England vs West Indies 2nd test Headingley

[bigfluffylemon]

Root rather got himself out then...

If you want pressure for the middle order , budget , you have it

He always gets himself out

He should have a better record than Steve Smith but he just isn't ruthless enough

Constantly gets out between 50-80 playing a sloppy shot

It's like the team being 40-3 forces him to focus, then once we recover to a decent score he loses concentration and gets out

While I agree with the frustration of Root not converting his 50s, at least he gets 50s - record numbers of them. It seems to be a bit churlish to be criticising the man who is probably our best batsman since Barrington, and goes past 50 in 40% of his innings (only Hobbs, Barrington and Sutcliffe have a better rate of 50+ scores per innings than Joe for England).

I just plugged the numbers into a spreadsheet out of curiosity, and while his hundred scoring rate of 12% is on the low side for someone of his average, it has only been bettered in recent times for England by KP (12.7%). You have to go back to the pre-1970 greats to find anyone who scored 100s more than 13% of the time they came to the crease for England (Barrington, Sutcliffe, Hobbs, Hutton, Hammond, and a couple of others who didn't play all that many times). Since 1970 only Denis Amiss and KP have a rate of 100 scoring that is better than Joe's. So I think it is more perception than reality - one feels as though he could be even better than the already special batsman he undoubtedly is, but he scores plenty of 100s by any reasonable standard.

If only we had this problem with the rest of our batting line-up.

[bigfluffylemon]

As an addendum to the above post, Smith's 100 scoring rate is third only to Bradman (who predictably is in a league of his own with 36.5%) and Clive Walcott (20.2). With 20%, Smith is just ahead of Sutcliffe on 19% and Everton Weekes on 18.5. But he passes 50 almost exactly as often (40% of the time) as Joe does.

Wow.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Good stats. It feels like it is the amount of times he looks set to score 100- when he goes past fifty- which makes it seem he isn't getting enough 100s. If he didn't get so many starts, it might not feel like he is missing out on three figures so often.

[Arthur Crabtree]

As an addendum to the above post, Smith's 100 scoring rate is third only to Bradman (who predictably is in a league of his own with 36.5%) and Clive Walcott (20.2). With 20%, Smith is just ahead of Sutcliffe on 19% and Everton Weekes on 18.5. But he passes 50 almost exactly as often (40% of the time) as Joe does.

Wow.

Didn't Smith briefly have the second best ever average recently?

Not sure were going through a golden age currently, to put present day stats into perspective.

[bigfluffylemon]

Ben's not hanging around after tea. One feels as though he and Moeen are either going to bludgeon their way out of trouble, or more likely get out playing a stupid stroke. Still, while Ben's ridden his luck, it's a valuable innings in context.

Over rate is diabolical, even by recent standards. 50 overs in the first two sessions! Both sides managed better than that (although still only about 13.5 an hour) at Edgbaston. At this rate they'll end up 7 or 8 short today. If Holder feels as though he has to bowl his spinners a bit more in the last session to make up time, it may let England off the hook a little.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Is there good mitigation for Stokes not to bat at five now? Given he and Bairstow are certainly England's best number fives (without moving Root down), and Bairstow has a better reason for not moving up.

[bigfluffylemon]

As an addendum to the above post, Smith's 100 scoring rate is third only to Bradman (who predictably is in a league of his own with 36.5%) and Clive Walcott (20.2). With 20%, Smith is just ahead of Sutcliffe on 19% and Everton Weekes on 18.5. But he passes 50 almost exactly as often (40% of the time) as Joe does.

Wow.

Didn't Smith briefly have the second best ever average recently?

Not sure were going through a golden age currently, to put present day stats into perspective.

He currently has the third best - Voges is slightly ahead, and given his retirement, will probably permanently have the second best average of all time, which I regard as an absolute travesty - a statistical fluke based on many tests against weak opposition on flat pitches.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Given WI batting, 250 might give England a decent foothold in the game.

[bigfluffylemon]

Is there good mitigation for Stokes not to bat at five now? Given he and Bairstow are certainly England's best number fives (without moving Root down), and Bairstow has a better reason for not moving up.

I know it sounds stupid going in with 6 bowlers, but it's hard to say with any conviction that England from 4 onwards shouldn't be: Root, Stokes, Bairstow, Moeen, Woakes, TRJ, Broad, Anderson. You can say 'play a batsman at 5', but even Woakes, let alone Stokes, Bairstow and Moeen have all done far better in the last two years than any specialist batsman England have tried.

We really really do need a top order though.

[backfootpunch]

Root rather got himself out then...

