English Cricket Thread

[Slipstream]

I would say that bowling at 75mph and having back spasms at various times hasn't helped. Pennington is 6'5, faster than Robinson and bowls long spells. Working with Kevin Shine and Moores has helped.

Robinson has the 5th best average of pacer bowlers to take as many wickets as him in English test history, the best average recorded in 65 years of English test players, and sits between Imran Khan and Dale Steyn on the all time averages list, very very high up on the all time list. These averages have been produced despite him only playing tests against the top 4 ranked sides and against no average padders, with 65% of his games against the two best ranked batting sides.

I guess Rob Key will tell you he's too slow for project Australia and we need a battery of 90mph bowlers.... then again, he's ranked with one of the best post-war averages for anyone taking 10 wickets away in OZ, and played his games at a time where Aussie home bats went about 12 runs over the historical average. So factoring in relative performance to average per era, he's up there as one of, if not the, best bowler to have played in OZ in nearly 100 years.

But yeah.... I am sure Pennington is likely to do all of that and more. Because finding guys averaging 22 against top teams over a few years is something really easy to do.

I guess playing someone who averages 10 runs per wicket more than him based on fitness is entirely justifiable... because Mark Wood is obviously always fit. Its not like he already missed 50% of test this year and only bowls 4 over spells now.

Well Wood is now in the team to scare WI batsmen. 2 wickets at 44.00.

Robinson doesn't have to have the speed to scare the batsmen but he has the height. I suppose he will be called up when England go to Pakistan or will Woakes still be in the team.

[sussexpob]

Well Wood is now in the team to scare WI batsmen. 2 wickets at 44.00.

Robinson doesn't have to have the speed to scare the batsmen but he has the height

Wood may make batsman physically mess their underpants, but if we are to conclude anything useful in a sporting context from that, its that batsman who have sh*t themselves score more runs. I have no idea why English cricket is so fascinated with pace being so useful, when end results are facts that can't be argued. England's best bowlers statistically tend to be slower. England's best bowlers in Australia tend to be slower..... in fact, dropping pace through the plus 90s to high 70s shows a proportional drop in average on Australian pitches. And yet, we still bang on about the need for a 95mph spray and pray type guy to "make things happen"... well, bowling the ball consistently in areas to challenge the batsman makes things happen, not 98mph balls continually smashed into the middle of the pitch.

If England picked a 3ft medically recognised dwarf who bowled 20 mph, and he was the best bowler I had in nearly 7 decades, then I'd be more inclined to believe 3ft bowlers are more useful than 7ft ones who average 10 runs more.

Results are results.

[Slipstream]

Who are the 6 bowlers going to Australia? If not injured by then

Robinson
Tongue
Archer
Stokes

Wood
Atkinson

[Arthur Crabtree]

That's asking for a lot of injury serendipity. But looks an interesting collection.

[alfie]

Way too early to be picking Ashes Touring Teams . All those mentioned are possible : but fitness issues are never far away ; I will believe Archer for Tests again when I see it (though I admire the optimism and patience in trying to get him ready at the right time) ; and Robinson will need to demonstrate a proper level of fitness and endurance - as well as convincing selectors his head and heart are fully committed - before he is back in favour. (Which seems crazy I know , given his excellent career figures to date ; but his more recent appearances have been so alarmingly underwhelming he has understandably slipped dramatically down the pecking order. I still have hopes he will get back - only 30 after all - but he hasn't been tearing down trees for his county has he ? Would be a sad case of lost talent if he disappears )

As for the current game it will be interesting to see whether they stick with the Woakes/Atkinson new ball pairing or try using Wood from the start . I suspect the former.

