Random Cricket Thread (International Cricket)

[sussexpob]

Had a bit of a laugh at SP's typically gloomy summation of the bowling stocks ...

Broad retired last year and Jimmy for all his astonishing fitness was highly unlikely to spearhead the attack in Australia at 43

I wasn't trying to be gloomy, merely demonstrate that at this exact point in time the "do they make it to Australia" can be levelled at every single player in the English game. Wood is coming off a horror tour averaging 80, is now 35, and has an injury history from hell. Is he another terrible series or another injury away from retirement? Woakes is unpickable away. Robinson needs time to rediscover some form and fitness, and he hasn't as yet at Sussex done that this year.

If the Ashes were tomorrow, would you bet on Robinson or Wood to get through 3-4-5 tests in a row? I would not. And these are the only players who are proven at this level, ignoring Woakes absolutely appalling away record. Everyone else on the list is 1-2-3 bad games away from dropping out of contention.

My original point was forcing Anderson into retirement because he might not make Australia was disrespectful. Right now if I had to trust one bowler in the English game to go out to Australia, it would be Anderson. He averaged over 40 less per wicket than our next best option in India, bowled very well at stages on dead tracks, and is an all-time legend.

I would have bet a hell of a lot more money on an unretired Anderson making Australia if allowed, than anyone else on the list. Age is a number now in sport.... Tom Brady won a superbowl in a physically violent sport at 43. Freak things happen with age nowadays. Maybe Anderson would fall apart at some point..... he wanted to keep going and find out if that happened, I think his quality over the years allowed him to do that. So yes, for me its disrespectful to boot out an all-time legend to replace him with a never did anything, not really making a convincing case to do anything type. If England had 4-5 of the supplied list averaging sub 25 and no injury concerns, its different. But we don't....

You don't send a world class operator to the slaughterhouse just because you might roll a 6....

[sussexpob]

Geez, are our bowling stocks that bad?

Let's not forget that even our best prospects like Archer and Robinson we manage to break through mismanagement

Our bowling stocks are not that bad, England just ignore players who don't suit their architype of bowling 90mph. Sam Cook for instance has averaged something ridiculous like 15-16 a wicket in 3.5 years, and was dropped from the Lions side in the same period. Which is quite frankly absurd.

When Gus Atkinson came into the team last year, I read a Wisden article (I cant remember who in the English management was quoted btw) that said the team were remodelling his action to bowl quicker. He could bowl 90 mph, but not consistently. They wanted him to be quicker, more often.... for a player who has been fit for 2 LO games and 10 FCs at that point at the age of 25. What the hell do we expect to happen to him? 4 stress fractures to the back before 25, but could you bowl even more physically intense? It feels absolutely inevitable that, even if he is the new Waqar Younis, that he will be dead in the next 2-3 years if he even makes that.

And then you look at the others. Did the same to Archer, I will be surprised if he ever plays a 4-5 day game again. We did the same to Tongue...back injury. Mahmood...back injury. Wood bowls quick, but is always injured. Wanted Potts to get quicker, fell apart. They wanted Jake Ball back in the past to quicken, disappeared. Olly Stone was told to bowl flat out... always injured.

We seem incapable of accepting good bowlers can operate mid-80s and be around for a few years. Instead, anyone fast-medium is encouraged to kill themselves in the pursuit of being fast.

Reminds me of the Red Dwarf book where Holly condenses all his memory into becoming the most powerful mind in the history humanity, but it reduces his life span to 100 seconds, rendering him useless.

Sam Cook needs to be picked this year. Its an absolute necessity.

[Durhamfootman]

Sam Cook needs to be picked this year. Its an absolute necessity.

indeed he does

[sussexpob]

On the other hand, Anderson didn't land in the test team fully formed. He was in and out for years and wildly inconsistent - think he averaged over 35 in his first 20 or so tests. It was only around 2009 when he became more consistent. So hopefully some of the young lads are still in development and will come good.

I think the case of Anderson was a little different, because he was an instant hit in the ODI game, and also was excellent in the CC. There wasn't so many questions about can he dominate at the lower level, his potential in the CC was clear as he took wickets for fun until the injuries hit. And there wasn't so many questions about his ability to step up, as he was doing it in the ODIs. So it felt like he just needed some luck and time.

