English Cricket Thread

[alfie]

At the moment Archer and Stone are still injury absences ; Mahmood and Fisher as yet untried ; Overton as yet underwhelming.

There are seven Tests scheduled for the English summer. Does anyone seriously believe Woakes Wood and Robinson are playing all of them ? Even if they - and one or other of the new boys - do a job in West Indies , there will be plenty of room for rotations. I think we will see a bit more of both of them - though how long either will continue is another matter ...as indeed it was always going to be even before the decision to tour without them this month.

The thing I am a little unhappy about with this whole Broad and Anderson issue is that Strauss seems to have been less than clear about his intentions - almost as if he wishes to be able to spin in whichever direction fits the narrative as these next ten Tests (and the new coaching set up) take place. Suppose that is understandable , in a political sort of way ; but doesn't seem too admirable - and more than a little unfair to two fine servants of English cricket. At some point they will obviously have to give way to younger men ; but I don't think we need to have this happen in any contrived manner as time and form will ensure the progression happens naturally.

Whatever anyone says , there is more than a touch of "development tour" about this one : if the tour were to one of the "big" countries England wouldn't be travelling without 1100 odd wickets...

[Slipstream]

At the moment Archer and Stone are still injury absences ; Mahmood and Fisher as yet untried ; Overton as yet underwhelming.

There are seven Tests scheduled for the English summer. Does anyone seriously believe Woakes Wood and Robinson are playing all of them ? Even if they - and one or other of the new boys - do a job in West Indies , there will be plenty of room for rotations. I think we will see a bit more of both of them - though how long either will continue is another matter ...as indeed it was always going to be even before the decision to tour without them this month.

The thing I am a little unhappy about with this whole Broad and Anderson issue is that Strauss seems to have been less than clear about his intentions - almost as if he wishes to be able to spin in whichever direction fits the narrative as these next ten Tests (and the new coaching set up) take place. Suppose that is understandable , in a political sort of way ; but doesn't seem too admirable - and more than a little unfair to two fine servants of English cricket. At some point they will obviously have to give way to younger men ; but I don't think we need to have this happen in any contrived manner as time and form will ensure the progression happens naturally.

Whatever anyone says , there is more than a touch of "development tour" about this one : if the tour were to one of the "big" countries England wouldn't be travelling without 1100 odd wickets...

Reading this morning Archer and Stone will be in the nets in the West Indies getting ready for the summer.

Mirror
'Stone went under the knife in July and had a screw inserted into his back to try and stabilise the area and prevent further problems when bowling at high speed'.

The good news is that he is trying again and the three times capped Warwickshire speedster is now actually able to bowl and can do so under the watchful eye of England physios, and is targeting a return to cricket in either April or May'.

Meanwhile ...
Mail
Aged just 20, Jayden Seales is a fast bowler on fast forward: he made his Test debut before he had played a competitive first-class match, he is the youngest West Indian to take a five-wicket Test haul and he already takes the new ball ahead of his seniors.

[alfie]

Hope Stone can indeed make a successful comeback after the surgery : he has showed some good promise on the brief occasions he has actually made it onto the field for England . The back problems are a worry though : fast bowling is not easy on backs !

Seales adds to West Indies stock of fast bowlers and I imagine they will give the England bats plenty to cope with on this tour. Think the hosts will be hoping one or two new players stand up with the bat too though as that is the area in which they - like England - seem most deficient at present.

[sussexpob]

I mean, lets be brutal - Olly Stone would have stopped playing longer formats in 2021 if he wasn't a mediocre white ball player. Certainly suggestions in the press were he was advised to stop bowling in the longer formats for 2 years to build his body back up, but who in the IPL/Big Bash or even the 100 is going to sign someone who averages 30 in T20 cricket at nearly 9 an over econ and who cant bat? He hasnt played a 50 over game in well over 3 years, and averages 43 in his career.

Stone said he was contemplating retirement, and has also stated that another injury and he is walking away. This idea that he has any sort of England future is, for me anyway, far fetched to the point of lunacy. He hasnt been fit for the last decade, breaks down almost instantly when he returns nowadays, and is almost certainly going to break down almost instantly again. If Stone is still a cricketer by the time the winter tour squads are announced, I will be very surprised.

I take no delight in saying any of this, but it is what it is..... sadly the lads body has failed him, and he's obviously broken himself to bowl fast. And even when fit this season, look at the bowling loads. In his last game he managed 18 overs when the other seamers got to nearly 30 in the innings. It says to me even when hes on the field, if your opposition is going to bat long, you cant keep throwing him the ball.

