English Cricket Thread

[sussexpob]

Bairstow further down provides a tougher case, because recent good form, and distant past form tend to show his batting a lot better than it has been. As a good example, he averaged not much over 25 in a 5 year period between 2017 and 2022, until he came back at the end of the Ashes - that includes averaging 22 in his current 6 position, which is frankly terrible. So there is a very long term argument to say Bairstow is not what is required at 6.

I think for me personally, Bairstow has one position or no position- a wicket keeping 7. Maybe he can finally use recent scores to turn himself around and finally look a test class batter, but history tells us these peaks are followed by the lowest of lows, so I am not holding my breath. But if he continues, then it should be with the gloves and fit Crawley down in 6.

Because you might find Crawley does a bit of a Root. Even if he adds 5-10 runs to his average, considering the trends in the team, he'd then be both above the international average and way above the average the position has returned.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Great stats. Thanks!

[bigfluffylemon]

Thanks sussex. Good points and I don't disagree with any of them.

I also agree with AC that we have seemed for a while to have a glut of players better suited to batting 4 and below, while the top 3 has been a nightmare since Strauss and Trott left in 2012/13 (and as England's critics were quick to point out, Trott was not a product of the English system anyway). While you may well be right about Crawley and Lawrence batting lower, if we accept that Root belongs at 4, Stokes should be in there somewhere, and you need a keeper, there's only really one lower middle order slot available. Meanwhile a top 3 that has been open for years.

I do think Robson and Compton were hard done by in the past, but that's old news. They probably should have been kept on longer.

[alfie]

All those figures are all very well : but surely what they most show is that England's problem has been , and remains , a lack of a proper top three. Certainly Root is more prolific ant four - and five ; if he's now batting again at three it is a sign of (a) despair at getting anyone else who can fill that spot - and (b) more hopefully - that people can improve , and master a position in which they have failed earlier in their careers. I would still rather see Root at four but I am not sure three matches in this period prove much either way...

As for Stokes : yes his record as a bat is way inferior to most international number fives. I would suggest though that it might be a lot better were he following Cook Strauss Trott and Pietersen to the crease

Might not be , of course. I see him as a player of outstanding innings rather than an outstanding batsman. He is an allrounder ; maybe ought to bat at six but not sure it would make a lot of difference. He remains good value to the team in any case and I cannot see shuffling him around achieving much until the other missing pieces are found.

I would also tend to disregard to some extent Bairstow's figures at five. Many of his innings there were in either his very early games , or latterly when he was rather unfairly tasked with batting up the order while also keeping wicket - principally to allow Jos Buttler to play as a specialist bat at seven ! Even so I don't really want to move him back to five either - and would agree his best role is as keeper-batsman at six or seven : it may come to that again.

Honestly don't see England scoring regular solid runs unless/until they fix the top three so all else is basically tinkering. For the summer , perhaps :

Opener
Opener
Crawley
Root
Lawrence
Stokes
Bairstow wk
4 bowlers.

But I haven't a clue who the two openers would be ; so suspect we will see a lineup more like the one that just got skittled in Grenada - at least for a start.

[sussexpob]

All those figures are all very well : but surely what they most show is that England's problem has been , and remains , a lack of a proper top three

One would assume that would be the case, but the reality is actually more complex Alfie. There is a tendency to view performance levels using historical benchmarks, but the current era of test cricket is so distinct from any other, that trying to frame performances without putting them into current context doesnt have much value. Since the 2000-2010 period, the averages of openers has plummeted across the board. If we take the last cycle of test cricket to be from now to the end of the Ashes series in 17-18 and look at the top teams performances, its pretty woeful ( I remove the lower teams simply because most have played a lot more vs minnows). But in matches where the top 5 have played each other (NZ, ENG, AUS, IND, SA)....

The net average is 30 runs per opener across the side. This figure itself can be qualified with the fact that Indian openers average 61 at home, which significantly alters the overall average and isnt representative of the reality in the majority of matches. SA perform over the average at home (36), but are terrible away. NZ average above away (36 also) and average low 20s. Australia average under 20 away and under 30 at home. England away (24) and home (30) is pretty in the middle and certainly not noticeably bad. As a sort of weird benchmark of how bad things are, any combination of Stoneman, Denly and Burns would push Englands average performance over everyone bar India, as long as India play at home.

