English Cricket Thread

[sussexpob]

I am unsure what the consultant scouts really achieve either. I mean lets be honest, I dont really care what Jonathan Trott thinks of someones technique if he's not scoring runs, and even less so if he is. It just plays into that idea that they are looking for things that they deem are important in their metrics and want to create indepth reports on utter nonsense, but dont in actuality equate to anything worthwhile.

I dont need reams of rubbish data to judge players who are worthy of time. Their batting averages tell me that. I can qualify those averages against par scores....I can do that in 10 bloody minutes with excel, and produce a list of above average players. Another ten minutes to gauge that against longer term form. I could then get the footage of the county game on Youtube and have a look at him. I could probably given recent batting performance sum up the whole of county cricket in a day.....

Why we need 12 people being overseen by 1 person to do that I dont know. And that person then passes it on to another for his assessment anyway. And he passes it on to the coach, and so on and so on.....

Its like they have made a real simple thing rocket science.

[sussexpob]

In the end, in sports which have used this system much longer and with much more complexity than cricket, if you ever get hold of examples of these data analytical reports they are all just a shower of utter nonsense. The NFL draft reports are comical and make no sense whatsoever (which has relevance, because the ECB and Bobat at one stage had a partnership to learn a lot of this with the NFL team the Cleveland Browns.... which if you know your NFL, are famous for being the worst team in history at drafting players, and are a laughing stock based on how many dud QBs they have drafted over the last few decades given 1st overall pick in the draft....which you get for being the dud team to start with).....

As an example recently retired Hall of Fame QB Drew Brees draft report was famous and was dug up by a podcast I listened to recently. It went....

Positives
Arm Strength- Once in a generation. When he throws the ball, fire comes off it.
Accuracy - Pin point. Makes throws all over the field and rarely misses.
Timing - Pin point. Hits receivers with perfect timing to exploit yards after the catch.
Awareness - Senses all pressure well, and rarely makes risky throws in bad areas.
Technique - Goes through his rotations perfectly. Solid technique that boosts throw power and accuracy.
Reading the game - Spots defensive plays with a sixth sense. Reads the game like he has the cheat codes.
Speed - Not the quickest physically, but his thought process is electric, spotting gaps quicker than others and exploiting gaps in general at a top level
Physicality - Compact and strong enough to take repeated hits. Never fumbles when tackled, even with a lot of force
Injury history - Never been injured in his career
Additional comments - The best thrower of the football in college history on passes between the hashes.

Negatives
Below average height for his position, which is a concern. May struggle to see over taller defensive lines, leading to problems making short throws, especially between the hashes.
Small body frame - will struggle to put on extra mass without being over weight. Acute concern if he wants to generate the required arm strength for the league.
Technique - slightly whippy and uses too much shoulder - acute concerns about accuracy of throws as a result.
Footwork - Doesnt set his weight well enough. Struggles for power and accuracy on long throws
Athleticism - Not a natural athlete. Serious concerns about his durability to take hits, and will likely be injured a lot.
Speed - Cant beat a defence with his legs and lacks the pure physicality to hit the gaps with his speed.
Awareness and sense rush - Has a tendency when rushed on his blind side to lose defenders and take sacks. Has a tendency on his open side to force passes into danger when rushed.
Reading the game - Struggles to read high safety formations.

They are all similar to this. Total nonsense.

Throws like a Greek god.... but he's not that tall, so maybe he might struggle to throw

[Slipstream]

I would pick two or three good umpires to judge the players and each county coach/captain to recommend the best opposition players they see in the county championship. Surely that's all you need?

So the 1st Test looks like

1 Lees (0)
2 Crawley (18)
3 Root (114)
4 Lawrence (8)
5 Stokes (76)
6 Bairstow (80)
7 Foakes (8)
8 Woakes(42)
9 Overton (6)
10 Wood (25)
11 Leach (19)

[Slipstream]

See the headline in the Telegraph England to appoint an independent selector again - James Taylor leads candidates for the new role

[Durhamfootman]

What's Jason Roy been up to then? He takes a break from cricket for a bit, pulls out of the IPL, will miss the start of the county season and has now been handed a 2 match international ban suspended for 12 months and fined two and a half grand...... but the ECB won't tell anyone what the offence was

Good to know that the guardians of the game haven't regressed back to the days where disciplinary matters were sorted out in smoke filled rooms away from public scrutiny by members of the old boy network...... for the good of the game, naturally. Who could possibly argue against that tried and tested approach

*modded* off and mind your own business, plebs

[Arthur Crabtree]

That sort of approach isn't extended to everyone.

