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

Adi wrote:131 runs leaked by Mason for 1 wickets after 39 overs !!. Definitely a lot better than this is expected by specialist spinner in terms of actual statistics.

So far, it is an improvement on Shane Warne's test debut.


I didn't see a great deal of it, but he is definitely someone that England need to invest quality time in. I think he could be a long term prospect.

GarlicJam wrote:

Adi wrote:131 runs leaked by Mason for 1 wickets after 39 overs !!. Definitely a lot better than this is expected by specialist spinner in terms of actual statistics.

So far, it is an improvement on Shane Warne's test debut.


I didn't see a great deal of it, but he is definitely someone that England need to invest quality time in. I think he could be a long term prospect.

He is young (20 i read) , so he has a long career of almost 2 decades, being a spinner. He has spin and he spins more than Moeen Ali, because he is a wrist spinner. The spin is one positive i see in him. His run-up is a issue. It should not happen so frequently as it affects rhythm and confidence. He may well pick wickets tomorrow in this innings, rather than future matches, but so far the performance is below par. By no way i am suggesting to drop him, just saying he needs to perform as this is the need of the hour.

read a stat that crane produced 14% of false shots, IE edges, the average for this test was 9% so he actually bowled well and was more of a threat.
he probably suffered because he doesn't know how to get batsman out at the moment and is still very raw in bowling terms.

rich1uk wrote:

Gingerfinch wrote:Difficult to criticise or praise, if he had taken a fifer, after just one match, given Hirwani took 16 wickets on debut, and Warne one or two. He'll hopefully be given a bit of a run in the team, though with Ali being about to bat, that's doubtful.

yeah all i said originally was i'm prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt given how flat this pitch has been and he has probably looked more dangerous than any other bowler

took the edge on a number of occasions but the ball didn't go to a fielder and was a bit careless to have bowled a no-ball on a wicket

he's bowled a fair few loose deliveries but thats pretty common for a leggie

I think it's criminal for a spinner to bowl a no ball.

Seems the usual phantom arguments that are being suggested. Pitches arent suiting, etc. If pitches arent suiting Crane's development, then tell me why Liam Dawson is taking more wickets at 20 runs per scalp less on exactly the same pitches. And why Dawson is averaged more than 10 runs under his career average last year? Crane is by some distance the second best Hampshire spinner. He has so far essentially proved he is worse than some of the more reliable part time spinners who are full batsman. People like Bopara, Samit and Moeen are all proven better bowlers on what has occured, regardless of the invisible qualities one might be assumed to have.

Did Crane even get picked for Hampshire all of last year? I have a feeling not even Hampshire picked him all year, he only played half of it. And yet, here he is in a test match. Picking players who have proven they can live in the lower levels of cricket is the absolute minimum for a test cap. Picking one that is struggling is full on insanity. And yes, while he might have some admirable qualities, there is a hugely ignored element to this..... if he averaged so highly, then one can assume he also has a very long list of problems.

He for instance, doesnt even have a stable run up and action. His county career would indicate he has neither stand out control, nor stand out strike ability.

And no matter how you spin it, 1/140 is abysmal. Its historically abysmal when compared to the worst debuts.

Until he has a season where he can force himself into his county line up, takes wickets are under 30, and shows consistent quality, then he deserves zero chances in this test side.

Its a bit like saying a guy who averages 20 with the bat, but scores 12 of those on glorious boundaries through the covers, is test class.

Moeen also dissapointing once again...on a pitch where there is turn, just nothing...no revolutions on the ball at all...

Moeen too leaked almost similar runs i suppose for 1 wicket. Spin has not worked. Pacers have taken wickets at relatively lower average for England this innings.

Moeen and Crane couldn't even get Khawaja out when he has weakness against spin, on pitch that is taking spin....he played well, but he shouldn't have been allowed to get that many runs!!! Suprised Malan didn't bowl...he's been our best spinner this series!

andy wrote:Moeen and Crane couldn't even get Khawaja out when he has weakness against spin, on pitch that is taking spin....he played well, but he shouldn't have been allowed to get that many runs!!! Suprised Malan didn't bowl...he's been our best spinner this series!

Crane did get his man though eventually.