We then come to number 3, which is where we do undoubtedly meet a problem - that problem being England's frankly abhorrent in the slot (24 run average). But even this can be qualified... when the other teams play away, they are slightly worse if not equally bad, bar India, who are miles ahead at this position away. Australia's Labuaschange cant get out at home, but away its a very different story. The sort of long and short of it is, England's openers are competitive anywhere against anyone bar India, and would be expected to outperform everyone at home. Add the three in and the same story holds, but away they lose out significant ground. But then you stretch down the order..... Root scored 10 runs an innings more than the next best Indian. 23 runs better than the best Zealander. 30 better than the best South African... and equal to Smith on average.

Root's average would be among the worst out of all the 3's if sticking to his historical performance... so moving him up comes with the result of not only losing your best player in a position you make up a lot of runs on the opposition, it doesnt really either turn this weakness into much of a strength - with the added fact that its ONLY a comparative weakness when playing the very best sides in the world away....

[sussexpob]

As for Stokes : yes his record as a bat is way inferior to most international number fives. I would suggest though that it might be a lot better were he following Cook Strauss Trott and Pietersen to the crease

The point isnt to fault Stokes performance, but about reaching peak efficiency for the team. 5 has become the easiest place to bat, if Root averages 67 (and 18 above his career average, 14 above his average in the period at 4)... then what you are saying is, Stokes can move to 3 and average 25, and the team is 1 run better off if everyone plays to their career averages. I dont expect Stokes to be that bad, I'd expect him to do better than that... so the move would bag you a net positive. Of course, Stokes would probably average less, but he's taking one for the team - and thats all that matters.

I mean, just look at a few examples in the current team....

Crawley has played 5 tests at 3 instead of opener.... he averages 23 as an opener, and 45 at one drop. Not exposed to the new ball, he averages double The net effect to the team? He's worth double if this figures are indicative. You could have an opener average only 1 run, and the net benefit to the team is positive

Same with Lawrence - 2 tests at 5... one failure, one test he scored 100 runs defeated once.

[sussexpob]

The craziest stat of all of this is Buttler....

Average of nearly 50 at 6, over a good sample of games, and in series exclusively against top sides both away and home....

In pretty much all these series he was moved to 7 at some point, where against the top sides in a similar span/amount of games the best average against a side is ....22

I was shocked with this as well, as they moved him around in between matches so much the form looked patchy. But when Buttler played 6, he was sensational.....

Bairstow averages 30 at one drop too, and in the last five years hasnt done anything at 5-7, with no differential between positions.

I would be tempted with

Lees
(opener up for grabs)
Bairstow
Crawley
Root
Buttler
Stokes

To beat the current 4-5 year form, the openers just need to average over 24. Bairstows average of 30 at one drop is 6 better than England currently manage. Crawley has never batted at 4, but the boost on 5 averages from Swapping Root down to his prime position allows a 18 run differential, so he would have to average 32 to make it pay. Buttlers average at 6 is 18 runs better than the current form average.

Which means on the data, anything Stokes averages above 10 would be bonus to the average England total.

[alfie]

The craziest stat of all of this is Buttler....

Average of nearly 50 at 6, over a good sample of games, and in series exclusively against top sides both away and home....

In pretty much all these series he was moved to 7 at some point, where against the top sides in a similar span/amount of games the best average against a side is ....22

I was shocked with this as well, as they moved him around in between matches so much the form looked patchy. But when Buttler played 6, he was sensational.....

Bairstow averages 30 at one drop too, and in the last five years hasnt done anything at 5-7, with no differential between positions.

I would be tempted with

Lees
(opener up for grabs)
Bairstow
Crawley
Root
Buttler
Stokes

To beat the current 4-5 year form, the openers just need to average over 24. Bairstows average of 30 at one drop is 6 better than England currently manage. Crawley has never batted at 4, but the boost on 5 averages from Swapping Root down to his prime position allows a 18 run differential, so he would have to average 32 to make it pay. Buttlers average at 6 is 18 runs better than the current form average.

Which means on the data, anything Stokes averages above 10 would be bonus to the average England total.

You aren't Peter Moores , by any chance ?

