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

Buttler coming back in as keeper says Root (presuming the game goes ahead) so I suppose that means one of Pope and Bairstow misses out.

Buttler has said he may not tour this winter if families can't travel, so it might be his last game for a while.

Foakes is back playing again at sub-county level.

alfie wrote:I will point out though that averages are just that : averages. They are designed to take into account a player's high and low points ; good years and bad. Once you start with the "in his last so many games " or "So and so averages abc ; but if you take out his best year (or his worst) it becomes xyz " you are talking selective stats , not averages.

I am not going to deny that I will manipulate stats to best represent an argument, but in the case of Bairstow, the sample range represents the majority of his very long career. I dont think its displaying much cunning to point out there are long trends in his form that have in the large part trended downwards and have lasted long enough to indicate terminal decline.

I mean, how long do you give a player until you have to accept something isnt there anymore? Ok, I understand a little that some maybe inclined to believe that if a player has done it before, he can do it again, but I am not sure it works like that. Jonny is a different beast to 2016. He's now arguably England's best ever ODI player, and his confidence is shot in tests. Maybe he has something to fall back on and doesnt want it as much anymore?

But we leave it there. Agree to disagree

That's cool , Sussex. We can indeed.

Jonny has to increase my agent's fee if he wants me to advocate further anyway

sussexpob wrote:

alfie wrote:I will point out though that averages are just that : averages. They are designed to take into account a player's high and low points ; good years and bad. Once you start with the "in his last so many games " or "So and so averages abc ; but if you take out his best year (or his worst) it becomes xyz " you are talking selective stats , not averages.

I am not going to deny that I will manipulate stats to best represent an argument, but in the case of Bairstow, the sample range represents the majority of his very long career. I dont think its displaying much cunning to point out there are long trends in his form that have in the large part trended downwards and have lasted long enough to indicate terminal decline.

Gotta agree here. I am generally against cherry picking stats - after all, it's easy to make an argument that 'if you take our a player's best performances, they are not very good' for all but the top class most consistent players. But you also have to read stats in context, and I don't think it's cherry picking to say that Bairstow hasn't got it for test cricket. He's been in or around the side since 2012, and yet in only one year has he averaged over 35. He had one good year. Sometimes some players get on a roll in a particular year or against a particular side - sometimes you just find a bowling attack that you can do well against. Bairstow did great against South Africa and Sri Lanka in 2016, and has been mediocre since. I've got nothing against the fellow personally - I'd have him opening in England's all-time ODI side, he's been brilliant in that form of the game. But the evidence suggests that he just had a good trot of form in 2016, and then reverted to the mean, where the mean isn't very good.

(side note - my go to example of looking deeper into stats is Adam Voges, who was dropped in 2016 with an average of over 60 and never played again, so in the all-time batting averages is second only to the Don. But if you dig a little deeper, you find that average is: 562 vs West Indies, 99 v New Zealand, and under 30 v everybody else he played. He played four games on the trot v a pretty weak West Indies side, some of which were on absolute roads, and was only dismissed once, in part due to the fact that he was batting five, coming in at around 300-3 in most cases, and then Australia declared before he could get out. When he actually faced decent bowling or when the ball moved around, he wasn't good enough).

On Crawley, I think we agree, although perhaps from different angles. I was saying that I reckon the selectors 'think' they're pulling a Fletcher and picking him on something they like. Whatever their criteria are (I couldn't comment on the public school thing), they are quite clearly the wrong criteria, and not working.

Many players take time. Anderson and Broad did, Gooch famously so. That's fine. I think England should stick with Pope, and Crawley may be back some day, although I wouldn't pick him again until he's got a fair bit more first class cricket under his belt and lots of runs. But Moeen and Bairstow have been around since 2013, and just haven't delivered the goods often enough to justify the fact that England keep returning to them over the competition, IMO.

Test been called off.

Seems India have had to forfeit the game..

Series ends 2-2. A sad ending

India's forfeit spares England's blushes and they don't now lose 3 test series on the trot...... everything must be okay with English cricket after all.... thank goodness for that..... business as usual..... no need to think about what's going wrong..... bring on the Aussies..... what could go wrong?

Durhamfootman wrote:India's forfeit spares England's blushes and they don't now lose 3 test series on the trot...... everything must be okay with English cricket after all.... thank goodness for that..... business as usual..... no need to think about what's going wrong..... bring on the Aussies..... what could go wrong?

I was about to post that it's bulldust that a team needs to be forced to forfeit when the reason is covid, but the BBC is now saying that the ECB has changed its announcement that the test is cancelled rather than forfeited, so the result is still not certain.

After all, England didn't forfeit the test series when they came home from South Africa.

bigfluffylemon wrote:

Durhamfootman wrote:India's forfeit spares England's blushes and they don't now lose 3 test series on the trot...... everything must be okay with English cricket after all.... thank goodness for that..... business as usual..... no need to think about what's going wrong..... bring on the Aussies..... what could go wrong?

I was about to post that it's bulldust that a team needs to be forced to forfeit when the reason is covid, but the BBC is now saying that the ECB has changed its announcement that the test is cancelled rather than forfeited, so the result is still not certain.

After all, England didn't forfeit the test series when they came home from South Africa.