Yeah after it was too late though...

sussexpob wrote:Seems the usual phantom arguments that are being suggested. Pitches arent suiting, etc. If pitches arent suiting Crane's development, then tell me why Liam Dawson is taking more wickets at 20 runs per scalp less on exactly the same pitches. And why Dawson is averaged more than 10 runs under his career average last year? Crane is by some distance the second best Hampshire spinner. He has so far essentially proved he is worse than some of the more reliable part time spinners who are full batsman. People like Bopara, Samit and Moeen are all proven better bowlers on what has occured, regardless of the invisible qualities one might be assumed to have.

i assume thats directed at me

given i have never really been slow to slam the selectors for what i have seen as dodgy selections i am not really sure its warranted

fact is we have been struggling to find a specialist spinner

fact is he bowled far better than his figures suggested

fact is people who watched the whole game and aren't just ranting based on looking at a scorecard when they woke up have been impressed by the potential he showed in his first game

yes it would be great to have someone who is the finished article, fact is we dont

so i'm prepared to give the guy a break and not just rubbish him after half a game

Then you would assume wrongly, Rich. It was Alfie who made the point about pitches. I didnt attribute the quote to him because it is, like I said, just another of the 140 different critical reasons I am reading for this series failure. The best spinner in recent times in county cricket has had the fact he has a pitch that is seen as turning frequently held against him, with people saying anyone could do it on that wicket. So this isnt a reason. Its another lazy conclusion that sounds like a reason, but it doesnt pass the first b*llshit test. Like the "only express pace takes wickets in OZ" when reality suggests a guy bowling at 78-81mph actually took most wickets, or any other of the lazy journo crap post series loss.

The simple fact is, you cannot tell me the cupboard is bare when we picked an opening batsman and part time spinner to front the attack, with another identical role player being given a go, then another all rounder with a less than brilliant record, now a 20 year old who cant nail down a county spot in his own team and hasnt done anything of note to suggest he can cope at test cricket.

Its a bit like picking only strikers for England's football team who have scored 5 goals per season, and ignoring some slow target man who fired 33 goals in the season, but then saying "yeah, but this guy has pace and far more skill, etc"...... then when you dont score any goals in the group stage and get knocked out, bemoan the fact that the striker cupboard was too bare.

The cold, hard fact is, we have not once in the last 2 years, picked the best performer in England's county system. So the argument that we dont have anyone better is utterly invalid.

Average of 25 gets ignored for averages of 41, 45 plus and 38 .....

Thank God this series is nearly over. Australia of course have now avoided the issue of batting last on a turning pitch by only having to bat once, and England will have failed to take 20 Australian wickets in a single test. But despite that, one can't help but feel that given the nature of the wickets that have been served up, it's the batting that has really cost England. Despite four first innings scores of more than 300, which in theory is not that bad, and two over 400, one feels that England could and should have made more in every innings apart from possibly Melbourne.

The only questions left are when will Australia declare (sometime around tea probably) and can England bat the 4-5 sessions needed to save the match on a docile pitch (theory says yes, after all Australia managed it one test ago, bitter experience says not a chance in hell).

Then the reaping and soul searching should commence, but again, from experience the list of actions by the ECB to address England's overseas failures of the last five years will be:
1. More T20, because that'll help somehow
2. Bugger all else

At least Khawaja's innings will have helped me in the FL...

I mean its the same all the time, really. We can talk about it over and over, but it never changes.

England and Flower think that they can create test match players based on some factors that dont in themselves equate to performance. So we get played like TRJ who bowls for the best part of a decade being consistently awesome, but he isnt quick enough, not enough weapons, destined to be a failure because he just doesnt have star quality. Then we cap Jake Ball out of nowhere because he has everything, despite the fact hes never proved it for more than a few days.

Both have played 4 tests.... one averages 19, the other 119....

Why do people get sucked in to this "lets manufacture a cricketer" nonsense. It works 2% of the time. There is a far more dramatic link to proven performance than rabbit out of a hat.

Beats me sussex. You could argue that it's kinda worked with Stokes (and I do remember having arguments on the old TMS boards about Broad 10 years ago in similar situations, when he was picked more on 'potential' than actual merit and the potential did eventually flourish), but England's selection policy since the unmitigated disaster that was the Ashes four years ago has been pretty dreadful. We're no closer to filling the holes in the side left by Strauss, KP, Bell, Swann and Bresnan than we were then - only really Bairstow (for Prior) has been a success.

Heaven help us all when Cook and Anderson call it a day, especially if Broad doesn't recover his mojo soon.