No , seriously : yes you can use all these figures to make a case for all sorts of changes to the order. The lineup you have there I would back to succeed in Sri Lanka again...might do fine in West Indies - though I don't fancy it in Australia ! But I just don't think it makes a lot of sense to base everything on stats which are , after all , historical ; and simply do not allow for the development of players and indeed variations in their form ( Root is a far better player now than he was when he first played at three ; Buttler had a good run at six but in his last year or so has looked like a walking wicket. )

Also conditions can make averages misleading : you mention Bairstow averaging 30 at three : but that is down to his occupying that spot in Sri Lanka with considerable success and not much else. He might not do much worse than some they've tried there but I don't seriously see him as a regular three and I doubt you do either...

I have thought about moving Stokes around , as I suspect he would be a bit ...mercurial...in any spot. Still think he's best placed at 5 or 6 , where he can (at least in theory) either cash in on a good start or maybe counterattack after a collapse. I do note he and Bairstow have combined to do just that on several occasions so perhaps there is also some merit in having players who tend to bat well together stationed adjacent in the order ?

The revelation that openers just about everywhere do better at home doesn't exactly stun me

I would still maintain that those positions are the real issue for England ; not just because of general weakness but because even players who show quite a bit of promise seem unable to develop any level of consistency. Sibley has a couple of Test hundreds ; Burns has three. And not just against minnows. But lately they both seem to have lost it completely ... (Actually I am surely in a minority but I'd have been inclined to retain Burns for West Indies , just to see. Openers in Australia are frequently slaughtered so it maybe shouldn't be death to anyone who fails there on his first visit. But I am not really arguing with the decision to try Lees )

It all makes for a lot of opportunities for discussion ... but essentially I am not sure we disagree about the basic idea of putting players in the best positions to maximise the overall benefit to the team rather than just what suits them best individually. Just the way of judging what those positions are...

Certainly we both want Crawley away from opening : but neither of us has a ready made opening replacement - which makes us about as useful as the England selectors

[sussexpob]

Alfie,

In short, there is no way you can shuffle the deck to expect the tools at England's disposal to compete with a top side away. The batting power other teams have is too lofty, and requires such a massive upturn on the quality of returns from England's players to ever have any expectation that it can be achieved in anything other than a freak one-off style occurrence (like when England won the first test in India, then suffered hellish beatings for the next 3 tests). Root is cancelled out instantly by the best batter of each team, after which all other batters tend to then return much more than England can muster up together.

This leaves England with the question of how to approach their selection, and the options are in essence two conflicting approaches - The first is to appreciate that certain players have not lived up to the standard in test cricket, but that they have at least achieved better returns than those in the team now. The second is to say that England have to continue to strive for excellence, and that the answer to to pick unknown quantities that have proven to be inferior players in the lower formats of the game, in the hope someone just steps up out of nowhere and becomes a class player.

Using the first method - Burns averages 33 at home and 27 away. His career average of 30 is bang on the average that the top 5 openers achieve in the current game. Placed against Australian opener production, he's better both home and away in the last 5 years. He'd out perform pretty much any touring opener save for NZ on current form. So was dropping him justified? Ok, 30 runs per wicket is not very good at all, but the fact is, its better than anyone else has managed in a long time. Burns replacing either opener now would upscale the sides expected batting output instantly. The same goes for someone like Denly. England average (if memory from when I looked is right) 24 at 3 in recent years. Denly averaged 32 in 9 tests there - he's never going to beat the output of a Williamson, Marnus, Agrawal ... but he gives you instantaneous 8 runs upturn on the average person in the position.

In the second method, you obviously say to beat Australia, you need someone to outperform Marnus. So rather than pick the best known quantity of bad options, you pick someone uncapped. Of course, the smoking detritus in the list of failed three options, most of which were players who made strong cases for selection (and of which no one in the CC currently does), shows the risk of doing that. England have tried many options - an average of 24 is the result. So lets not hlod out much hope for a sudden influx of mega talent.

But which path you choose is obviously backed by some merit. As regards your other points....

