmen are also in fact out of form - no surprise I suppose.

1009

To be fair to Carey, when Maxwell was out he’d faced 3 balls, Australia had just lost 4 for 3 and they needed 80-ish off the last 15. Not a situation for taking risks. When Starc was out they needed 66 off the last 10. Carey didn’t look to be timing it well (and he wasn’t picking Rashid) so he probably thought he had to keep the scoreboard moving. Which might have worked had Zampa not been becalmed. Would you have thought better of him if he’d turned down singles, swung for the fences and got out with 8 overs left?

It looked to me that there was something in the pitch and both sets of bowlers were making batting genuinely hard.

1010

Just managed to catch up on the BBC highlights - hard to tell just from that, but I wonder if it’s fair to say that had Australia really attacked when England were 150-8, they might have picked up the last couple of wickets for 30-40 runs and been in a much better position to succeed in their chase? The field settings when Curran and Rashid were smashing it about didn’t look overly attacking to me, but as I say it’s hard to tell. Whereas once Australia got to 140-2, Morgan’s only realistic option was to try to bowl them out (hence the use of Archer and Woakes relatively early rather than ‘saving’ them for the later overs. I’m particularly puzzled by this given that when I was turned on the radio commentary live, halfway through the England innings, and was rather disappointed to hear the score, I was hoping Australia had bowled out their top guys - instead, one of the analysts said Finch was in a strong position because he’d already got 6 overs out of his part-timers (Stoinis and Marsh) by that stage.

1011

Is there a good reason why England and Australia aren’t playing any tests. If you’re going to travel halfway around the world in the midst of a pandemic, you might as well get the most bang for your buck, right?

1012

This was always the tour plan for this summer in England - West Indies and Pakistan for Tests and some other limited overs matches around them, and Australia for T20s and 50 over cricket. It’s due to the fact that there was meant to be a T20 World Cup this Northern Hemisphere winter and both sides wanted some match time in the format in preparation for that. This T20 World Cup has since been postponed, so the question is still probably “why are they playing?”

For both sides, money is a primary concern. England needed to put on all the international matches in their calendar or face the prospect of paying money back to their broadcast partners for not putting the matches on. This is why they moved heaven and earth to get the games on that they have done this summer and will have wanted Australia to come over for them.

Australia is also in the middle of a financial battle with their broadcast partners (Foxtel for pay TV, 7 for Free To Air). Cricket Australia have already had to accept reduced payments from Foxtel for not putting on cricket that was meant to be exclusively broadcast by them. 7 is, despite signing a deal only last year, pleading poverty and trying everything to get out of paying money to CA for their deal. Indeed, this week, they withheld money from a payment that they were due to make to CA and a legal battle seems inevitable. As a result, they too need to get the matches on to prevent (in this case, as the games were meant for pay TV only in Australia) Foxtel withholding more cash.

Australia have other motives for playing too. If they decided they wouldn’t travel to play in the English bubbles, they’re then at risk of incoming tourists to Australia not coming to them using the same principles, which again risks money - there’s a bit of showing willing and “I scratch your back, you scratch mine” going on.

Another motive is that the Australian season is getting to the point where it will start to get underway and a bunch of their players are about to go and play IPL in between now and when the Aussie summer starts in earnest. It’s a good opportunity to play some cricket and get some form having not played any cricket for 6 months.

As for Test matches, there’s the World Test Championship now and a fixture list to go along with it. England played Australia in The Ashes last summer in England and a set of Test matches wouldn’t fit into the fixture list as mandated for the competition. There is nothing to stop them organising Test matches outside the WTC but getting 5 Tests in, in England, in September/early October is unlikely from a weather point of view and would conflict with some of the players being contracted to IPL, which has moved from March to Sept/Oct (and from India to the UAE). So it’s a scheduling and time thing too.

Apologies. Long and possibly boring answer. TLDR: money.

1013

Not at all; I appreciate your thoughtful answer. I’m quite surprised that IPL is going to happen, and even more that foreign players are willing to go, considering how COVID-infested India is now. I guess same answer: money.

1014

Yeah, I mean that’s part of the reason why it has been moved to the UAE. Less Covid in the UAE and also a load of empty hotels that they can bubble the players in between matches in an attempt to avoid infections.