I guess the irony is, Anderson represents everything that is wrong with English test cricket selection. As a younger player before he got problems around 2006/07, he was capable of bowling very quick, regularly into the 90s. He could swing it around. Fletcher picked him lauding his pace and his ability to reverse swing it. If he had been the same player he turned into, a lower 80s accurate, clever, skilful, conventional swing bowler, he'd have never got to 2009. The load of being forced to bowl quicker and quicker reduced him to a wreck. That away Ashes series he was a broken man. The toll of being England's quick bowler bowling way over what was capable of him should have ruined his career.

In the end, those injuries in the Ashes series of 06/07 period really were a blessing. He cut down his pace a lot, and with it came accuracy and control. It also helped that 2009 was the highest scoring year in many decades of test cricket..... when he came good, it looked comparatively amazing at a time bowlers were being reduced to steaming piles of Ashes. The moment I think it all came together was that 2009 test v Windies at CLS. I remember watching him bowl in that test, and it felt like I was watching him finally get it together. He bowled absolutely amazingly that few days.

Alfie commented I am negative (he's right, I am)..... but my god, I remember back in those days that it was me and Greyblazer vs the 606 world on Anderson. Everyone wanted to drop and leave him, but he was too good a prospect.

Sadly we still haven't learned our lesson. Rob Key wants the Anderson who bowled 90mph half volley's against Zimbabwe looking for a booming inswinging yorker to rip out the stumps. He doesnt want the 78mph bowler twisting a world class bat all around the wicket with the slight of a wrist, accuracy and the ability to skillfully set someone up.

[alfie]

Noting posts above...

Hey Sussex : believe it or not I am very much with you in spirit on the Anderson thing. I would have much rather he had been allowed - nay encouraged - to go on defying gravity and continuing to earn his place in the team (as he indeed did recently in India - though we must concede he had a pretty mouldy Ashes prior to that). Whether he would be able to maintain a place by right was of course something we could only know in time ; but it did indeed seem Jimmy himself was happy and keen to push on as long as he could justify his spot - and would be prepared to accept the axe if and when it were reasonably applied. Suppose one can have an opinion either way as to whether this end was preferable ?

(Have to point out by the way that I was also a solid Anderson supporter back in the day on BBC 606 : remember posting in some detail about his prospects about the time you reference when you and Greyblazer were also holding the fort for him)

But for all that I cannot be too critical of McCullum Key Stokes for going the way they have. It might not have been strictly necessary (yet) ; it might not work in the short term : heck it might never work if the new boys keep getting injured ! But I don't see it as disrespectful - it seems there was a pretty comprehensive amount of discussion involved rather than a blunt ultimatum. Rather a choice that they see ,rightly or wrongly , to be in England's overall best interests ; and one which Jimmy seems to have accepted with good grace.

As to the prospects of cobbling together a seriously serviceable attack for Australian conditions in the next 18 months : well I guess I am hoping more than betting the house. Hoping Wood can stay fit ; maybe Stone can stay out of the sick bay and Tongue emerge from it ; optimistically fancy Potts might be able to perform (I am no longer even nurturing fantasies of Archer donning whites for any serious period so will look for "miracle discoveries" elsewhere ) But it is 18 months off ; so for now will watch with interest just how well the selections that are made are able to perform in "lesser" series...

And will keep hoping. While missing Jimmy of course. Just hope he can go out with a win and a good performance.

[alfie]

As for the pace v other skills thing : yes I do agree Key seems to be a bit overdoing it with his quest for speed over all else. I think there is a balance to be struck though so don't mind if all this results in a couple of fellows who do bowl with serious speed get their chance to stake a claim for an Ashes trip : horses for courses isn't a silly idea ... no one goes to India without spinners , even if there aren't any Swanns or Underwoods about.

Wouldn't want it overdone in a home summer : Cook has the form and probably should be first in line at the moment. If he turns out good enough I'm fine with him trying his luck in Australia too - but I would hope he could get a bit of back up from one or two tall quick chaps...wherever they may be.