England should have moved on a long time ago. If in the next 12-24 months a miracle occurs, then re-assess. But I cant understand why the team are pouring resources at someone who has stated he is one injury complication from jacking it in.

[sussexpob]

The thing I am a little unhappy about with this whole Broad and Anderson issue is that Strauss seems to have been less than clear about his intentions - almost as if he wishes to be able to spin in whichever direction fits the narrative as these next ten Tests (and the new coaching set up) take place. Suppose that is understandable , in a political sort of way ; but doesn't seem too admirable - and more than a little unfair to two fine servants of English cricket

Only the ECB could appoint a temporary person to oversee "strategic decision making", as Strauss has summed up his role to be. What exactly is the point? Strauss will soon pass on his role to new selectors and new coaches, people with their own ideas. Any "strategic" decisions he makes about the future do not have any binding effect, and do not have any impact into the future. Strauss' strategic blueprint will be burnt the moment he leaves the role; which is going to be very soon.

All of this is of course not lost on those players. Like Jimmy has said, new decision makers, different decisions. New decision makers, new pressures to perform. No coach is going to watch England's bowling stocks decline in the West Indies and not recall these two players.

It makes the decision idiotic. Strauss should be focusing on putting in place the guys who will create their own strategic blueprints, not creating his own vision for a future he will not be part of.

[sussexpob]

KP was made captain in 2008 and immediately brought Harmison back. KP, a captain that had the power than Root doesn't have. Harmison played 2 Tests under KP and 4 Tests under Strauss when he became the new captain in the West Indies. 9 wickets at 34.89 and Harmison was gone

Thats evidence of the above. Once new people come into decision roles, anything decided before becomes null and void.

Its interesting you pick up on Roots power, because one cant help but feel that Root's influence has been neutered significantly. The press have stated he had no vote with the squad, and it seems obvious that Strauss has forced him up to bat at 3 when he doesnt want to. In his speech declaring how he was really up for doing it, he couldnt help but also slip in the fact he had hated the idea in the past. I guess that was a bit of a call for help or a less than subtle hint about what he really thought. The same with Broad and Anderson, who he says could come back in the not too distant future.

It smacks of a captain that doesnt agree with these decisions made, but is so close to being fired himself, he has no power to speak out about how he himself sees the team.

And I guess the very fact the captain is acknowledging these players might/probably will come back already sets alight to any strategic decisions Strauss is making. The Director is calling time on careers, the captain is saying its not over. I imagine that in someways is even more confusing.

[Durhamfootman]

Strauss should be focusing on putting in place the guys who will create their own strategic blueprints, not creating his own vision for a future he will not be part of.

unless, of course, he secretly does want to be a part of it.

I haven't really commented on bowling selection, or at least I don't think I have, but I don't have a problem with leaving A & B out of the touring squad. I think it makes sense for England to have them fresh for the start of the county season where they can prepare themselves for the first home test series. That such a simple thing has been allowed to be construed as perhaps meaning something else is a problem entirely of Strauss' own making.... and not very smart from someone who obviously fancies himself as some sort of administrative messiah

[sussexpob]

Strauss should be focusing on putting in place the guys who will create their own strategic blueprints, not creating his own vision for a future he will not be part of.

unless, of course, he secretly does want to be a part of it

Strauss wouldnt need to lie or cover up that fact, I think if he wanted the job permanently the ECB would throw it at him instantly, and the press would laud the decision.

[sussexpob]

and not very smart from someone who obviously fancies himself as some sort of administrative messiah

As stated before, nothing has ever really convinced me that Strauss is much more than the beneficiary of right person, right time syndrome. He seems to be a classic uninspiring management speak technocrat, full of buzz words and b******t. I read an interview for instance about leadership he did fairly recently - he highlighted "turning weaknesses into strengths" as the reason his teams were so successful. Nothing is more vacuous or cliche than a statement like that.

The prime example he could give was with bowling maidens in tests. Strauss was apparently upset his bowlers seemed to be too concerned with not giving runs away and so went to the teams sports psychologist to ask how he could get his bowlers to take risks more and get out the mind set of trying not to give away runs; said guy told Strauss that bowling maidens is a strength, not a weakness. And so Strauss says he turned that weakness into a strength by basing their bowling plans on bowling maidens.

I guess the point was to show what a great move that was....... the take away for me was Strauss was saying it took the team's mental health guy to explain to him that building bowling pressure was actually the point of test match bowling.

England's greatest apparent captain thought bowling tight and putting pressure on batsman was a weakness?

