Pakistan tour of England 2019

[Arthur Crabtree]

Feels like he'd be a wasted place in the XV.

If England conform to type they'll play five bowlers including Stokes, one spinner and an extra bat anyway. Last minute panic and revert to what they know best (and what they know has never worked).

I can sense the procedure getting underway.

[The Professor]

Moeen showed what he is capable of with both bat and ball today.

[ianp1970]

If England conform to type they'll play five bowlers including Stokes, one spinner and an extra bat anyway. Last minute panic and revert to what they know best (and what they know has never worked).

I can see that happening if Moeen or Rashid are injured, in the knowledge that the extra seamer will stand up better than Denly. They might mitigate that it has to be that way by not selecting a second spinner in the squad.

[bigfluffylemon]

I don't understand the selection. All this fuss about Archer, and he's bowled four overs in three ODIs. Pick Denly to see if he's worth a place in the squad and don't let him bat or bowl.

Good chase by England. The bowling is a bit of a worry, but I do wonder if their poor stats over the last four years are at least in part due to the fact that all their home games are played on stupidly flat decks prepared on purpose to aid England's strength in batting...

You'd think Archer or Wood have to play.

[Durhamfootman]

Does bowling Denly (seemingly playing in this match as secondary spinner) for the solitary over, then moving Stokes and Ali up the order - but not the Kent man - tell a story...

yes... it means England's backroom staff are either extremely clever......... or they haven't got a clue what they are doing

so England chased it down, then

I'm looking forward to watching the highlights in the morning.... I can't wait to assess Joe Deny's worth in the squad

[sussexpob]

Good chase by England. The bowling is a bit of a worry, but I do wonder if their poor stats over the last four years are at least in part due to the fact that all their home games are played on stupidly flat decks prepared on purpose to aid England's strength in batting...

Doesnt show in the stats, BFL. Englands bowlers are more expensive away than at home (5.92 away, 5.8s at home) since 2016. I complained about this in the winter, and have pretty strongly concluded there is no argument, other than one that England's bowlers are just pretty shocking. If you were to attach them onto other batting line ups, they wouldnt be successful. They are constantly bailed out by a team that makes 360 with 5 overs and 6 wickets to spare, like the last match.

Some have defended these expensive figures on the grounds that England's batting forces other teams to bat harder, which is a sensible point to raise, of course teams will have to bat more wild when chasing near 400...... But then, England's wicket SRs I believe are worse than any team, and our lineup cant command any bowlers with a wicket average under 30 (some are closer to 40s), in fact apart from Rashid most are not even close to 30. So one has to ask, if teams are uncomfortably suicidal batting vs England to match us, where is the clatter of wickets? It seems that the records show the teams actually find batting against this line up very easy in comparison to others, on pretty much every metric.

So we are in a position now where the reliability of our firepower is quite frankly unbelievable, this summer already it hasnt mattered that weve given away 360 runs in back to back games because the batting has been ferocious, but there will come a day the batting will inevitably fail, and England simply dont have an attack that can win games in these situations. It makes you laugh when Willey comes out and faults selectors for having a look at other bowlers; in short, id probably have tried a whole new attack in this series, because I dont see any of the specialists lower down the order as indispensable, and Stokes is the most expensive ODI bowler ever, so can we even class him as a competent allrounder at this level, or is he a batter?

Lets just hope our off day isnt in the knockouts. I have a feeling someone like India could cause us problems with the ball, and in recent times were even out series vs them as draws on a home v away last time split.

[mikesiva]

Morgan banned from the match at Trent bridge for a slow over rate.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Of bowlers to have propelled 1000 balls in international cricket against top nine sides since the beginning of 2017, Plunkett has the second best SR, Woakes has the fifth and Rashid the seventh. So three in the top seven.

They have no one in the top 20 for econ, but these three have SRs under 30. No one in the world has a SR under 26 who has played a reasonable amount of cricket against the best sides). Kuldeep is the best on 26.2, but India have no one else under 30. Only NZ have two under 30- Boult and Ferguson (at 4&6).

[Durhamfootman]

but there will come a day the batting will inevitably fail, and England simply dont have an attack that can win games in these situations. ............Lets just hope our off day isnt in the knockouts.

there will come a day and it will be in the knockouts.... or a group match that effectively becomes a knockout, because a couple of matches got washed out early in the comp

I don't agree that the bowling is as bad as you suggest, but there is certainly room for a lot of improvement particularly in the first and last 10 overs. Stokes, in particular, should not be allowed anywhere near the death overs. Irrespective of how many runs still have to be defended, if the first ball of his over was to go to the boundary, it feels to me as though he'd almost certainly have another meltdown. Anyone can one off day under that sort of pressure, but Stokes has had two, and I wouldn't bet against him having a third......... fine player though I think he is.