[yuppie]

Taking a break from the game? Or is he suspended?

So much will be made up by people now. Why not just explain what he did....

[Arthur Crabtree]

Fined. Suspended ban.

[sussexpob]

I see David Brailsford been linked with replacing Strauss

[Arthur Crabtree]

Ha! They are going to that just to **** you off!

[Durhamfootman]

Not if Damian Collins MP has his way

[sussexpob]

A few player observations after the defeat in the Caribbean...

Alex Lees

Looks like a player who sums up a lot of England's maladies in the last decade. He has the one key skill that test openers need, the mentality to bat out the new ball and throw down the anchor early to set the innings, and its hard to measure how well he did because his contribution of sticking around for 100 balls and seeing off the new ball may have been a reason a few players behind him did better than normal. But I find it absolutely staggering that a player who, as a teenager was being touted for higher honours and has grown in the game in development teams and working with the England coaching staff, could get to 28 and have such obvious technical flaws .... I ask, if a player like this has spent 10 years around the Lions, working with Elite coaching and part of the pathway, has got to the top level without working to iron these out.... even more annoying that he looks like a player who could go places with a little work.

I mean take something as obvious as his off stump guard - I understand if you are a big driver or cutter that you want to get to the off side and over the ball, but Lees incredibly bottom handed grip means he closes the face a lot and hardly ever hits in behind square, and to full balls he just flicks or dead bats them into the offside rather than full bloodied drives. And the pay off is simple - miss the line of the ball, you are dead. His first three dismissals are the textbook reason people dont take an off stump guard, and he added another missed ball for 4 dismissals in the series not keeping the ball from his stumps. He's not benefiting from setting up the way he does, and has made himself more vulnerable. Why is he got to 28 and no one pointed this out?

Conclusion - Needs a long run in the team.

Zak Crawley

Put simply, I dont think Crawley is a top order batter. His instinct is to get bat on everything, and he plays loose outside the off. When the ball moves, he will be a bunny to good quality pace bowling - when he survives long enough through sheer luck or circumstance to unravel his fully array of shots, its a different story. Crawley with an older ball and tired bowlers looks the part...

Conclusion - Bat him at 6

Dan Lawrence

Another like Crawley who, when he gets in, looks the part. The sheer range of available scoring options he has when given time to use them makes me think England need a long, uninterrupted look at him, because if he can survive long enough to get set, he can certainly punish you all around the wicket. But he's another with obvious problems in defensive technique, so there are question marks about how often he can do that.

The trigger movement is problematic. He starts leg side and steps across a lot of the time, which lures a lot of bowlers into the trap of slanting it in to his pads thinking you have a chance of lbws, but he looks very strong in this region. But the moving head means he looses his off stump line. Bowlers who keep it tight on off stump or thereabouts will cause him issues because not only is the chance of misjudgment there, but there is application problems even to balls he should play on the stumps being edged. His leave to Mayers in the last test was the poorest wicket England lost in the series - a ball that seamed a very small amount, and clanged half way up middle .... a catastrophic misjudgment that solidifies the above.

Conclusion - Should be safe for now, but needs to start producing

Joe Root (captaincy)

As the Windies tail wagged in the first innings and took them into the lead late in the game, the chance of a result faded. The camera panned to Root at slip, who was pranking around with a stupid grin on his face; for a captain of fading credibility, it couldnt have looked any worse. He had a bowler bowling not much over 70mph banged in half trackers on the slowest of pitches, and three men back on the fence to a number 10 who probably hasnt played a hook shot in his life, and no one short either infront or behind square - when Roach did get balls he couldnt deal with, it was gloves or muffed edges into these empty spaces.

Root has continually displayed a lack of imagination and creativity in his approach. He is captain because he gets into the team, and not because of anything else.

