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

bigfluffylemon wrote: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.

Again though, BFL, there are stages to such things. Stokes aside (who by vague memory averaged mid 30s with bat, high 20s with ball on test debut in FC, so well justified his opportunity), when you look at Broad I am virtually 100% sure when he was test capped he was averaging dead on 30 a wicket after 1 or 2 seasons with Leicestershire. I believe he was also bowling brilliantly in the new T20 formats, and was very quickly among the best one day performer on the circuit. In his 1st or 2nd year I think he was the most economical English player in the scene, or very close to it. He got his test cap after probably a year of international limited overs cricket where he did pretty well (and continued to improve after for a while)....

So there was a basis there. He wasnt a 20-21 year old with no established professional quality being asked to make 2 huge steps at once. He was a 20 year old who was already performing the best in his team, had taken a big step in limited overs, was seemingly improving all the time, and looked a solid investment. In the end, was he test capped in 2008? The real breakthrough in his test career would have been the Oval in 2009, when he ripped through the Aussies in the deciding test? Not that long of a pay off really.

Kind of shows you the difference in a decade though.

When the Marsh brothers are putting on 150, you've reached rock bottom. Given the esteem in which they are held by home supporters. MM averages 150 right now in these Ashes. Shaun is 27 runs behind Warner's second most runs for the series.

I'm guessing there'll be a declaration half way through the afternoon session.

Curran has just halved his Test average. 100 and out for Mitch3.

sussexpob wrote:

bigfluffylemon wrote: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.

Again though, BFL, there are stages to such things. Stokes aside (who by vague memory averaged mid 30s with bat, high 20s with ball on test debut in FC, so well justified his opportunity), when you look at Broad I am virtually 100% sure when he was test capped he was averaging dead on 30 a wicket after 1 or 2 seasons with Leicestershire. I believe he was also bowling brilliantly in the new T20 formats, and was very quickly among the best one day performer on the circuit. In his 1st or 2nd year I think he was the most economical English player in the scene, or very close to it. He got his test cap after probably a year of international limited overs cricket where he did pretty well (and continued to improve after for a while)....

So there was a basis there. He wasnt a 20-21 year old with no established professional quality being asked to make 2 huge steps at once. He was a 20 year old who was already performing the best in his team, had taken a big step in limited overs, was seemingly improving all the time, and looked a solid investment. In the end, was he test capped in 2008? The real breakthrough in his test career would have been the Oval in 2009, when he ripped through the Aussies in the deciding test? Not that long of a pay off really.

Kind of shows you the difference in a decade though.

You're probably right, sussex, it was a long time ago. I think he was test capped in 2007 v Sri Lanka, and averaged in the mid thirties for his first year to 18 months of test cricket before that breakthrough performance at the Oval. But according to cricinfo's stats, from 2006-08 he took 62 wickets at 27.5 and an economy of under 5 in ODIs, so you're right he did have some solid international form behind him before his test cap. But I do recall an argument about whether he was ready for test level when he was selected, which continued until the Oval 2009.

But it has got worse, no argument there.

Arthur Crabtree wrote:When the Marsh brothers are putting on 150, you've reached rock bottom. Given the esteem in which they are held by home supporters. MM averages 150 right now in these Ashes. Shaun is 27 runs behind Warner's second most runs for the series.

Oh yes. Have they actually learned to bat, or are England's bowlers really that hapless on these pitches? I guess time will tell, but it's amazing how this England unit has made players that have otherwise very ordinary records look like world beaters on this tour.

Just how much did that late pair of wickets on day 1 cost England?

And you just know that after England's spinners have collected 2-300 between them, Lyon will return 3-4 wickets at least, probably before the end of the day.

Arthur Crabtree wrote:When the Marsh brothers are putting on 150, you've reached rock bottom. Given the esteem in which they are held by home supporters. MM averages 150 right now in these Ashes. Shaun is 27 runs behind Warner's second most runs for the series.

Harsh.

I made the prediction several times that MMarsh would be back. He is now secured for the next 12 months or more in the BG. Same with his brother - a couple of centuries each this series.


both brothers will be warming (slightly) in the heart of The Australian Supporter, but he will keep in the back of his mind disappointments of the past - especially from Shaun.

