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

And so to the traditional finale of the English summer at the Oval. Has an English cricket summer finished so late? 16th of September seems awfully late. The 2005 series finished on 12th September, and that match was plagued (or blessed, depending on your perspective) by bad light. Still, the weather is set fair, and we should see a result.

Still a lot to play for, despite the Ashes already being retained. A 3-1 win for Australia will likely be judged by history as an overwhelming win, while a 2-2 draw would have Australia leave these shores unsatisfied, and with a record of still never having won in England since 2001. Oh, and apparently there are 24 test championship points to play for. So there's that.

Team news - Ben Stokes is unfit to bowl, so will be played as a specialist batsman, with Jason Roy making way at 4 and Sam Curran to slot in at 7. Meanwhile Craig Overton is dropped for Chris Woakes, because, hey, why not. It's not as if we should expect any consistency or logic behind England's selections any more. Although in theory this is dropping a batsman for another allrounder, Curran has a test average decently over 30, and Woakes isn't far behind with a test match ton to his name, so this should actually strengthen England's batting, given Jason Roy has struggled all season.

On the Australian front, Travis Head makes way for Mitchell Marsh, the main reason seemingly his medium pace to give a break to the quicks. Pat Cummins especially must be exhausted after a long summer. In theory, this should give England a bit of a chance, as the pressure on the batsmen may not be so relentless. On the other hand, this is the England batting line-up we're talking about. David Warner keeps his place, despite having apparently become Stuart Broad's bunny.

It's tempting to conclude that Australia have been overwhelmingly dominant in this series, but to be honest, all four tests could have gone either way at various points. Australia have seized the key moments more often than England, but the biggest difference between the two sides is the runs of Steve Smith. If England can find a way to get him out cheaply, they have a shot. Of course, we've been saying that for nine tests on the bounce now, so any suggestion that Smith is due a failure, or it may happen now, have to be taken with a pinch of salt.

Denly has been left in the same batting position, so maybe Ed Smith is presently unconscious.

I fancy Australia. They're the stronger side and I don't expect there will be any dead rubber vacationing going on with the series alive.

Arthur Crabtree wrote:Denly has been left in the same batting position, so maybe Ed Smith is presently unconscious.

There are noises off that Mitch3 is coming in for Head.

Australia win their fourth toss of the series and opt to bowl.

And Starc makes way for Siddle even though Mitch2 scored 175 in the ANAFL.

Curious England side. Three batters and eight all rounders and keepers!

20-0. Halcyon days!

When was the last time the England top six was this weak? The 1980s? The days before Nasser took over the captaincy?

Test averages

Denly 24
Burns 28
Root 48
Stokes 35
Bairstow 35
Buttler 33

Two very poor drops from the Aussies

Two awful shots from root, like he was trying to get out

Arthur Crabtree wrote:Denly has been left in the same batting position, so maybe Ed Smith is presently unconscious.

perhaps he hasn't recovered from the selectors end of season party and he is completely knackered after patting himself on the back for a job well done all night

after ignoring the bleeding obvious all summer, it seems as though England may have finally realised what everyone else has known for a couple of years........ sometimes in test cricket it's okay to be patient

Usual stuff today

Flat pitch and we are just gifting our wickets with reckless shots

mikesiva wrote:When was the last time the England top six was this weak? The 1980s? The days before Nasser took over the captaincy?

Test averages

Denly 24
Burns 28
Root 48
Stokes 35
Bairstow 35
Buttler 33

well.... England have an opener who doesn't open, a number 3 who's best at 4, a number 4 who is probably a number 6 (5 at a pinch) a Keeper at 5, and a keeper at 6, so it probably isn't surprising

add to that 5 bowlers (I don't buy the all rounder tags, only Stokes is an all rounder in this side) and England have got a tail that probably starts at 5

Durhamfootman wrote:(I don't buy the all rounder tags, only Stokes is an all rounder in this side)

People often see all rounders as having equal worth in their discipline averages, but actually I think its important to compare all rounders on their net production, weighted to each individual discipline. You could, for instance, say that Stokes average of 35/33 (bat/ball) is superior to Woakes at 29/30, because he's 5 minus 3 = 2 runs overall better when each discipline is offset, ergo he's a better player.

But actually, when you look at statistical worth of each of these averages, you find Stokes bats only 1.8 innings on average per game, but takes 2.4 wickets per match.... so his batting average is actually, in terms of its use per go, only 75% as useful in determining his "all rounder" rating. His bowling average is applied at far greater consistency. I dont have time to do the maths and crunch it properly, but I am guessing if you worked it all out, you'd probably find Woakes is a more efficient player.I am interested in an answer though, so I am going to work this out at some stage.

My hunch is that you would find higher bat averages would be significantly offset by better bowling averages, whenever a player takes more than a wicket per innings .... or in other words, bowling all rounder or maybe even bowlers who can bat a bit, statistically, would prove to be more efficient players.