[sussexpob]

Way too early to be picking Ashes Touring Teams . All those mentioned are possible : but fitness issues are never far away ; I will believe Archer for Tests again when I see it (though I admire the optimism and patience in trying to get him ready at the right time) ; and Robinson will need to demonstrate a proper level of fitness and endurance - as well as convincing selectors his head and heart are fully committed - before he is back in favour. (Which seems crazy I know , given his excellent career figures to date ; but his more recent appearances have been so alarmingly underwhelming he has understandably slipped dramatically down the pecking order. I still have hopes he will get back - only 30 after all - but he hasn't been tearing down trees for his county has he ? Would be a sad case of lost talent if he disappears )

You are aware that Robinson's average in tests since this "alarmingly underwhelming" period began in 2023 is lower than Anderson and Wood over the same period, and for all the players who toured away, is second only to Bashir out of all England's bowlers and the best of all seamers? Robinson averaged only 1 run over Wood's entire career average, and becomes unpickable after averaging 18!!! the year before, but Wood averages mid 30s in a career of meh performance, and Dobell, McCullum and Stokes are all reminding us how essential he is to England. Well no, England perform worst with him in the side over his career span, and his average of 32 is not very good....

Endurance? Robinson has bowled more FC overs this English season than Wood has since 2015. Robinson falls bang inside the 31-32 overs per test average that all other bowlers manage, the exception being Wood at 28, so he's shown more Endurance than Wood.

Fitness? Do we really want to get into this? England went into this series with an attack composed of a 26 year old who has had 4 season ending stress fractures of the back, a 35 year old who recently had his knee reconstructed to save his career and has always had injury issues, another 35 year old who wasn't even fit for the first test and has been fit for 35 tests in the last 120 played, and a spinner who bowled no overs all year for his county and was sent out on loan before the test to get some cricket. Oh and Stokes, who bowled 15 overs in about 20 tests.

Robinson has one short period of fitness issues, and is deemed permanently unselectable? Sounds fair doesnt it?

Not tearing up trees? 2nd most wickets in the Championship Division, 2nd best average for those over 20 wickets. Bowling average this year is better than all candidates FC career averages.

[sussexpob]

England dropping Robinson is a bit like a football manager deciding how hard a striker shoots determines success. He drops his striker who, for 4-5 years has scored more goals than anyone in 6-7 decades, because its better for the team. And then without the striker, his replacement scores many less goals, the team create less chances, and he has less assists.....

Like bowling fast, having a hard shot is useful if the ball is on target, but whacking it over the bar at lightspeed is not as useful as placing a powder puff shot past the keeper into the corner. Of course, if you can hit it harder into the corner, its perfect... but how many bowlers can? And if you have a one in a generation talent who can place the ball so accurately past the keeper all the time, then why does it matter?

I don't think its hard to see whats happening here. We have a management team, selector and a Chief of English cricket all screaming about wanting quicker bowlers... and then a medium-fast legend is pushed into retirement, and they find rather dubious grounds to fault another medium-fast bowler for his fitness or desire..... and replace them with a few bowlers who spend half their career writing sicknotes.

Let's be honest.... England have chosen pace over performance? There is nowt wrong with Robbo....

[alfie]

Way too early to be picking Ashes Touring Teams . All those mentioned are possible : but fitness issues are never far away ; I will believe Archer for Tests again when I see it (though I admire the optimism and patience in trying to get him ready at the right time) ; and Robinson will need to demonstrate a proper level of fitness and endurance - as well as convincing selectors his head and heart are fully committed - before he is back in favour. (Which seems crazy I know , given his excellent career figures to date ; but his more recent appearances have been so alarmingly underwhelming he has understandably slipped dramatically down the pecking order. I still have hopes he will get back - only 30 after all - but he hasn't been tearing down trees for his county has he ? Would be a sad case of lost talent if he disappears )

You are aware that Robinson's average in tests since this "alarmingly underwhelming" period began in 2023 is lower than Anderson and Wood over the same period, and for all the players who toured away, is second only to Bashir out of all England's bowlers and the best of all seamers? Robinson averaged only 1 run over Wood's entire career average, and becomes unpickable after averaging 18!!! the year before, but Wood averages mid 30s in a career of meh performance, and Dobell, McCullum and Stokes are all reminding us how essential he is to England. Well no, England perform worst with him in the side over his career span, and his average of 32 is not very good....