Indeed. Especially when the home team, in this case England, have allowed crowds into the tests and in doing so increase the risk of infection to both teams. Although maybe you can make a case that, without any players testing positive, it might set a dangerous precedent for future series if sides can pull out tests on covid scares and win series without having to play. Not that I think India are doing that at all, but there is a danger it can be exploited.

Really, the ICC should have strong guidelines on how this is decided. If the camp has Covid and close contacts, its called off. Surprises me they dont and one team has had to pull out unilaterally.

Many players take time. Anderson and Broad did, Gooch famously so. That's fine. I think England should stick with Pope, and Crawley may be back some day, although I wouldn't pick him again until he's got a fair bit more first class cricket under his belt and lots of runs. But Moeen and Bairstow have been around since 2013, and just haven't delivered the goods often enough to justify the fact that England keep returning to them over the competition, IMO.

Undoubtedly. Just look at that great recent Aussie side of the early 2000s; pretty much all of those batters had to fight at some point for their careers. Hayden, Langer, Ponting, Lehmann, Martyn, Junior all were dropped at some point, in some cases for many years. Even Steve was probably a test or to away from the axe (in fact, he rally should have been dropped long before he made it). Pretty much the only guy I can think of with the bat that went straight into the team and stayed there was Gilchrist.

Guys like Crawley should have routes back to the team, but they need to satisfy the fact they can perform to a higher level before getting another opportunity. If Crawley goes and has a stormer of a year for Kent, the door should not be closed.

On Crawley, I think we agree, although perhaps from different angles. I was saying that I reckon the selectors 'think' they're pulling a Fletcher and picking him on something they like. Whatever their criteria are (I couldn't comment on the public school thing), they are quite clearly the wrong criteria, and not working.

As stated a lot, and I guess this is hardly original because its pretty obvious to anyone who's seen him play - when he nails his strokes, he is as picture perfect as any batter I have seen play for England. So I sort of get the idea behind wanting to pick him. But I guess alarm bells should ring when someone looks absolutely textbook sumptuous in attack, but cant make scores.

If Crawley can become compact and solid, who knows where his career can go - but then I guess saying that applies to anyone. Its hardly an easy skill to dismiss being "test match solid" in defence. Which is why I work the other way - find players who are solid and can build on that.

sussexpob wrote:

bigfluffylemon wrote:

Durhamfootman wrote:India's forfeit spares England's blushes and they don't now lose 3 test series on the trot...... everything must be okay with English cricket after all.... thank goodness for that..... business as usual..... no need to think about what's going wrong..... bring on the Aussies..... what could go wrong?

I was about to post that it's bulldust that a team needs to be forced to forfeit when the reason is covid, but the BBC is now saying that the ECB has changed its announcement that the test is cancelled rather than forfeited, so the result is still not certain.

After all, England didn't forfeit the test series when they came home from South Africa.

Indeed. Especially when the home team, in this case England, have allowed crowds into the tests and in doing so increase the risk of infection to both teams. Although maybe you can make a case that, without any players testing positive, it might set a dangerous precedent for future series if sides can pull out tests on covid scares and win series without having to play. Not that I think India are doing that at all, but there is a danger it can be exploited.

Really, the ICC should have strong guidelines on how this is decided. If the camp has Covid and close contacts, its called off. Surprises me they dont and one team has had to pull out unilaterally.

It seems the main reason for the dispute about "forfeiture" or "cancellation" is Insurance Contracts...

Some argument about side issues like how the Indian chaps got infected and how much the IPL had to do with the call off ; but likely to be all irrelevant as it seems both parties are interested in rescheduling ... during India's white ball visit next year , I imagine.

Better result all round. England might profit as they are likely to have more fit pace bowlers by then (I hope !). Might even have sorted the batting a bit...

It seems extraordinary to call it off a couple of hours before the start after putting out a statement last night confirming the game was going ahead.
I think the match should be forfeit because it's a case of choosing not to play rather than being unable to. Test cricket has a fight on to remain the pinnacle of the game in the era of T20 so I just find it inexplicable that the deciding test in a compelling series can just get called off. I thought England should have forfeit the series in the cancelled South Africa series but that was in the pre-vaccine, empty ground days. There's even less of an excuse to overreact now that things are returning to normal- although I suspect if the IPL wasn't about to resume , covid is just a cover for calling it off!

There's now a suggestion that India called for another round of tests and the ECB suggested postponing the match by a day in order to do them- but the suggestion was declined!
And a cynical ( but probably also correct) suggestion in The Guardian that the BCCI offered to reschedule the game was an attempt to avoid having to forfeit it.

captaincolly wrote:There's even less of an excuse to overreact now that things are returning to normal

You have to remember that at the time India were heading out to the UK to play NZ in late spring, the world news headlines were full of reports showing Indians dying on the floor outside full to the brim hospitals that had run out of oxygen. Recent estimates from pretty respectable sources put the Covid surge deaths in India of that spring to early summer at past 4 million.

Its easy to over-react if you live through that. Imagine how it will look to people back home, and what example it sets, if India's national team say balls to Covid risks and play possiby while infected? I can imagine the fall out would be devastating and the backlash savage, not to mention how such influential high profile behaviour influences things like government attempts to convince people to follow rules. That even aside, its well within the Indian lads rights to refuse to play if they view they are a risk to others.

I am not actually sure England's team are fully vaccinated - in July when several players got Covid, they did report all of them had not received a jab. Not sure about the current team's status.