I think we can burn the stats book on Bairstow to some extent. The overall averages paper over a long and very convincing spell of tragic form. It seems obvious to me that England made Bairstow gloveman and dropped him to 7 for the sole reason that (a) they wanted to put him in a position where his sub 30 average was acceptable (the average 7 scores 29 runs in the modern game) and (b) hoped that if he suddenly fired on to anywhere near his potential it would be bonus runs. Bairstow seems to have purple patches around the time his career is at the precipice, but history tells us after a brief spell of batting great and his career saved, he reverts to being poor. I get the feeling Bairstow is the type of player that needs a kick up the backside. He looks increasingly overweight, which tells me he might not be putting much effort into his physical conditioning. So I do seriously suggest England say to him look.... we need you to be more for this team, just averaging 30 at the end of the middle order when we are desperate for runs further up is not enough. You are the best FC batter we have, so you have the quality to be our WIlliamson or Marnus.

England could have got the under-par returns at 6-7 from anyone in Bairstows slumps in the recent years. Pope averaged above him during his span in the team at 6 and got dropped for instance.

Stokes position isnt of great concern to me. I kind of share the idea that you'd get vaguely similar performances from him anywhere in the 3-7 slots, so I'd either be tempted to put him lower down at 7 because his aggression means he can still make whole innings contributions there, or even 4 would be interesting to me.

Lastly. Buttler averaged 37 in his last year of test cricket playing at 6, which is considerably above the world average. As I said, Buttler's performance with the bat at 6 is a real surprise when you look at it, and deserves a critical reassessment. His form implodes at 7, but even as his general form dived, his performances at 6 were good. I called for him to be dropped, but he was moved up and down so often, it hid the fact he kept on doing well at that position. Considering the dearth of quality England have, and Bairstow's output between 6-7 not being much different, the data certainly convinces me to take another look at Buttler playing solely at 6 with the bat.

[Durhamfootman]

Stokes is generally a very slow starter in test cricket, so having him down at 7 might be less profitable than at 5. It often seems to me that his most destructive batting comes after he's faced 100 balls for 15 or 20 runs. Being this slow with Root at the other end turning the scoreboard over is a reasonable way to go about his business, I think, but to do that with the tail will more likely see England get bogged down and then lose a raft of wickets from stagnation pressure, so I'd leave him where he is.

I wouldn't have Buttler anywhere near the test side, but he'd be one of the first names on my ODI or T20 team sheets

[sussexpob]

Root has stepped down as Captain of the test team.

I guess thats a nice way to say he was sacked. The right thing for me, the team needs a new guiding hand. And Root can get back to what he is good at.... being a run machine.

I'd be surprised if Broad or Stokes are not the two in contention.

[sussexpob]

Although of course.... not sure how Ben Stokes can be made captain so soon after his time off for personal reasons. Obviously that will not impact his ability to do the job competently and well, but it will have a profound level of extra work, responsibility and stress that adds extra weight to someone that has recently passed breaking point. I cant see how Stokes could possibly captain and continue in all three formats. Maybe if he retired in ODI/T20s, it would be an option, but would England really want him to do that?

I get the feeling Ben is the type of guy that would ignore all that and try his best, but as stated before, I think England need to wise up if they want Stokes to be playing long into the future - giving him less work and more time off is preferrable to the opposite.

[alfie]

The right move - for both Joe himself and England , I think. He did his best and certainly cannot be accused of failing to lead by example , whatever you think of his tactical expertise. But recent results surely show that a change was needed. His stepping down now leaves clear air for the new management team (whenever they are appointed !) to put a new man in charge.

I get the issues that might tax Stokes ; but I honestly don't think anyone else makes much sense at present. Whoever is appointed , there must be a strong chance they won't be operating in the job for as long as Root or Cook : with all the cricket played these days the position puts its occupant under extraordinary pressure , so we might well see one or two relatively short term skippers over the next few years.

One other point re Stokes : he is indeed a three format player , even if he would not be leading the whiteball outfits. But if this is all a bit too much along with Test captaincy , I wouldn't be too bothered if he dropped out of the t20 side. I'd argue it is actually his least effective format - and the one in which he probably isn't really vital to its prospects. But all that can be discussed in the future...

[sussexpob]

I'd have possibly considered a move to take him out the T20 side anyway, to limit his workload. The problem with that is, he will be eyeing up IPL contracts in the future, and I understand why T20s might be the last thing that players consider retiring from.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Seems obvious now it's happened. Stokes seems to be favourite, but a flawed choice for me as he doesn't actually get on the pitch enough.

Hardest captaincy decision for England I've known. There isn't anyone.

Might Woakes get a look in?