Endurance? Robinson has bowled more FC overs this English season than Wood has since 2015. Robinson falls bang inside the 31-32 overs per test average that all other bowlers manage, the exception being Wood at 28, so he's shown more Endurance than Wood.

Fitness? Do we really want to get into this? England went into this series with an attack composed of a 26 year old who has had 4 season ending stress fractures of the back, a 35 year old who recently had his knee reconstructed to save his career and has always had injury issues, another 35 year old who wasn't even fit for the first test and has been fit for 35 tests in the last 120 played, and a spinner who bowled no overs all year for his county and was sent out on loan before the test to get some cricket. Oh and Stokes, who bowled 15 overs in about 20 tests.

Robinson has one short period of fitness issues, and is deemed permanently unselectable? Sounds fair doesnt it?

Not tearing up trees? 2nd most wickets in the Championship Division, 2nd best average for those over 20 wickets. Bowling average this year is better than all candidates FC career averages.

Oh come on Sussex did you not watch Robinson in his last couple of appearances ? He was awful...did not look like the bowler who had performed so well since his introduction to Tests at all : and I am fully aware of his excellent previous record as I thought I made clear - which is why I expressed my concern over his present situation. Why do you (not for the first time) insist on taking parts of my posts and launching totally irrelevant statistics to supposedly prove I don't know what I am talking about ?

I will try to make it simple for you : 1/ I rate Robinson highly.
2/ I think if he is fit and on form he is always in England's best team.
3/ The Robinson who turned out in those last couple of games (and that is all we are talking about , not some extended period ) was clearly not fit for purpose - and not the Robinson we had admired previously.
4/ Given (3) his previous record is hardly relevant unless and until the selectors are convinced he is back in proper shape - which is hardly unreasonable , is it ? I can't judge whether he is or not and neither can you so probably best left to those in charge.
5 / Nowhere have I suggested he is "permanently unselectable" so please stop with your Straw Men.
6 / All the stuff about Wood and others is likewise irrelevant - see points 1 and 2.

I understand you being supportive of one of your own players . And once again , I do hope he makes it back. So take it up with Key and co if you must but please don't misrepresent what I think was a perfectly reasonable expression of doubts on my part as to whether he actually will be on the next tour of Australia.

[sussexpob]

Oh come on Sussex did you not watch Robinson in his last couple of appearances ? He was awful...

In the 2023 Ashes series, after the end of the first two tests before his back spasms forced him out the game in Leeds, Robinson had the 2nd most wickets over the series at the best bowling average across both sides. To describe out performing 6 bowlers in the top 10 rankings in test cricket in the same conditions as being "awful" is quite an interesting point. He then went to Leeds. bowled a handful of overs as his back gave way, and then was dropped for 6 test matches. In the tight match where England lost by 2 wickets having declared, Robinson made 17 and 27* with the bat too, which had England not declared like lunatics, may have won them the game.

In India, he bowled 13 overs on a Ranchi pitch where for the best part of two days, only 6 overs of pace were sent down by both teams, and both teams gave the new ball to spin at both ends in 3 of the 4 innings. Worth noting he made nearly 60 runs with the bat in the first innings in partnership with Root, turning a deficit into a lead and allowing Root to score a 120*.

In 2022, he was one of 4 players in the last 55 years to average 18 or under in a calendar year taking 20 wickets....

So we are essentially saying that having an historically great year, in a career that registers the best bowling average in 65 years, then going into an Ashes series and being the standout bowler over two games.... means you are awful based on the fact that you then get injured in the next match almost straight away, and follow it with 13 overs with no wicket on a pitch so devoid of assistance for pace bowling, the new ball is given to both sides to spinners.

If that's awful, then my god....is everyone who has ever bowled awful too?

[sussexpob]

Why do you (not for the first time) insist on taking parts of my posts and launching totally irrelevant statistics to supposedly prove I don't know what I am talking about ?