Conclusion - Needs to be fired

Foakes

Nothing much to say other than he needs a long run. As much as he he failed here, he averaged 40 and was dropped before. He can bat and hes England's best realistic gloveman.... so hasty judgements over one series need to be avoided.

Conclusion - In short, England need to play him to the point he either picks himself in the team, or the next time he is dropped its permanent. There is no point giving him 3 tests here, 5 there.... he gets 10-20 now, and if after that he doesnt justify selection, its time to move on and leave him behind.

Woakes

Save for one spell, he was totally ineffective. He didnt get much from the new ball, and his accuracy was mostly poor. His confidence was obviously shot, because he was happy to stick to defensive lines and not concede runs, when in reality England needed badly for their new ball to be aggressive and make inroads on two pitches that did nothing after 20 overs, or where they were massively behind and needed to throw everything in. His record says it all - he should never tour with England's red ball team again, and the jury is out whether the damage of his recent poor performance leaks into the home summer. At 32/33, he's one bad home series from the end. England need to look elsewhere if he cant turn it around vs NZ.

Conclusion - I'd personally move on now, but I have a feeling he will play in summer. IF he doesnt do well, he has to go before the winter.

Overton

I struggle to think of a pace bowler more underwhelming in recent times than Overton. His success in county cricket are more noteworthy for how worryingly easy such an average bowler has done, rather than speak of any quality Overton seemingly has. For a tall man he doesn't hit good length to use his bounce, he doesnt really seam the ball from the pitch, and there is almost zero movement in the air. And at stages his pace was down at 70mph, which would have been slower than Paul Collingwood when he was deep in his 30s. If Overton makes even a half decent test bowler in the long term, I will eat my hat. Save for one spell vs Campbell when England suddenly realised the Windies opener was a train wreck to anything short, and Overton created short ball pressure and got him out, nothing has shown me he has the ability or nous to craft a batsman out either - which is essential for a bowler of such low pace and movement.

Conclusion - If I were to stake my reputation on anyone in this current team not having an international future, its Overton. I have personally seen enough and would move on.

Mahmood

As stated pre-series, Mahmood average of 28 is pretty ordinary/bad in an era of almost no big scores in the county game. 28 in 2022 would be like 38 in 2002 - but in a short space of time Mahmood showed why he is elevated over others doing statistically better, and also why he is statistically inferior. He bowled with decent nip, he got reverse and regular swing, and bowled extremely aggressive lines - he also bowled the most buffet balls with it. But I have zero problem with a young bowler who goes for a few runs trying to pose questions and search for wickets.

Conclusion - A rough diamond, with a little polish he could be a top class bowler.

Fisher

Stats aside, he was England's most impressive bowler in the second test. His figures really didnt do him justice. Regimented line and length, got bounce from the pitch, decent enough pace.... the kind of player I would imagine being a wrecking ball on any pitch in England that offers seam movement. If this sole test is indicative, then he looks a good prospect.

Conclusion - If England moved on permanently from AB, then I want to see him playing vs NZ.

Leach

He could bowl identically to this in other tours and come away with double the wickets. He toiled on dead pitches over after over providing pressure at one end, and then got rip in second innings where he was unlucky not to do more damage. Consistently beat the bat without reward in the first two tests. If there is a slight criticism, maybe he could have mixed it up more, especially in the second test where I wanted to see him maybe fire a few quicker, flatter ones in at the stumps; but lets be honest - there is no Shane Warne trawling the county scene waiting to be found. Leach is the best spinner we have by miles, and while he's not a world beater, he is also not an Achilles heal in conditions England need spin.

Conclusion - England should just end the spinner debate. Leach is England's unquestioned number one, if the pitch helps him, pick him.

[sussexpob]

As for questions of the captaincy, I dont want Stokes to get it - as stated before, I think England need to relieve Ben of his workload, not add to it. I would personally give it to one of Broad or Anderson in the short term and hope someone becomes more obvious in a couple of years.