And the declaration.

Four and a half sessions to bat to save the test. Runs are largely irrelevant. Australia did it (although they were helped by some rain). Can England? Can they hell.

Two down!

Truly pathetic.

And due to a shocking over rate from England, there are somehow still 40 overs to bowl today. Will it be all over tonight?

I agree with Sussex. If Jack Leach has best county stats than other specialist spinners, then he should be given first go.I would like to know why the performance of Jack was ignored. He does not chucks is what I understand after reading some posts. If Jack had flopped in tests then maybe try Mason or whoever is England's second best domestic spinner by actual wickets and runs per wicket etc.

Regarding identifying talent I would say Akila Dhananjaya was selected from club by Mahela. He had surprise element at least, the action, the carrom ball, doosra and so he got fastracked. Does Mason has any of these abilities which differentiate from other specialist spinners in England. Okay, or is it that he turns the ball more than Jack Leach or turns it both ways, like I mentioned doosra which Jack cannot. Even Jack is 26 so it's not that selectors can say he is old and we are looking for long term solution. He can be long term even if he starts international cricket at 26.

Not saying Jack will be the one stop solution to specialist spinner problem, but he deserved first go. What confidence will Jack draw now after such ignorance of performance.

Not every bowler is selected on basis of stats . Many bowlers have been selected even though they are statsitically not as good in domestics than one selected. But reason is there? What's it in this case. In what skill is Mason better than Jack.
1. Does Mason spins ball more sharply than Jack.
2. Does Mason has a doosra and Jack doesn't.
3. Does Mason has a stock ball and Jack doesn't.
4. Does Mason has the ability to pitch the ball on roughs more often than Jack.
5. Does Mason gets good bounce like Lyon or Monty.

193/1 in 48 overs by specialist spinner is unacceptable. I don't expect him to take 5 right in his debut match. But surely more wicket than 1. Okay he did not take take wickets, but he gave 4 runs an over the highest eco rate along with Broad.

The wicket is turner and spin friendly imo. I am watching this match so I will state reasons why it is turner.
(1).Mason himself was able to spin the ball, significantly at times.
(2)In England's second innings Smith introduced Lyon to bowling attack in 6th over. That to when Aussies pace bowlers had England at 20/1. It is rare Aussies use spinner in 6th over in Australia when Starc, Cummins, Josh are in bowling attack. The first over Lyon bowled generated puff, the ball bounced, and there was no dead turn after pitching. It reacted properly.
(3) There are rough marks created by pace bowlers, either intentionally or unintentionally to help their spinners. And if the spinner will have ability to pitch the ball on those roughs then surely it will trouble the batters or even convert trouble into wicket later.

So by no means Mason, Lyon and Moeen can say the wicket is not conducive for us.


Meanwhile England trailing by 274 runs and 8 wickets intact. Cook gone so I do not expect them to post a 400 now. Max I expect England without Cook and on day 4 against these 3 Pacers and Lyon is 300. Might not even have to bat again. Aussies massive favorites imo.

Aussies are able to control the match , thanks to 2 wickets which have impacted the run rate as well.

Lyon gets 8 the over in first spell out of 19 bolwed by Aussies. Why not, he is picking wickets and choking runs like an Indian spinner on spin friendly wicket.

8 overs 9 runs and wicket of England's best player of spin.

Aussies pace bowlers have good backup in Lyon. The pressure they create is not released. Makes Smith's job easy. This over was also well bowled. Puff of dust coming from some spots. The ball will be old and much better for him to grip after 30 overs or so. He will pick more wickets in 2nd and 3rd spell imo with better grip advantage.

Nice ball by Cummins. James edges it to Smith, the only slip fielder.

Wondering why Smith has only one slip. At 44/3 he should have 2 at least,.

I've been impressed with Cummins in this series. He's done a fine job. This is easily the best bowling attack we've had since the days of McGrath/Lee/Gillespie/Warne.

Bad time for Stoneman to score a duck- in terms of going to NZ.