Can you explain specifically what you think was irrelevant about these argument presented?

I think its absolutely relevant to point out that you consistently have defended Mark Wood and other players ignoring the exact criteria that you are now using to say Robinson shouldn't be in the team. I think pointing that out is entirely relevant to the discussion. If, based on one period of injury and what amounted to one test in tough conditions, is enough to judge Robinson for being "awful", "unfit" and "lacking endurance, then why do you only apply that to him?

You say Robinson lacks endurance.... I say hes bowled a lot more overs this season that Wood has for nearly a decade in FC cricket. As a test player in his career, he has an overs per test match that until he pulled out the Leeds game injured which reduced it by an over, was higher than anyone to play 10 tests for England in the 2010s-20s as a pace bowler. So yeah, the stats say he actually has more endurance than anyone, so where does the point come from?

You say Robinson lacks fitness... And yet, Woakes has missed a 100 tests in his career, Wood 120, Stokes couldnt bowl for a year and Gus Atkinson has barely survived 4 potential career ending injuries.... hand on heart, are you really telling me Robinson in comparison to those bowlers playing right now, is more of a medium/long term fitness concern that these players? Because Woakes has said he believed his career had ended, Wood missed the first test unfit, and Stokes has only just started rebowling having to quit all other forms of cricket..... the evidence seems to counter your point.

And form? Robinson averages 10 wickets less than Wood, and as described, his "awful form" was really one bad match in Ranchi after a period in 2022 where he had one of the best years ever, and two matches where he was the standout bowler in the Ashes..... Wood in turn had a historically bad ODI year, was dropped from the T20I world cup side for bowling like a drain, and returned 4 wickets in 3 games at nearly 100 a piece in his last series, and 2/90 in the last test....

So yeah, Robinson is fitter than Wood, his form is better, his career is better, he bowls more in matches and seasons...... and yet the England management question Robinson? And in turn only a couple of days ago Stokes lauded Wood's fitness. LAUDED IT.....!! Hes one of the least fit bowlers ever, and is bowling spells of 4 overs maximum

But hey ho... I guess Robinson isn't the captains best mate and shares rooms with him on tour. So despite Wood having a record unworthy of selection and Robinson having the best recorded in 7 decades, we will continue to select a subpar player because Stokes needs someone to make unfunny youtube videos with when they are lonely on a long tour.

Imagine Australia dropping Glenn McGrath because he had one bad test on a pancake in India, and trying to argue Ben Hilfenhaus was better.... actually the difference between those players is a run or two better than Wood and Robinson....At the end of the day, that is what you are attempting to do here, Alfie.... you are attempting to rationalise dropping a player who averages 22 in test cricket in a team with someone playing who averages 32....

There really isnt an objective argument to be had that Wood is a better selection than Robinson. None.... based on no criteria. you cannot say Wood is fitter, bowls more, performs better in the short/medium or long term, the team is worse off on average when Wood play to when he doesnt.... nothing.

Wood bowls fast.... but Wood bowling fast tends to be worse for the team.

[alfie]

You really don't like Wood ,do you ? Never mind I won't argue about him but must say that I don't think he has much to do with whether or not Robinson is picked as they perform two very different roles in the team - which is why I find stuff about him irrelevant.

I'm in a better mood today so will explain further what I reckon about Robinson. OK describing him as awful in his latest appearances was unkind and arguably unfair as he was obviously suffering from fitness problems - which may not have been entirely his fault. But the net result was that he was totally ineffective in successive matches for England - having to bail early in Leeds (and not being very impressive before he did so) , and then bowling military medium in India ( he possibly shouldn't have been selected ? ) But once again a problem for the team which is presumably why they want to be quite certain he is fully fit next time they pick him . If you really want to believe it is just because he isn't in Ben Stokes' social circle then no point in discussing it ...