It is, of course, money. The IPL won’t want to hand money back to its broadcasters any more than the cricket boards I referred to earlier, so the games will happen. Also, for the players, even the ones on the cheapest 50 lakh contracts are earning around £50k/US$70k for about 6-8 weeks work, which is substantially more pro rata than, say, a county contract is in the UK. Even the international players are earning hundreds of thousands of pounds over the course of the tournament, which will compare favourably to the annual contracts handed out by the ECB for instance.

Most of them can’t really afford to turn the money down, since cricket in many countries doesn’t attract big wages (an example - I found out the other month that the leading Australian women’s player - Elysse Perry - earns more per year than all of New Zealand’s men’s cricketers with the exception of their captain, who gets a bonus simply for being captain, and women’s cricket is far from flush with cash; you can see that for a lot of players, the IPL money is pretty critical).

1015

I missed the news that IPL will be played in UAE. I know the PSL has been playing their seasons there. In any case, I will certainly enjoy watching!

1016

Good game in progress here (From an England POV at least).

Joe Root with more wickets than runs!

1017

Fantastic series that - great advert for the game. Bowling Rashid at the death was an interesting choice…

1018

Absolutely, the whole summer has been a great advert for the game and fitting that we got a nail-biter to finish.
And I agree, Rashid would not be my choice of death bowler but as was said in the commentary, Morgan is a gambler and just as Root earlier on now looks like a smart move we could’ve easily been saying it about Rashid as well.

ifs and buts yadda yadda yadda, All good fun though.

1019

Third ODI
England set a competitive 302 for 7 off 50.
Bairstow 112/126 and half centuries to Billings and Woakes.

Australia 305 for 7 off 49.4
Australia in disarray at 5-73 before the largest 6th wicket partnership in ODI history gets them home with 2 balls to spare.
Carey 106/114
Maxwell 108/90

Once again proving the ancient cricketing dictum that the singular purpose of the batting top order is to instill a sense of overconfidence in the fielding team. :pleading_face:

1020

Great series! I managed to get each of the 3 ODI’s correct with my betting, so thank you to both teams for making my wallet a little fatter. I stay away from T20’s for the most part, as the outcome seems a bit more random (although I think the sides were pretty level for both forms this time).

Question: Should we expect to see more player specialization with respect to the 3 international forms of the game going forward? I noticed that besides a small handful of players (Root, Archer, Stokes, etc.), England seems to have completely distinct rosters depending on the form of the game. As Cumbrian pointed out earlier, the T20 leagues provide the best compensation for the players, so perhaps some younger players might decide early to only focus on the limited overs forms of the game. Also, due to the wear and tear that test cricket forces into fast bowlers, is there a risk that many of them pass on test cricket?

1021

I managed to listen to the last several overs of both innings live - enjoyed England’s, Australia’s not so much. I don’t blame Morgan for getting Rashid on at the end - and he did indeed take one of the key wickets. Possibly, having done that, he should have been taken off again for the last over, but with Australia only needing 10 off it, it did seem like wickets were the way to win, not trying to restrict them to 5 singles and a 4.

Speaking of which, another tactics question - in Tests, you occasionally see super-attacking fields (e.g. 5 slips, a gully, leg slip, short leg, silly point - so all 11 around the bat), typically if there isn’t enough time in the fourth innings for the target to be reached, but the bowling side could still win with a few wickets. Why isn’t this tactic used more in shorter forms of the game? Specifically, similar to what I said about the last game, with Australia at 73-5, why not take this option and just bowl them out? You have plenty of runs to play with, it doesn’t matter if someone smashes a few boundaries because if your bowlers keep hitting top of off stump, eventually one will move enough for an lbw/bowled/nick to the slips. OK, hindsight is a wonderful thing, but it seems like a better tactic than trying to restrict runs and not take any wickets.

1022

IMHO there are two reasons.

  1. In Tests the batting team have the sanctuary of a draw. Once the win option is gone the bats can bat for survival. When that momentum shift occurs bowlers can go for the jugular.
  2. You can bowl your best suited bowlers without limits with a ball and pitch that may be conducive. An ODI pitch gives bugger all assistant to the bowlers. If the batsmen are not attacking wickets are hard to get.