[Slipstream]

The thing I am a little unhappy about with this whole Broad and Anderson issue is that Strauss seems to have been less than clear about his intentions - almost as if he wishes to be able to spin in whichever direction fits the narrative as these next ten Tests (and the new coaching set up) take place. Suppose that is understandable , in a political sort of way ; but doesn't seem too admirable - and more than a little unfair to two fine servants of English cricket

Only the ECB could appoint a temporary person to oversee "strategic decision making", as Strauss has summed up his role to be. What exactly is the point? Strauss will soon pass on his role to new selectors and new coaches, people with their own ideas. Any "strategic" decisions he makes about the future do not have any binding effect, and do not have any impact into the future. Strauss' strategic blueprint will be burnt the moment he leaves the role; which is going to be very soon.

All of this is of course not lost on those players. Like Jimmy has said, new decision makers, different decisions. New decision makers, new pressures to perform. No coach is going to watch England's bowling stocks decline in the West Indies and not recall these two players.

It makes the decision idiotic. Strauss should be focusing on putting in place the guys who will create their own strategic blueprints, not creating his own vision for a future he will not be part of.

I just want to say Sussexpov that I find you a clear thinker and love reading your posts. It certainly makes me feel better after having read this one.

I always thought that Giles picked Silverwood and Root to be the only selectors, then to find out that it was Silverwood, Taylor and Bobat who were not only selecting the squad but also the team. In the past only the captain and coach picked the XI, which is as it should be.

It looked like Strauss decided to be sole selector for the West Indies tour. Moving Root to 3. Can see the other 'selectors' doing that. Were the others being Collingwood and Tayor? Number 3 is like opening the batting. Do your want that for your best batsman? I bet Strauss will be in the West Indies picking the team as well, rather than letting Collingwood and Root do it. All he should have done is pick the coach and step back to let them get on with it, knowing the new coach would want to do things his way.

And also get rid of Bobat and Taylor, they haven't a clue.

[sussexpob]

Now Smith has gone, Bobat is the person in the setup who represents the chaotic confusion of backroom selection. When given the opportunity to explain his Lions squad at the end of last summer, he said it was picked on "data, scouting, and my own assessments on mental/physical attributes"...... so what you are saying is, you are throwing at pictures on a dart board?

I am all for data analytics and what not, but data can mean anything. And why have data analytics if you then say two of the three main criteria are subjective assessments? The very nature of saying that is to literally say "the data tells me one thing, I chose to accept it and use my subjective judgement anyway!". So why use data? Are you just using data in a confirmation bias way? Bobat lifted the lid on it when justifying Zak Crawley coming back - he had reams of data about how Crawley played quicker bowlers better and shorter lengths better, and that test batsman face that type of bowling more. Which is why he was a better pick. Which is why his average of 30 was actually better than people averaging 35 or higher.

Save from this excellent data analysis, the actual fact was Crawley averaged 10 in the year for test cricket . Bobat was telling us data tells us he should be excellent, the only stat that mattered was he was batting like a tailender on a bad patch. I think that is all we need to say for the role of data in English cricket. Anyone with half a keen cricket eye can see Zak Crawley's forward defensive is far from good enough; even if he plays attacking strokes that should end on postcards.

Bobat got a promotion in 2019 after 8 years overseeing a team that introduced hardly any test quality newbies. Taylor got the role because Smith thought his recent experience in the dressing room meant he was a great scout.... the returns have been woeful. How is anyone involved with selection and performance management still in a job?

[Slipstream]

Now Smith has gone, Bobat is the person in the setup who represents the chaotic confusion of backroom selection. When given the opportunity to explain his Lions squad at the end of last summer, he said it was picked on "data, scouting, and my own assessments on mental/physical attributes"...... so what you are saying is, you are throwing at pictures on a dart board?

I am all for data analytics and what not, but data can mean anything. And why have data analytics if you then say two of the three main criteria are subjective assessments? The very nature of saying that is to literally say "the data tells me one thing, I chose to accept it and use my subjective judgement anyway!". So why use data? Are you just using data in a confirmation bias way? Bobat lifted the lid on it when justifying Zak Crawley coming back - he had reams of data about how Crawley played quicker bowlers better and shorter lengths better, and that test batsman face that type of bowling more. Which is why he was a better pick. Which is why his average of 30 was actually better than people averaging 35 or higher.

Save from this excellent data analysis, the actual fact was Crawley averaged 10 in the year for test cricket . Bobat was telling us data tells us he should be excellent, the only stat that mattered was he was batting like a tailender on a bad patch. I think that is all we need to say for the role of data in English cricket. Anyone with half a keen cricket eye can see Zak Crawley's forward defensive is far from good enough; even if he plays attacking strokes that should end on postcards.