I really thought he would take over from Anderson as the mainstay of the attack. He still might : but I don't think it is unreasonable of the selectors to want to be certain they are getting the Ollie Robinson 80+ and very dangerous skilful seamer rather than a rather less so operator closer to 70. (And with the plan to trial Atkinson and potentially Pennington there was arguably a need for Woakes and his batting skills at eight. You won't seriously claim Woakes isn't a very effective seamer in English conditions , I presume ? ) I am quite sure they are still watching him (Robinson) in the domestic game - and won't be at all surprised if he goes to Pakistan , provided he convinces them he is firing on all cylinders.

In an ideal world he is in my Ashes touring party and forming a first choice frontline attack together with (on current form) Atkinson and Wood. So I am emphatically not trying or wishing to write him off. I merely expressed my concerns around his current situation 18 months ahead of that tour - and my hopes that he wouldn't be "lost" : which is why I was rather triggered by your going in boots 'n all in response ...

Honestly we really don't have any huge disagreement about Robinson's ability . I am just more ready to see management's point of view than your apparent belief that he is simply being sidelined due to some issues of personal friendship or whatever.

We won't talk about Wood if you don't mind

[sussexpob]

You really don't like Wood ,do you ?

I have nothing personal against Wood, but this whole discussion really boils down to the fact that England are starting to exhibit two worrying trends from the past, both of which ended in Australia with batterings.

The first is the obsession with pace. Its like we are replaying a horror movie from the end of the Fletcher era. There was an alignment of the planets in 2005 where a group of bowlers forcing themselves through bowling too quickly briefly managed to hold it together, but look at what happened after.... SImon Jones never played a test again, Flintoff's form plummeted to dust and a very early retirement, Harmison's career is eye wateringly terrible after that 2005 Lords test, and then we had Liam Plunkett, Jimmy Anderson and Saj Mahmood trying to bowl the skin off the ball but all were terrible and struggling under the strain. And then Hoggard, bowling medium fast, doing well.....and then a crop of Medium-fast bowlers taking us to the top of the world game under Flower.

It just feels like Key is taking us back to that point.

The second is, the Robinson treatment smacks of Flower-esque "the face fits" type management that made Flower's successful team detestable to follow at times. Someone pointed out in the press not so long ago that McCullum has never, ever made negative comments about anyone but Robinson. When he faulted Robbo, it was an out of character moment. It had early 2010 era KP v Flower Diet Coke version vibes. I am all for coaches calling out players, but if you fault a players form and fitness then be consistent..... you can't get a Robbo for a few bad spells and one injury, while you are lauding a sicknote who has a horror year in every format and has been dropped in two. And then you give him the longest contract ever.

I guess to you, it feels like a mute point. It feels like digging for negatives.... but you might under-estimate how much Flower permanently killed my child like passion for the team with the way he was, and the way Robbo is being treated, dropped and slagged off feels like we are back to 2013 and KP.

At the end of the day, in any sport you don't drop a key player who has proved at the top level he can do it better than anyone. Imagine England dropping Harry Kane when he was only 4-5 seasons into his England career because, despite smashing goals in at record pace against the best teams in the world, he got an ankle injury 9 months ago and turned up to 1-2 games a little of the pace.......

Could you imagine justifying picking someone like Ivan Toney over him for that reason? The press in England would have the coach at the guillotine, especially if Kane was banging in 20-25 goals still for Spurs.

Unlike anyone else in the team, Robinson has proved he can reach the top performance level of international cricket.... the likelihood of finding someone who can maintain an average of 22 vs the 5 best teams in the world... well, we waited nearly 70 years for it, the idea we have 4 players who can achieve that right now is obviously ludicrous.

So we are obviously accepting to pick players with a more limited capacity.... which to me is just madness.

[sussexpob]

You won't seriously claim Woakes isn't a very effective seamer in English conditions , I presume ?

Can you not see how picking Woakes sends a very confusing message to those bowlers in the county game who want to get in the squad? The management sent our best bowler into retirement on project Australia grounds and wont pick our statistically best based on form ad fitness, but picked a 35 year old with a dodgy knee who averages 53 away from home and had one of the worst series in the history of cricket away in Australia last time he went.

