England v Pakistan 2020.

[alfie]

With all due respect , Sussex , I think you're having a shot at a straw man there...
......
But that has nothing to do with my suggestion that there have been a few good signs for England along the way. You can only play against the opponent you have ; and it seems unfair to dismiss a really fine innings by a young player , for example , with faint praise because that opponent was a bit off the boil for whatever reason

Its hardly a distortion of any argument to suggest that the "the fine moments" you refer to have to be judged for what they are before you make an assessment of how likely they can be replicated in the future, replication being the actual point in discussion. Elite sporting performance is built on a complex patchwork of factors, and many of them have changed, no longer have an impact, or have been added to temporarily. So if this was a scientific experiment, from a very simply level you cant change the parameters of the test and expect to replicate the same results. How someone performs in a very unique situation means very little to how they will perform in normality.

As an example, British Athletics just a couple of days ago recruited a new performance director; a disciple of the marginal gains doctrine for sporting performance. The top person in British sport will happily tell you that elite sport is won on fractional margins, and that the difference between winning and losing can be based around such minute factors like using the same pillow all the way through a sporting contest, and using a particular colour bottle to drink out of. This is no exaggeration, these are actual scientific examples of how this doctrine views sporting performance. All these factors add a fraction of a percent to how someone performs, and if you breakdown a sportspersons life, training regime and preparation to a forensic level, they have massive differences at the end.

If this is therefore true, then the counter is obviously true too; differences to optimal preparations have a negative impact. And right now in cricket we have a situation where both teams are preparing in totally alien conditions, and the games are played in an unprecedented environment. It is therefore likely that the maximum threshold of quality is somewhat reduced, and that the results we are seeing are coming from a lower intensity of games. Its not at all a controversial point, any scientific analysis of this situation would surely have to conclude that this is the case.

So you are left with asking the question, if both teams are only capable of playing to 75% percent of their actual capacity, is this representative of elite sport, or is it something else? And we do know that certain quality players struggle with additional intensity; maybe Mark Ramprakash would have scored 700 runs in this series with no crowd and the bowlers maybe not full up to speed, but crank it up a little higher and he didnt have the capability to live in that world, regardless of his talent.

Take a very specific example, the Crawley and Buttler partnership. It occured on the 12th day of test cricket in 16 days, against a bowling attack that had been forced through 3 straight games with hardly a break, and who had zero preparations. These factors are obviously going to affect the energy levels of a side. You would expect the pace to be a bit low, the longevity to be a bit lower, the mental intensity and concentration to be lower. They couldnt shine the ball, so after the new ball wears off, there is no reverse swing. There is no support in the crowd cheering you on when you get the better of a batsman, each edge that misses doesnt have that crowd response to boost. All these on their own make the situation harder, taken together they create such a different environment to normality that its hard for them to represent anything approaching normality.

Would Crawley have scored 267 if the bowlers didnt tire quicker. Would he have scored 267 if after 20 overs when he came in, the ball was starting to reverse? Would Buttler have hit a few boundaries, had the crowd roar and lost concentration trying some ridiculous dilscoop like hes been prone to do? These are all factors that are usually played in.

And all these have had effects in other sport. You think Barcelona lose 8-2 vs Bayern Munich in another era, or is this the type of ridiculous results that come when you lock a team in a hotel, give them a different preparation and put them in a certain circumstance they arent used to? Because look through a 100 years of Barcelona footballing history, it never happened before. It seems an obvious conclusion that these situations are going to throw up crazy results.

And stats coming out of football suggest quite noticeable differences in the way the game is played. Less intense pressing, better results for worse performing teams with no fans, better performance metrics for worse players, younger and inexperienced players performing better. The nature of the game has changed a lot.

Hey I'm not really disagreeing with your point that we can't read too much into some of these performances , due to the unusual conditions. Though I do believe that Crawley's innings showed a lot more than you are seemingly ready to allow (not sure how much of it you actually watched ?). But of course if it turns out to be a one off , then yes , it didn't mean much. I do not think that will be the case ; but time will tell. I am no more convinced than you that Buttler has suddenly morphed into The New Gilchrist - or even the New Prior; but I will concede that he has played well in these last three games , and if he continues this way I will have to revise my opinion of him.

