Cricket-Match-Special ... A forum for discussion

Can't believe England ran through the SA top order the way they did then. Great stuff from Ben and TRJ. The pitch is starting to show signs of wear and variable bounce, so England really should wrap this up tomorrow. I'm sure there will be a partnership or two to give England a few nerves, and SA's lower order can all bat (we've seen Vern is pretty much a bowling allrounder, and Maharaj has 2 first class centuries to his name), so it may not be easy, but 108 overs is a very long time for six wickets to hold out, when most of those wickets are lower order and bowlers.

As an interesting aside, one way the game has evolved in the last 20 years is that pretty much all the bowlers can bat now. Even numbers 9 and 10 in most teams have the ability to hang around for a while on occasion (although not necessarily consistently) and biff a few boundaries, and the days of the 'rabbit in headlights' number 11 seem to be mostly gone. Just looking at the stats, not many players average less than 6, which to me is the cutoff for the truly hopeless.
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine ... pe=batting

You do get lower order batters backing away though, to real pace. Remember Mitchwash, the lower order folded every time. Given an old ball and a good pitch they can hold out.

England have three batters under ten. Poor old Monty. Finn, who can block. And Anderson, who isn't terrible, but around the time he stopped being nightwatcher gave me the impression he'd decided to give up on batting.

Arthur Crabtree wrote:You do get lower order batters backing away though, to real pace. Remember Mitchwash, the lower order folded every time. Given an old ball and a good pitch they can hold out.

To be fair, so did the top order, in that series. But point taken.

Arthur Crabtree wrote:England have three batters under ten. Poor old Monty. Finn, who can block. And Anderson, who isn't terrible, but around the time he stopped being nightwatcher gave me the impression he'd decided to give up on batting.

I'd never have called Anderson a number 11 rabbit as per Monty. He famously didn't make a duck for his first six years of test cricket, and is still in the top 5 of all time record holders for most innings without a duck from debut.

No he was a useful tail ender. I don't get the impression he's been rattled like Broad. My impression is in a period of frequent collapses he bridled at keeping the side competitive with the ball and then having to try and add runs when the specialists had given way with the bat. But that's just a guess. Now I'd say he's a proper number 11.

Arthur Crabtree wrote:No he was a useful tail ender. I don't get the impression he's been rattled like Broad. My impression is in a period of frequent collapses he bridled at keeping the side competitive with the ball and then having to try and add runs when the specialists had given way with the bat. But that's just a guess. Now I'd say he's a proper number 11.

Could be. But I think it might be perception rather than fact. If you discount his freak 81 at Trent Bridge in 2013, his career average, SR and range of scores has been reasonably consistent for most of his career
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine ... pe=batting

Of course, with tail enders, it's difficult to get an accurate picture from the stats, as they score so few runs, don't bat every innings, and get a lot of not-outs, so average doesn't mean an awful lot compared to a top order player. A better measure might be balls faced per innings or per dismissal. Again, the numbers are noisy, but if you discount the 81, there's no obvious recent decline.

And on that note, back to topics of relevance for the match /statswonk

Dunno. All his double figure averages are in the first half of his career, save 2014. If we are leaving out the TB innings in 2014, he's not had a double figure year since 2011 (but I'd date the fall off as being from the 2013-14 Ashes when England's batting had been chronically weak for a while). Either way, since TB, he has 6-8-6 as his yearly averages.

Ah yes, the TB innings was 2014, not 2013.

I think there's a clear difference between first half of his career and second. But England's batting was pretty strong in the years 2010-2013, when the backbone of the side was Cook, Strauss, Trott, KP, Bell, Prior. It only nosedived during and in the wake of the Ashes debacle. My point was I'm not sure there's been a clear recent drop-off since England's batting became so unreliable again. But as I said, tailender stats are hard to interpret in amongst the noise.

Just rewatched the highlights, and Kuhn's dismissal was pretty poor. It was a decent ball from Broad, but for an opener to be bowled through the gate like that trapped on the crease is not impressive. I don't know what Stephen Cook did wrong, but he must be feeling hard done by - he's a far better player than Kuhn on the evidence of this series.

Faf's dismissal though . The look on his face was priceless.

EDIT: 2000 posts!

We are always looking for that fast bowler e.g. Wood but really Stokes is that bowler. I would be opening the bowling with him and Ali this morning.

Elgar got a nick on that one according to snicko, simultaneous noise as well, not reviewed.

Two lives for him now!

bigfluffylemon wrote:Ah yes, the TB innings was 2014, not 2013.

I think there's a clear difference between first half of his career and second. But England's batting was pretty strong in the years 2010-2013, when the backbone of the side was Cook, Strauss, Trott, KP, Bell, Prior. It only nosedived during and in the wake of the Ashes debacle. My point was I'm not sure there's been a clear recent drop-off since England's batting became so unreliable again. But as I said, tailender stats are hard to interpret in amongst the noise.

I picked up on it from body language rather than stats. But the stats don't at least deny the theory. Plus he decided he didn't want to face the music as nightwatcher around that time too. Just a feeling anyway.

Odd that has happened twice to Broad in this series. He's usually one of the keenest to appeal and review, even when not warranted.

Very good rear guard from these 2 at present.

100 run partnership.