We will see.

[Slipstream]

As for the pace v other skills thing : yes I do agree Key seems to be a bit overdoing it with his quest for speed over all else. I think there is a balance to be struck though so don't mind if all this results in a couple of fellows who do bowl with serious speed get their chance to stake a claim for an Ashes trip : horses for courses isn't a silly idea ... no one goes to India without spinners , even if there aren't any Swanns or Underwoods about.

Wouldn't want it overdone in a home summer : Cook has the form and probably should be first in line at the moment. If he turns out good enough I'm fine with him trying his luck in Australia too - but I would hope he could get a bit of back up from one or two tall quick chaps...wherever they may be.

We will see.

Dale Steyn
@DaleSteyn62
·
16h
10 minutes I enjoyed every second of!
#ohjimmyjimmy

Every James Anderson Test wicket on Australian soil https://youtu.be/M1FW8dUPYq0?si=R_4p-gdkh795F8Eu via
@YouTube
youtube.com
Every James Anderson Test wicket on Australian soil
From 21 Ashes Tests Down Under, England's record-breaking bowler James Anderson has taken 68 wickets at 34.01

[bigfluffylemon]

Agree with much of what has been said here. Key seems obsessed with speed above all else. I have thoughts on that that I will post in more detail when on a keyboard. But short version, pick your best bowlers for the reasons that made them best. We have a long history of breaking fast bowlers by trying to remodel their action.

To be fair, did hear Key interviewed on TMS and he said Sam Cook is very much in the frame, acknowledging his skill. So hope he will debut this summer.

[sussexpob]

Hey Sussex : believe it or not I am very much with you in spirit on the Anderson thing. I would have much rather he had been allowed - nay encouraged - to go on defying gravity and continuing to earn his place in the team (as he indeed did recently in India - though we must concede he had a pretty mouldy Ashes prior to that). Whether he would be able to maintain a place by right was of course something we could only know in time ; but it did indeed seem Jimmy himself was happy and keen to push on as long as he could justify his spot - and would be prepared to accept the axe if and when it were reasonably applied. Suppose one can have an opinion either way as to whether this end was preferable ?

Obviously we cannot guarantee that Anderson maintains form and fitness, and his age is a risk factor to both. But in my opinion if being a generational legend of your country buys you one thing, its the benefit of the doubt on any temporary blips in form. I find the insinuation that it took one series or a judgement based on his age on paper to say your best bowler is no longer worthy of the team, disrespectful to say the least. Its not to say I believe success or form was guaranteed, nor was it unlikely that his form does go backwards... but assuming he wanted to play on, then I need more justification based on clear evidence of a drop in form. Obviously if he had a stinker this summer, then its different. But the bottom line is, his performances under McCullum still justifies his selection.... hes averaged 26 a wicket in this era, which is bang on his career average.

As I said, its a lot like Tom Brady when he got released by the Patriots in the NFL. He had one bad year when he was 40, everyone said it was his age and not just a very rare blip in form, and rather than find out the Patriots assumed he was done and sent him packing. He won the Superbowl at 43, 2nd in the MVP candidates at 44, posted one of the statistically best seasons in history coming to 45.... assuming a WC athlete is done based on a small sample size is not very clever to do. Brady arguably had his best year in his mid-40s. The Patriots decision is now judged as being one of sports worst ever decisions.

The weird thing is, Anderson has been asked to retire, Robinson is apparently the guy lost in a web of form and fitness..... both are England's statistical best bowlers in the McCullum era. Seems a very strange strategy doesnt it? Boot out one, call the other out in the press? Meanwhile Wood isnt doing anything and gets the longest deal ever given to an England bowler. Its not hard to see the suspicion between type of bowler here. Being quick buys you a hell of a lot of slack.