Those are just examples . Overall I suggest that there have been some good signs for England , even if they are as yet in need of future validation. You don't seem to agree which is fair enough - each to his own.

I guess it is more a matter of how you want to look at things. Am I being unfair to suggest that you sometimes have a bit of a tendency to seek the negative aspect of any event ( perhaps as a sort of devil's advocate? ) rather than embracing what positives one might choose to focus on ? Or , more briefly : glass half full or half empty ? Just an impression...

[dan08]

With all due respect , Sussex , I think you're having a shot at a straw man there...
......
But that has nothing to do with my suggestion that there have been a few good signs for England along the way. You can only play against the opponent you have ; and it seems unfair to dismiss a really fine innings by a young player , for example , with faint praise because that opponent was a bit off the boil for whatever reason

Its hardly a distortion of any argument to suggest that the "the fine moments" you refer to have to be judged for what they are before you make an assessment of how likely they can be replicated in the future, replication being the actual point in discussion. Elite sporting performance is built on a complex patchwork of factors, and many of them have changed, no longer have an impact, or have been added to temporarily. So if this was a scientific experiment, from a very simply level you cant change the parameters of the test and expect to replicate the same results. How someone performs in a very unique situation means very little to how they will perform in normality.

As an example, British Athletics just a couple of days ago recruited a new performance director; a disciple of the marginal gains doctrine for sporting performance. The top person in British sport will happily tell you that elite sport is won on fractional margins, and that the difference between winning and losing can be based around such minute factors like using the same pillow all the way through a sporting contest, and using a particular colour bottle to drink out of. This is no exaggeration, these are actual scientific examples of how this doctrine views sporting performance. All these factors add a fraction of a percent to how someone performs, and if you breakdown a sportspersons life, training regime and preparation to a forensic level, they have massive differences at the end.

If this is therefore true, then the counter is obviously true too; differences to optimal preparations have a negative impact. And right now in cricket we have a situation where both teams are preparing in totally alien conditions, and the games are played in an unprecedented environment. It is therefore likely that the maximum threshold of quality is somewhat reduced, and that the results we are seeing are coming from a lower intensity of games. Its not at all a controversial point, any scientific analysis of this situation would surely have to conclude that this is the case.

So you are left with asking the question, if both teams are only capable of playing to 75% percent of their actual capacity, is this representative of elite sport, or is it something else? And we do know that certain quality players struggle with additional intensity; maybe Mark Ramprakash would have scored 700 runs in this series with no crowd and the bowlers maybe not full up to speed, but crank it up a little higher and he didnt have the capability to live in that world, regardless of his talent.

Take a very specific example, the Crawley and Buttler partnership. It occured on the 12th day of test cricket in 16 days, against a bowling attack that had been forced through 3 straight games with hardly a break, and who had zero preparations. These factors are obviously going to affect the energy levels of a side. You would expect the pace to be a bit low, the longevity to be a bit lower, the mental intensity and concentration to be lower. They couldnt shine the ball, so after the new ball wears off, there is no reverse swing. There is no support in the crowd cheering you on when you get the better of a batsman, each edge that misses doesnt have that crowd response to boost. All these on their own make the situation harder, taken together they create such a different environment to normality that its hard for them to represent anything approaching normality.

Would Crawley have scored 267 if the bowlers didnt tire quicker. Would he have scored 267 if after 20 overs when he came in, the ball was starting to reverse? Would Buttler have hit a few boundaries, had the crowd roar and lost concentration trying some ridiculous dilscoop like hes been prone to do? These are all factors that are usually played in.

And all these have had effects in other sport. You think Barcelona lose 8-2 vs Bayern Munich in another era, or is this the type of ridiculous results that come when you lock a team in a hotel, give them a different preparation and put them in a certain circumstance they arent used to? Because look through a 100 years of Barcelona footballing history, it never happened before. It seems an obvious conclusion that these situations are going to throw up crazy results.

And stats coming out of football suggest quite noticeable differences in the way the game is played. Less intense pressing, better results for worse performing teams with no fans, better performance metrics for worse players, younger and inexperienced players performing better. The nature of the game has changed a lot.