[sussexpob]

Of bowlers to have propelled 1000 balls in international cricket against top nine sides since the beginning of 2017, Plunkett has the second best SR, Woakes has the fifth and Rashid the seventh. So three in the top seven

A 1000 balls vs top 9 teams as a requirement scrubs 5 of the top 10 ranked bowlers from the results in the ODI official rankings, and has the effect of totally removing all players from West Indies, Sri Lanka and Afghanistan, as well as another 3 lower ranked test teams. You could say thats sensible, but Rashid averages 13 vs the top 8 in over 10 games in this period, so his ranking doesnt seem that false in concern to just playing rubbish teams. To qualify,a Sri Lankan could miss 1 ODI in 2 years for instance. So the bar is being set way too high. Also, England's batting is so frankly off the charts, its seems unfair to compare England's bowlers to that of their opposition; England's bowlers dont have to bowl to the best line up (and by some massive distances on average score per wicket/innings to any team thats ever played), and that has an effect.

Limiting it to comparable performance vs teams England have bowled against and faced, and setting what I believe a more sensible mark of 10 ODIS per player (minimum 15 wickets, based on average wickets falling per game) vs the top 8, the rankings look as follows.....

Plunkett.... 7th
Woakes....12th
Rashid....15th

Not to bad, as you have stated. However, you look at the rest of the regular attack.....out of 54 players to qualify

Mo Ali ....53rd
Wood....51st
Stokes....46th
Willey.... around 30 (I couldnt be bothered to count down the names exactly, but hes around the lower middle)

It leaves you with a average place of 31, which is notably behind the par.

[sussexpob]

This is before we come to econ rates..... and they are frankly an abomination.

Curran....53rd
Stokes...52nd
Plunket...50th
Willey...49th
Rashid...39th
Woakes....38th
Ali...35th
Wood...32nd

Average position.... 44 out of 54.

[sussexpob]

It leaves you with a bit of an uncomfortable conclusion.

Plunkett can take wickets, and often does in the death, but he pays for this being one of the worst overall ODI bowlers in net runs given away.
Stokes is pathetic as a wicket taker, and a train wreck at keeping the runs down.
Willey is vastly expensive without his bowling ever striking above the average threshold.
Ali is above average expensive, and almost zero wicket threat.
Wood is a close to zero wicket threat going, but is at least decent at keeping runs off the charts in the disaster threshold. , but still is below par
Curran should be nowhere near the side and maintains one of the worst career NRRs ever recorded.
Woakes is a good striker, but pays for it in above average net RR loses.
Rashid is the same

As I say, you have to filter this striking ability through various knowns; Plunketts NRR for instance might be the result of bowling death overs a lot, vs teams often faced with an Everest sided chase. So his 7th position in wickets is understandable. Teams facing as Pakistan did on Saturday for instance, 10 runs plus per over with 20 odd to go, should very much lose wickets at a sharper rate.

Plunkett is therefore forgivable. But then those bowlers who arent taken wickets either side as a massive problem. How can Dave Willey not be taking more wickets when death bowling a lot and with such vast cushions?

[sussexpob]

I don't agree that the bowling is as bad as you suggest

I am not sure how bad the bowling has to be before people will agree with me. The fact is, England out of the major teams, are a long way down on others for bowling performance on both SR and NRR achieved. We are statistically the worst going.

We have been successful exclusively on batting power, which as stated before, is record breaking in the history of the game. And thats fine, as a team this is enough to dominate 80% of matches, but there is no plan B. I cant see our line up being restricted to 250 on an average deck and being able to defend it. Pakistan and West Indies dont have class batting line ups, but they are making 300 plus with us with ease.

I think we could have aimed to make radical changes this winter with the bowling line up, but its too late now.

[sussexpob]

I don't agree that the bowling is as bad as you suggest

I am not sure how bad the bowling has to be before people will agree with me. The fact is, England out of the major teams, are a long way down on others for bowling performance on both SR and NRR achieved. We are statistically the worst going.

We have been successful exclusively on batting power, which as stated before, is record breaking in the history of the game. And thats fine, as a team this is enough to dominate 80% of matches, but there is no plan B. I cant see our line up being restricted to 250 on an average deck and being able to defend it. Pakistan and West Indies dont have class batting line ups, but they are making 300 plus with us with ease.

I think we could have aimed to make radical changes this winter with the bowling line up, but its too late now.

[Durhamfootman]

I don't agree that the bowling is as bad as you suggest

I am not sure how bad the bowling has to be before people will agree with me. The fact is, England out of the major teams, are a long way down on others for bowling performance on both SR and NRR achieved. We are statistically the worst going.

I don't disagree with any of that. The bowling will have to improve markedly, but England are now playing in an era where run totals are climbing almost out of sight.... some of which will be to do with pitches prepared, balls manufactured, and new laws introduced for precisely the excess of runs that we are seeing.....there was genuine suprise on comms last night when Willey got one delivery to swing (The ball manufacturer probably had to apologise today, for that ball deviating even a fraction from gun barrel straight). England have also been experimenting in order to try and find a settled bowling squad, but they are still some way short of that atm. That Archer is likely to just walk into the WC squad at this late stage is perhaps an acknowledgement by England that they haven't got to grips with it yet

The bowling is weak, but not disastrously so, imo, although I share your concerns that they might not have what it takes to defend 250 or 275. Once they actually decide who their best bowling attack is, and stop fiddling about with different combinations, they may tighten those numbers up a bit.