If you want pressure for the middle order , budget , you have it

He always gets himself out

He should have a better record than Steve Smith but he just isn't ruthless enough

Constantly gets out between 50-80 playing a sloppy shot

It's like the team being 40-3 forces him to focus, then once we recover to a decent score he loses concentration and gets out

While I agree with the frustration of Root not converting his 50s, at least he gets 50s - record numbers of them. It seems to be a bit churlish to be criticising the man who is probably our best batsman since Barrington, and goes past 50 in 40% of his innings (only Hobbs, Barrington and Sutcliffe have a better rate of 50+ scores per innings than Joe for England).

I just plugged the numbers into a spreadsheet out of curiosity, and while his hundred scoring rate of 12% is on the low side for someone of his average, it has only been bettered in recent times for England by KP (12.7%). You have to go back to the pre-1970 greats to find anyone who scored 100s more than 13% of the time they came to the crease for England (Barrington, Sutcliffe, Hobbs, Hutton, Hammond, and a couple of others who didn't play all that many times). Since 1970 only Denis Amiss and KP have a rate of 100 scoring that is better than Joe's. So I think it is more perception than reality - one feels as though he could be even better than the already special batsman he undoubtedly is, but he scores plenty of 100s by any reasonable standard.

If only we had this problem with the rest of our batting line-up.

He should have scored at the very least another 5 hundreds, probably more

He is to loose once he gets past 50, like he thinks the hard work is done and loses concentration

In a batting line up as wobbly as ours we can't afford our gun player (by far our best player in modern times) to be so reckless

KP is a funny one as he started like a train, 15 hundreds in 45 matches or something then his batting regressed quite a bit, yes the innings were still great but they were spaced much wider apart

Root is such a special player but I think he has wasted the remarkable run of form he has had over the last 2 years

He has been brilliant but and there is a but he could have been better, I see the amount of hundreds Smith and kohl are scoring, the ruthlessness they have once getting past 30 and see no reason that root can't do that as I think he is a better player than both of them with no real technical flaw

[Arthur Crabtree]

Even if you brought a new batter in, you could bat Gentle Ben at five and keep YJB and Mo where they are. Not sure there's a good reason to bat the middle order rookie ahead of Stokes. You could move the three up, creating a different problem, and I wouldn't be against that either.

[backfootpunch]

Is there good mitigation for Stokes not to bat at five now? Given he and Bairstow are certainly England's best number fives (without moving Root down), and Bairstow has a better reason for not moving up.

I know it sounds stupid going in with 6 bowlers, but it's hard to say with any conviction that England from 4 onwards shouldn't be: Root, Stokes, Bairstow, Moeen, Woakes, TRJ, Broad, Anderson. You can say 'play a batsman at 5', but even Woakes, let alone Stokes, Bairstow and Moeen have all done far better in the last two years than any specialist batsman England have tried.

We really really do need a top order though.

In Australia we have to play 6 bowlers imo

We don't want broad, Anderson and stokes bowling 60 overs a test on the flat wickets over there

The first two are one injury away from retirement and stokes has a dodgy injury record and is too important a batsmen

Not like malan is scoring any runs anyway

[bigfluffylemon]

As an addendum to the above post, Smith's 100 scoring rate is third only to Bradman (who predictably is in a league of his own with 36.5%) and Clive Walcott (20.2). With 20%, Smith is just ahead of Sutcliffe on 19% and Everton Weekes on 18.5. But he passes 50 almost exactly as often (40% of the time) as Joe does.

Wow.

Didn't Smith briefly have the second best ever average recently?

Not sure were going through a golden age currently, to put present day stats into perspective.

I'm sure I read somewhere that the 50s were statistically the golden age for batting, but the 2000s and 2010s have been the next best decades.

As well as Smith and Root, in the last 10 years we have had active Sangakkarra, Kallis, Younis, AbDV, Tendulkar, Kohli, Williamson, Jayawardene and Dravid, all of whom would walk into their respective countries' all-time XIs, plus Ponting, Hussey, Chanderpaul, Sehwag, Clarke, Amla, KP, Yousef and Hayden, were also all very good, if not quite all-time greats (and it's debateable). Seems like a golden age of batting to me for at least India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, South Africa and a strong period for Australia too.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Should the risk of injuries mean England should field an extra bowler? I'm not against the extra bowler if it doesn't weaken the batting- which arguably it shouldn't. But if you have to pick one because of fear of injuries, then arguably the bowler in question needs to be rested. Anderson's recent overseas record shouldn't make his place automatic anyway.

[Arthur Crabtree]

I'm sure I read somewhere that the 50s were statistically the golden age for batting, but the 2000s and 2010s have been the next best decades.
.

The 2000s were, I thought the 2010s were well down on that.

I think generally, the standard of Test cricket has dropped across the board in this century. Batting, bowling, fielding.