Hey I'm not really disagreeing with your point that we can't read too much into some of these performances , due to the unusual conditions. Though I do believe that Crawley's innings showed a lot more than you are seemingly ready to allow (not sure how much of it you actually watched ?). But of course if it turns out to be a one off , then yes , it didn't mean much. I do not think that will be the case ; but time will tell. I am no more convinced than you that Buttler has suddenly morphed into The New Gilchrist - or even the New Prior; but I will concede that he has played well in these last three games , and if he continues this way I will have to revise my opinion of him.

Those are just examples . Overall I suggest that there have been some good signs for England , even if they are as yet in need of future validation. You don't seem to agree which is fair enough - each to his own.

I guess it is more a matter of how you want to look at things. Am I being unfair to suggest that you sometimes have a bit of a tendency to seek the negative aspect of any event ( perhaps as a sort of devil's advocate? ) rather than embracing what positives one might choose to focus on ? Or , more briefly : glass half full or half empty ? Just an impression...

To add to that, I don't see how the Pakistan bowlers would have been tired, they only bowled 43 overs in the whole of the second Test!

[Durhamfootman]

nice to hear from you again, dan

[bigfluffylemon]

Though I do believe that Crawley's innings showed a lot more than you are seemingly ready to allow (not sure how much of it you actually watched ?). But of course if it turns out to be a one off , then yes , it didn't mean much.

A lot of people who know a lot more about batting than I do seemed to think that Crawley's innings was very promising, given his age. He demonstrated an ability to play all around the ground and adapt to the situation. Ok, sure, it perhaps wasn't the best bowling ever, but show me a batsman who scores 200 on a difficult deck against a top quality bowling attack, and I'll show you one of the all-time-greats. 200s by their nature don't tend to be scored under really difficult conditions, but batting for 9 hours against a test bowling attack is hard work however you cut it. Staying in and making it count when you're on top of the bowling is an important element of cricket - England have been all too guilty of throwing it away in recent times, especially since Cook retired (I know not everyone on these boards is a Cook fan, but whatever you think of him, you can't deny he had the temperament to really make it count when he got in).

Of course, time will tell.

[sussexpob]

A lot of people who know a lot more about batting than I do seemed to think that Crawley's innings was very promising, given his age. He demonstrated an ability to play all around the ground and adapt to the situation. Ok, sure, it perhaps wasn't the best bowling ever, but show me a batsman who scores 200 on a difficult deck against a top quality bowling attack, and I'll show you one of the all-time-greats. 200s by their nature don't tend to be scored under really difficult conditions, but batting for 9 hours against a test bowling attack is hard work however you cut it. Staying in and making it count when you're on top of the bowling is an important element of cricket - England have been all too guilty of throwing it away in recent times, especially since Cook retired (I know not everyone on these boards is a Cook fan, but whatever you think of him, you can't deny he had the temperament to really make it count when he got in).

Many average cricketers have scored doubles. Out of 113 players to score 1 x 200, 53 of them averaged under 40. The link between quality and ability to score a one off massive innings is therefore not really that established, there is a lot of sub 35 and even played sub 20 in bat average that has doubles. Once you get to 2/3/4 plus doubles, generally then you are into world class players. Of course there are exceptions... Mushfiqur (3), McCullum (4), Attapattu (6 or 7, cant remember) are all played who are clearly not batting legends. Some players have the ability when in to cash in, but Attapttu I believe also had one of the highest counts of failure by duck in the game.

And to use such criteria, even in very recent memory you wuold have to say Jason Holder is an all time great batsman averaging just over 30. Scored 200 in a game where 2 innings got not much past that, and in one England were bowled out for 70 odd; vs a new ball bowler who is currently being described as the best England have ever produced, and another bowler who is being touted as the best cricketer on the planet. Holder is a great allrounder, not sure Id go as far to claim hes a once in a generation batting talent.

[sussexpob]

To add to that, I don't see how the Pakistan bowlers would have been tired, they only bowled 43 overs in the whole of the second Test!

That isnt exactly that relevant in judging whether or not a side are likely to be suffering from fatigue levels that has a detrimental effect on their performance. There is a misconception that physical work is in someway relevant to a decline in output, but actually the opposite is mostly true in most normal circumstances. Studies into fast bowling have for instance concluded that run up speed, jump force into delivery stride and generic release speed/pace of delivery arent really changed by how many overs a bowler has gone through in a day, unless for instance they are bowling in an Australian heatwave at 46 degrees, which then has an obvious impact on their physicality. Generally, any reasonably fit athlete should be able to put aside their physical tiredness and maintain a level of physicality if their workload isnt objectively huge (of course a player being told to bowl 45 overs in a day is going to be knackered at the end).

