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

Leach only had the one over. Even Honest Joe has had two.

Captain obviously has full faith in him.......

alfie wrote:Can't have that , Sussex. Struggled to survive against some excellent bowling : but survive he did. Then he slaughtered the bowling for a chanceless hundred. Did he play a couple of shots not totally in control ? Does any batsman not in a serious innings ?

His false shot rate was measured at 22-30 percent, depending on where you take the stats. In a 140 ball innings, using the middle of that sample as a reference point, that is 36-37 false shots in his innings depending on which way you round the decimal, and 42 in a worst case scenario.

On average, a batsman is dismissed after 10 false shots. Bairstow should have been dismissed 4 times in normal circumstances, playing with such control. I guess you could argue that means nothing, but there is little standard deviation in the dismissal averages, and the figures linking false shot percentages to thinks like averages show clear patterns.

So I think objectively, its fair to say if a player edges or has the ball pass the edge while hes trying to hit it, 42 times in an innings, he's been lucky not to get out... and in this case, I'd probably guess 30 of those false shots came before he had anything much on the board.

Fortunately , Sussex , cricket is not played on a computer...and all those "stats" sound rather Peter Moores...

Look I am not denying YJB played and missed rather a lot early in his innings (though virtually never after he'd had his little chat with Kohli ) : but there is a wealth of difference between being fortunate not to edge one in the midst of a fine spell from a top class bowler in difficult conditions, and , say , getting dropped several times through mishits etc... To dismiss that innings as basically just "lottery " stuff is frankly nonsense. Other stats I was reading on Cricinfo refer to an extraordinarily high % of control in boundary striking - though anyone with eyes could have seen that for themselves.

Perhaps you didn't mean your (possibly flippant ?) comment about magic lamps to come across quite like that : but the suspicion arises that if five centuries in eight matches , in three different continents , against four different opponents - every one after coming to the crease with his team in dire trouble - is not enough for you to admit to having somewhat underestimated a player then it probably doesn't matter what he does because you are always going to find a way to avoid giving any measured praise for achievement.

Anyway I can see we will never agree re Bairstow (much like Stokes !) so I will continue to enjoy his highly entertaining batting while the streak lasts - and you can look forward to the next inevitable sequence of low scores which will validate renewed calls to boot the imposter from the Test scene

As for the state of the game : well looks as if some solid sensible Test style batting has enabled India to turn that healthy first innings lead into something approaching "can't lose from here". With the ball (or balls !) now pretty old I can't see them being stopped until Bumrah fancies a declaration...and with the pitch showing some up and down now the chances of another England amazing run chase are - shall we say , minimal ?

Not the end of the world for the home team , even if they end up getting smashed. India are a damn good team : even with some bats struggling they have enough game changers down the order to make serious runs much of the time ; and their bowling attack is as good as I can recall from any of their past teams (though with the huge difference that it is largely based on pace rather than spin !) England undeniably made a number of mistakes in this game , and hopefully a period of reflection before they host SA will enable them to tinker with some aspects of their game. Still going to be hampered by lack of variety in attack and a wobbly top order , of course...to describe them as a work in progress is probably reasonable at present. If they can have some success against SA I think most people would consider this an advance on the many lows of the last eighteen months.

Getting too far ahead , anyway : best just watch this one to the finish - though I imagine day four will lack some of the thrills of the first three. Inevitable progress towards declaration time is my least favourite cricket watch , whether it is my team or the opponents in charge. Grateful for all the fun we have had so far , between showers...

Pujara half century.

alfie wrote:there is a wealth of difference between being fortunate not to edge one in the midst of a fine spell from a top class bowler in difficult conditions, and , say , getting dropped several times through mishits etc...

I think this is an interesting statement that shows where we view the game differently. Its entirely natural to conclude a batsman who plays and misses every ball is doing better than a guy who edges every ball, because edging brings a potential dismissal in play; but really when you analyse the process involved, in both cases the batsman is making an error of judgement, and weirdly in the case of an edge, their judgement is closer to being correct than when they miss entirely because their judgement of where to play the ball is actually closer than when it misses. Hence why analytics into batsman errors do not separate edges from misses, and hence why missing the ball with increasing frequency has the same proportional negative impact on expected output (one could argue more because missing the ball brings other dismissals more likely into play).

Its important, because Bairstow's main problem in test cricket has been missing balls on the stumps, something he's been historically good at. In a 30 test period before this year, he averaged 6 runs on balls on the stumps or just outside - 4 times below the average batsman in the world. One would be inclined to think he'd improved, which he has... to 8.83 on last count (after his 3rd century of the year), still miles below the average. His recent form seems to have been accumulated by teams not actually targeting his weakness and bowling shorter to him... which accounts for a complete turnaround in where he is scoring (mostly back foot, leg side as opposed to offside normally). But they key is, errors still come when balls are put on a good length.

One gets the feeling that he's been riding his fortunes quite well. And that sometimes happens, and yes all the best batsman get luck - but its the amount of errors he's getting away with, like illustrated in the last innings, that make his recent return to scoring seem unsustainable.

I mean, vs Australia he spooned a glove into the air just short of a fielder. He then edged through the slips. In the Windies, he hacked a horrible pull shot miles into the air just outside the reach of Da Silva running back. His first century v New Zealand, he played two horrendous drives, one that missed first slip over his head by a short distance, another that went past him to his right. In his second he was dropped twice, and edged short of second slip with two errors occurring straight into his innings. And yesterday he edged short of a fielder three times. These are just examples I can remember. To get away with all these errors bucks mathematical trends - something that usually corrects itself over time. There will be days he can play the exact same way, and rather than 5 centuries, he'd have 5 fails.

The net effect is, when all the luck possible goes for him, he's made runs. When the luck didnt go for him, he averaged 19 in a near 3 year span of 25 plus tests. All in all, you are left with a player who has averaged over 35 in 2 of his 10 years as a test player, and who's overall career average in his playing span is below average production for a top 6 bat in 8 test teams. He was the worst consistent performer in a stretch where England were statistically at their worst historical batting performance. Not exactly making the test hall of fame, is he?

So before we get into this "why cant I acknowledge he can play" stuff, lets remember.... this is his 87th test of a below average career. He didnt start playing in January 2022, but summer 2012. And considering even in this purple patch he is riding a lot of errors you'd expect him to get out to, when the luck stops he will be back to being that player who wasn't very good.

England so far doing what they need to, but 331 lead with 4 wickets left, its probably not enough

Nice that Jack got Pant's wicket.

India 229-7 at lunch.

Jadeja 17 *
Shami 13*

378 to win. Should get these by tonight!

Will be interesting to see how they go about it, given the fist innings. Were super confident chasing against the Kiwis but the first innings may draw in caution.

Gingerfinch wrote:378 to win. Should get these by tonight!

Will be interesting to see how they go about it, given the fist innings. Were super confident chasing against the Kiwis but the first innings may draw in caution.

You joke, but Lees has come out swinging

53 off 9 ... England look good for it too.

Although I'd like to see Lees settle down a little. A few dot balls in a row, and he's charging short balls from pace.... There is positive, and there is stupid.. dnt throw away the start, make it pay.

It's on. You can't give Stokes' England a target...