[sussexpob]

As for the pace v other skills thing : yes I do agree Key seems to be a bit overdoing it with his quest for speed over all else. I think there is a balance to be struck though so don't mind if all this results in a couple of fellows who do bowl with serious speed get their chance to stake a claim for an Ashes trip : horses for courses isn't a silly idea ... no one goes to India without spinners , even if there aren't any Swanns or Underwoods about

The fundamental problem I have with this idea from English pundits about the necessity of pure pace in Australia is, it is not 1998-99 anymore. Gone are the days where you turn up in Australia and you can guarantee every single wicket will play like it always does. In more recent times, the initial drop in pitches phase produced lifeless run fests, but Australian curators are now trying to install life into pitches... the results, at best, have proven unpredictable. And the only non-drop in pitch, at the SCG (I can be corrected on that) is a disaster zone. It seems to either be dead or does everything.

The Gabba recently produced a wicket that seamed so much it got demerit points for being subpar and too hard to bat. Then in the most recent test, it had a cm of live grass covering it. The most recent Adelaide test was the shortest in history at the venue, and had a lot of seam movement off the deck. Even the last Perth test produced a green wicket, and contrary to history, is now statistically the best venue for spin when it used to be the worst. The SCG, which used to be a noted spinners pitch, has gone the other way and is now a spinners graveyard.... its last FC match had a period where 30 odd wickets dropped in 70 overs, leading to Tim Paine branding it the worst wicket he had seen.

Has Rob Key watched any cricket in Australia in the last 25 years? Because if we take the most recent couple of years alone, bowling seam up and being able to move the ball is the way to go. Scores are on the way downwards, the pitches are becoming much more conductive to classic pace bowling, and I doubt this will change... Pat Cummins has been vocal about how they want that trend to continue, and want to produce wickets that help bowlers.

We could end up in Australia with a load of subpar express quicks, and end up playing on wickets that resemble Trent Bridge...

[sussexpob]

Obviously there are some caveats to the point, but I do generally disagree that conditions should dictate the make up of the side. In Australia, I would back accuracy and the ability to hit the right line and lengths, rather than just be able to flat out bowl quick. I don't really see the value of out and out pace over anything else. Why would a player who bowls quick be unable to stand out in England, but do so in test cricket in Australia? If anything, you are expecting them to be better by taking much of their advantage away from them. It seems a false economy.

I guess its common in sports that certain attributes are given elevated status, when in practice it doesnt matter. Usain Bolt was apparently too tall to be a sprinter. Fabio Cannevaro was too small to be a centre back. Lionel Messi was too weak to play elite football. Tom Brady was told he would never have the body to take a physical pounding, then had the longest career in American sports history.

In the end, they all had skills, whether tangible or intangible. To me, I really don't understand this idea that one has to fit an archtype in order to succeed. If you are taking wickets for fun bowling at 62mph, then there is a reason you are doing well. If you can bowl at 95mph but arent taking wickets, then there is also a reason. People like to present the difference in some unquantifiable, mystical sort of level, but I don't personally believe in that. The base line for elevation to a high level is completing the previous one.... weaknesses, not inherent quality, is many fold more likely to magnify taking a step upwards.

The example of India/spinners is a good one to illustrate the point. A while back, I did a huge thread about how spinners performed in Asia, and in general, even elite spinners get significantly out-performed by seamers. Bad spinners just get annhilated. And yet, as you said above Alfie, people would favour picking a player who suits the conditions over one of better quaity that doesn't, thinking that conditions will magically switch their fortunes. But Indian batsman eat spin for breakfast, especially ones who arent that good... so its counter productive. Stats would indicate that you would be more likely to be successful bowl Paul Reiffel over peak Shane Warne, because even Warney or Murali got a battering.

Now, I don't necessarily agree with that, as I said there are caveats. Stats for instance dont equate how a spinner lightens the load, or bowls in the heat of the day allowing seamers to take more wickets and stay fresh. Much like when SA played India in 2008, and Harris was there just to let Steyn, Ntini and Morkel rotate at the other end. But given a good pace option v some average spin option, I am taking the pace bowler in Asia everyday

[sussexpob]

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=2597

Aforementioned thread about spin in India.... 14 years ago, my god! Where has the time gone

[Slipstream]

Pace didn't help Wood in India. 3 Tests 4 wickets.
Bumrah's slower balls did a lot of damage. 4 Tests 19 wickets at 16.89.

Under Stokes, taking wickets needs pace to bounce out the opposition. Hmmm...