Where you do notice sharp drop offs in performances is in relation to cognitive exertion. In a sport like cricket where the level of physicality on offer is hardly comparable to others, but where mentally you are always having to process good judgement and decision making, people are prone quick quickly to developing mental fatigue, and most importantly this manifests itself very much in physical performance. It also manifests itself in cognitive control and working memory, which by their very nature means players display worse judgement or decision making abilities if developing mental fatigue.

A very recent study from Somerset cricketers indicated that players are most prone to negative performance induced by mental fatigue in situations where they hadnt been exposed to cognitive exertion for long spaces of time. Specifically highlighted is being thrown into games after no warm ups at the start of a season. The effect is cumulative and progressive, and doesnt require a great deal of cognitive exertion to induce in these situations.

In fact, a 30 minute test called the stroop test is used to induce mental fatigue for testing by scientists. The test is focused on making you think against your impulse and using cognitive control, which even after that amount of time can exhaust people. Physical tests are then carried out, and show a continuous negative trend in performance; even things like simply running 2 lengths of the strip with a turn are significantly effected, as test cases misjudged things like deceleration and technique required. Longevity is also severely compromised, but the worst is judgement. A person subjected to just a small amount of mental fatigue loses almost total working memory and with it their decision making becomes impulsive rather than plan or goal based.

The Somerset study basically explains the worst case scenario would be Pakistan in this test series; thrown into a test with no competitive game. No rest time between three tests. The condition is cumulative and progressive and gets worse until someone is rested. It doesnt matter if they spent most of the game in the dressing room, because you are still mentally prepared to go out at any minutes notice and play. You have to keep yourself mentally in the zone, hit the nets, train hard, wait and keep yourself warmed up. To combat it you really have to rest and do nothing and turn off completely; that isnt the case here.

Its interesting because you end up in the first test with Pakistan imploding after dominating the first innings, and fading badly bowling in the 4th innings, but this is kind of to be expected in their situation. And in the 3rd test, they got pounded by a guy who'd had enough games to be warmed up, but had been rested twice in the summer against a team who looked totally gone. On a simple biological level, youd expect a rested bt warm guy to be displaying far better physicality and mental judgement over a fatigued side.

Its almost like the way it panned out is linked to that.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Looks like England could get around 180 if they don't get bowled out.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Rain though. Looking at the state of the country, that might be it.

[sussexpob]

Does it ever stop raining this month?

[Durhamfootman]

not up here

Although darn sarf did have a week of 30+ degrees earlier in the month

we didn't... only part of the country to not get it and while I hate 30+ degrees, I could have done without the blanket of cloud for that week

However, it will soon be autumn and so the weather will improve markedly with a bit of luck. It feels like it's been a very long time since we had a nice summer and I suppose it emphasises the folly of scheduling anything in short windows in Blighty.

[Durhamfootman]

He's a lucky boy, that Tom Banton. He could have been out 3 times early on, but got away with it. By the end he was timing things much better though and the Dilscoops (is that what the shot is called?) looked singularly well controlled.

I got the impression, certainly early on, that when the ball is pitched on leg he looks like Bradman, but outside off he looks like me, so I imagine teams will pitch the ball on 4th stump for the rest of his career. Something he'll need to work on in the early part of an innings

Poor old Mo. Crashes his first ball imperiously through long off then tries to cut a ball that was close enough to him to end up in his pocket. He's all over the place atm. I hope he sorts it out, I really do

[Arthur Crabtree]

Does it ever stop raining this month?

We get to watch the rain live on BBCtv for the first time in decades on tomorrow.

[Durhamfootman]

I look forward to it

[Arthur Crabtree]

Two unchanged sides. Pakistan to bat. Looks bright overhead.

[sussexpob]

The BBC coverage is already making me want to kill myself. Michael Vaughan has already attempted banter, Jimmy Anderson has already been called the greatest bowler of all time at least 4 times, and Eoin Morgan has just been asked what type of tea he likes.

Sports broadcasting at the front line of quality. Time to watch the F1 I think