Bobat got a promotion in 2019 after 8 years overseeing a team that introduced hardly any test quality newbies. Taylor got the role because Smith thought his recent experience in the dressing room meant he was a great scout.... the returns have been woeful. How is anyone involved with selection and performance management still in a job?

It seems that when Ed Smith was selector Bobat and Taylor reported to him. When Smith went the two of them then reported to the weak Silverwood and it seems they took charge of selection. Tayor was 10,000 miles away for selection of the 1st Ashes Test. How did he know what was going on in the dressing room? Bobat with his degree but never played first class cricket.

If England choose a national selector Bobat and Taylor would report to him but I wouldn't be surprised if Bobat got that job.

'If I go back to around 2011 when I first started with the ECB, we had a ‘talent’ PhD running which was aiming to ascertain the validity of a talent identification model in cricket. With that study in mind, we used the PhD as a catalyst for enhancing our scouting and selection processes at the U19 level. I eventually took over applying the findings of the PhD and through lots of critical thinking and substantial research into other elite environments, we were able to make iterative improvements until we settled on a bit of a formula. In 2016 when Andrew Strauss came in as Managing Director, he asked me to extend that work up the pathway to include the Lions and a year later we extended our methods further to include England selection which coincided with Straussy making changes to England selection as a new revamped approach, led by Ed Smith'.

[sussexpob]

It seems that when Ed Smith was selector Bobat and Taylor reported to him. When Smith went the two of them then reported to the weak Silverwood and it seems they took charge of selection.......If England choose a national selector Bobat and Taylor would report to him but I wouldn't be surprised if Bobat got that job

The way the International Player Pathway filters all test prospects into the requirement of at least graduating the Lions squad, in reality makes Bobat a selector, and a very influential one at that; to be considered for the next stage, you have to pass whatever tests he has put in place to deem you worth for elevation. In the context of this policy, it also makes little sense for a National selector to exist; Bobat is purported to have a scientific method for ranking prospects worthiness, so why then dilute the science by giving the decision to someone to make an less informed assessment based on subjectivity? I would have to guess this is the reason why Giles' got rid of the role, and in the scope of the ECBs strategic vision for player advancement, makes total sense. Bobat picks those international worthy to represent the team, the team management pick on the day who provides the best tactical team to win in the given conditions. Where Taylor fits into this is anyones guess. He is just an additional layer of subjectivity and has very little use.

Of course, the real problem about all this is it puts total trust and belief in the science actually being scientific.... but all Bobat's analytics have got us is an all time worst batting line up, and a rapidly declining team where no new players make the setup up.

I put Bobat's scientific prowess somewhere inbetween Flat-Earther's and Q'Anon twitter conspiracy theorists who think 5G masts control invisible microchips in vaccines.... the fact he claims to have "the formula" is laughable. What a prat.

[Durhamfootman]

Where Taylor fits into this is anyones guess. He is just an additional layer of subjectivity and has very little use.

presumably he's the guy who trundles around the grounds looking at players to see if they're worth investing time in

[sussexpob]

presumably he's the guy who trundles around the grounds looking at players to see if they're worth investing time in

In reality, who has he been scouting? I ask this seriously.

Since 2014 when Flower took over the Lions program and Academy, and his and Downton's pathway was implemented, how many players have been picked who were not at any stage in their development part of the national setup before they completed under-19 level? I ask, because England's pathway is all about developing players from a young age and turning them into cricketers, they have pretty much zero interest in finding talented professionals and trying to make them better. When given a choice, they find excuses as to why the players they identified are better, based on the belief their models are perfect.

Well, you can take out the foreign born ones - Jordan, Robson, Malan, Jennings and Archer (all of which aside from Jordan did graduate from foreign development pathways and play international under 19 cricket). Jordan had been international capped by Flower in a different format though.

Mark Wood, Toby Roland Jones, Ollie Robinson, Jack Leach, Alex Hales .... the last debuted in 2017. Not a single pick in 5 years.

3 out of the 5 were kept back from test caps a long time despite being standout performers, and have had their attitude, fitness, dedication and even legality of action as given as reasons for not being picked - although one had a stepdad as England Assistant coach getting him to the Lions, the other was the top ranked batsman in T20....I have a feeling neither would have got a test had these realities not been in place.

I guess Taylor is watching the same players that Bobat has spent 10 years watching. Him and his team of 12 odd scouts producing more reports, to add to the 100s on each player they already have.

Because the evidence suggests he isnt watching anyone England dont know about and havent intrinsically assessed already. And if he is, it seems hes wasted his time..... not a single person has been picked.