[Arthur Crabtree]

England seem to have a lot of batters who have a kind of negative pressure that makes it seem attractive to bat them lower down. Crawley at six. Bat Root lower at four. Stokes is an all rounder so bat him at 5-6. It didn't seem ideal to promote him to five but it happened because everyone else was hopeless. Pope and Bairstow are specialist sixes. Buttler was the one of the few specialist bats ever to bat at seven. Lawrence should be at 6. Some of these have been coasting in the lower middle order for a long career. No one has the gravitas or can take responsibility to be a 3 or 4 (Root aside) or even be a convincing 5.

[sussexpob]

Ben Stokes is a really good example of the erroneous thinking behind England's positional strategy though. Ask pundits and fans alike, and there would be an unshakable view that Ben is England's second best batter and that his position at 5 is justified on the basis you want him to be in the position that best suits him, irrespective of what it means to other batters. Stokes is good enough to warrant basing the line up order on his quality. But if you look at the position inside Ben Stokes career era, what you actually find is the top order slots 1-3 have lowering averages, and that position 5 is the highest average position in the game now. Its the position of the highest average return at just a decimal under 40 per wicket drop... a mark that Stokes is actually under, meaning he on paper is actually a below average batter what has become the highest scoring position.

Stokes has average of 39 in 31 tests. If we compare this to the average at 5 for the best player from each respective Test nation...

Root averaged 67!!! (20 tests)
ABDV... 57 (23)
Steve Smith...57 (20)
Rahim 57 (18)
Chanderpaul 51 (19)
McCullum 49 (21)
Ul-Haq 48 (39)
Chandimal 48 (22)
Kohli 47 (27)
Afghan 62 (5)
Chakabva 66 (4)
O'Brien 33 (3)

Stokes only outperforms Ireland's top number 5, he is significantly lower averaging than all the others. The last two players to play number 5 not currently in the England team, KP and Bell, both out performed him and both playing the position in stages of their career they were dropped. The only other player to play significant number of innings, Bairstow, did much much worse... and is still in the team.

And this is only one top performer from each team....

Australia in the same span have 8 players average better in the position - combined for 62 total tests
Bangladesh have another 4 for a combined 29 tests
England three players for a combined 34 tests
India four players for a combined 24 tests
NZ have three players for a combined 44 tests
Pakistan have 5 players for a combined 29 tests
South Africa 2 players for 49 combined tests
Sri Lanka 5 players for 59 combined tests
West Indies 5 players for 15 tests

Add those with the top performers, and it shows you that most teams have sustained high quality output at 5, and far in excess of what Stokes is producing. What is really frightful is Bairstow also had a similar number of tests at this position, and he averaged 28, which put into context is frightfully terrible. There is case to say Stokes is the worst 5 in the world, only Rahane competes for the title for players to have had a decent run.... and Rahane overall is a better batsman with a superior career average over similar spans. If you take wicket averages across the game, with Roots average at 5 England could achieve overall average parity with his subsequent replacement at 3 averaging 8 runs an innings.

In short, England have given the easiest job to an all rounder who isnt cashing in on the position anywhere near his peers, and have moved someone to 3 in his worst position at a significant cost to his average performance.

As for Root....

Overall, the position of Root in his career span compared to the average performance of each position:-

At 3 equates to a boost of 2 runs
At 4 equates to a boost of 14 runs
At 5 equates to a boost of 28 runs

The average for each position when Root's performance is taken out and Roots additional boost to that position

Number 3 - 32.5 ...boost of 6.5
Number 4 - 26 .... boost of 25
Number 5 - 32.5 .... boost of 34.5

Overall effect on middle order totals

If Root bats at 3, England's average performance for the middle order is 97.5 runs, which is 17.5 runs behind the international average
If Root bats at 4, England's average performance is 116, which is 1 run above average
If Root bats at 5, England's average performance is 125.5, which is 10.5 runs above average

Batting Root at 3 is madness if a sample of 118 tests with him in the team is indicative. Batting him at 4 doesnt make sense statistically. Batting him at 5 is statistically more efficient, and by some distance. If any of these actual statistical models, based on actual factual performance, were to remain robust in the future, Stokes moving to 4 would only need to average 26 (massively under the average) to maintain the success of the model, and whichever number 3 picked maintain their massively below average form. And even if Root was likely to drop his average a good ten runs at 5, you would only need two batters averaging low 30s to still make it more efficient.