If you believe in pace, drop Woakes. If the objective is Australia, drop Woakes...... ??

If the objective is to beat the Windies, play Robinson and Anderson. If the objective is to take a series at a time, why force Anderson to retire? If medium-fast 35 year olds are getting in the team, why open your mouth and tell half of county cricket they are unselectable because medium-fast bowlers dont cut it?

After not winning a home Ashes and being annihilated in India, the management are under a little scrutiny.... I think everything Rob Key talks about and does at the moment doesn't strike me as representing any coherent thought process.

Picking Woakes is not a bad thing, nor a wrong thing... but it does not make sense then you advertise players like Woakes as being the exact type of player you want to avoid and isnt good enough for your long term aims.

[Slipstream]

Sounds like Woakes is going to the Ashes in Australia.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/art ... 7ez56rnr2o



"The way he bowled on these flat surfaces [in the West Indies series], reversing the ball, he was able to prise out some wickets."

When the ball was reversing Stokes only gave Woakes 2 overs and brought Atkinson on. Reversing at 78mph or 88mph. At least Robinson and Anderson had success with reverse swing in Pakistan and Anderson in India. If Woakes is going to Ashes then he must be going to Pakistan.

[alfie]

You won't seriously claim Woakes isn't a very effective seamer in English conditions , I presume ?

Can you not see how picking Woakes sends a very confusing message to those bowlers in the county game who want to get in the squad? The management sent our best bowler into retirement on project Australia grounds and wont pick our statistically best based on form ad fitness, but picked a 35 year old with a dodgy knee who averages 53 away from home and had one of the worst series in the history of cricket away in Australia last time he went.

If you believe in pace, drop Woakes. If the objective is Australia, drop Woakes...... ??

If the objective is to beat the Windies, play Robinson and Anderson. If the objective is to take a series at a time, why force Anderson to retire? If medium-fast 35 year olds are getting in the team, why open your mouth and tell half of county cricket they are unselectable because medium-fast bowlers dont cut it?

After not winning a home Ashes and being annihilated in India, the management are under a little scrutiny.... I think everything Rob Key talks about and does at the moment doesn't strike me as representing any coherent thought process.

Picking Woakes is not a bad thing, nor a wrong thing... but it does not make sense then you advertise players like Woakes as being the exact type of player you want to avoid and isnt good enough for your long term aims.

Well I wasn't exactly thrilled with the way Anderson was nudged out either ; but I can fully understand why they acted as they did. In the first place , the chances of him making another Ashes tour in 18 months were surely remote so trialling replacements was always going to be a real consideration. Considering that Jimmy hadn't had a good Ashes the year before there must have also been a chance that his form this summer would have left them with a "tricky" decision at some point. Actually reckon Jimmy would
have been happy to take the risk but sending him off in some style at HQ wasn't the worst finish really.

The issue of pace (necessarily allied to suitable skill) being rather valuable on a tour of Australia seems to be one on which you are in steadfast disagreement with a host of rather better qualified people. You are of course entitled to your opinion ; just as I am entitled to disregard it.

As I said above , there is clearly room for one bowler in the Anderson/Robinson/Woakes style in the side even if they wish to place more emphasis on pace - but probably only one at a time (given the importance of winning against West Indies or whoever else is on the immediate menu. Yes , they could have picked Robinson ; but Woakes is a far better bat - important when you are selecting a number eleven spinner. Add in fitness concerns , which you dismiss in favour of the old "face doesn't fit" theory , and it seems to me to be at worst a debateable but far from unreasonable choice.

Anyway I think I am done on this subject as it is clear you won't entertain anything other than total agreement that Key doesn't know what he is doing and Robbo is being victimized. I don't always agree with everything the management do but on balance I think they probably have a better handle on how best to advance the team than you or I so am content to wait and see how it all pans out over the next couple of years.