World T20 Champs Super 8s & KOs, Feb 21-March 8

[Arthur Crabtree]

An Ashes hundred in Australia and then this innings were both mature far beyond 22.

Hope this doesn't seem picky...! But is 22 really young for sport? He might be inexperienced, but that is the fault of those involved in his development and maybe himself. I'm not convinced a 22 year old cricketer is young. In some respects, this is your peak.

[sussexpob]

Its like the Ashes 100 as well. The only person left in the Aussie front-line attack was a 36 year old playing his 5 consecutive test, its a dead rubber game, England were already 200 odd behind, he faced 20 plus overs of part-time off spin, mostly delivered by a medium-fast batting allrounder deciding to bowl some wild-card stuff for giggles....

As Ashes Hundreds go, you can file it under irrelevant.

[andy]

Can only play what's Infront of you...and to be fair he's done what was asked of him it's a bit glass half empty to pick apart the few high points from a dismal winter.....he batted well in that ashes 100 and to be fair game wasn't gone yesterday at all....he breathed like back in it...not for a minute saying he's the complete package but ripping him apart is a bit of a crappy move considering he's one of the bright spots of this dreadful winter

[sussexpob]

Can only play what's Infront of you...and to be fair he's done what was asked of him it's a bit glass half empty to pick apart the few high points from a dismal winter.....he batted well in that ashes 100 and to be fair game wasn't gone yesterday at all....he breathed like back in it...not for a minute saying he's the complete package but ripping him apart is a bit of a crappy move considering he's one of the bright spots of this dreadful winter

Until yesterday, he hadn't scored more than 30 in a game England had any realistic chance of winning, that featured test standard opponents, in over double figure amount of innings. The exceptions are smashing around an associate side, smashing a big 100 when we'd already lost (Cricinfo algorithm rated India at 99% probable to win, so lets not even debate England had lost already), and another 100 where England were 200 runs behind against a B string attack in a dead rubber game and had again, basically already lost.

Tough, close games in live situations where England badly need a score and there is pressure on him.... ah yes, there he goes, middle stump uprooted after 5 balls like at the Oval.

He can play shots, and he has talent, but until he does something in a pressure situation I don't think he has proved anything. Players average 30 for a reason in FC, especially if they can't be bothered to play.

[sussexpob]

Its basically like Zak Crawley all over again. Wasn't it about 6-7 matches into his career he made 260 vs Pakistan and everyone anointed him the new Lara?

Remember saying at that time it came with an * because of Covid. Pakistan being shipped out with no practice, half the squad testing positive to covid, not being able to leave a hotel. Turned out when everything doesn't go right for Zak, he is actually just a guy who averages around 30.

[bigfluffylemon]

Can only play what's Infront of you...and to be fair he's done what was asked of him it's a bit glass half empty to pick apart the few high points from a dismal winter.....he batted well in that ashes 100 and to be fair game wasn't gone yesterday at all....he breathed like back in it...not for a minute saying he's the complete package but ripping him apart is a bit of a crappy move considering he's one of the bright spots of this dreadful winter

Well, quite. Not saying he's the next Root. But people have been querying the selection due to his inexperience - the selectors clearly saw talent there, and he's demonstrated why. Not many players have scored T20 hundreds in a orld cup knock out. Even if the pitch was a road, it's still no mean achievement.

I'm hoping he can kick on to fulfil the potential that appears to be there.

[alfie]

Sorry , SP , but I think you are being massively unfair to Bethell - and somewhat distorting the facts to do so.

I also had considerable doubts about the young fellow (particularly after his truly awful efforts against India last home summer) ; but after seeing him in the Ashes Tests he's got me in his corner. Wasn't just the hundred and fifty in Sydney - which I think dismissing as irrelevant is absurd , as Australia , even lacking some good bowlers and with a series won , don't offer gifts. Yes there will be much more pressured situations but it was still a damn good knock. And I also noted his composed effort of 40 in the previous match to ensure England reached what many thought would be a tricky target. His first series against NZ also produced three good scores leaving him averaging over fifty against both NZ and Australia : five good matches against one failure a decent start to any Test career !

Now I agree we shouldn't get too carried away too soon with any new batsman - and if I were to add an asterisk it would be that all his good Test scores so far have come in second innings ; but if I am any sort of judge of a batsman he has the tools to make a fine career ... time will obviously tell whether he is able to do so as his opponents know more about him.

As for his white ball efforts , yes again far too early to start calling him KP the second ; but to basically discount that innings in a WC SF ? Seriously ? Please spare us the nonsense about Cricinfo algorithms : purely because of Bethell's brilliance , England were very much in the game until Bumrah bowled that splendid 18th over . If they'd taken that over for the sort of runs England's seamers had let slip earlier the game would certainly have gone live to the last few balls. Do we only "count" white ball innings if they are played on tricky pitches in low scoring games ?

Now if you are just saying "it is too early to canonise him as the next Joe Root " - fair call. But disparaging all his good performances while highlighting the one occasion on which he seriously let the side down seems to me a bit of an underarm delivery...

Let's give him the benefit of the doubt and watch with some hope , eh ?

[Arthur Crabtree]

As for his white ball efforts , yes again far too early to start calling him KP the second...

Brook is KP2.

[Durhamfootman]

maybe Bethell can be HB2?

[Arthur Crabtree]

Or KP3. Unless the Flower/Downton/Giles Clarke axis outlawed it.

[sussexpob]

Australia , even lacking some good bowlers and with a series won , don't offer gifts

There have been 51 dead rubber games in Ashes history with 26 not being won by the series winning team, if you ignore the 1905 series which was the only series ever to be decided with only 2 wins on the board by the winning team before the last test (2-0 after 4 in that case), this leaves a 50% win ratio for the series winning team in games where the series is decided. In 36 out of 50 cases, only the last test was a dead rubber, and 14 tests were a result of a team winning all 3 first tests. This means after 4 tests in series that have dead rubbers, the series winning team would on average have won 81% of games. So across history there is a staggering 31% drop off in win rations for teams that have already won a series with matches to spare.

You can demonstrate this in loads of different ways, but just take Sydney as an example. Teams who have to play in Sydney for 1st/2nd games of series quite literally hardly ever win, the venue out of all test match grounds to host 15 tests since the 80s has the 2nd worst win/loss ratio for away teams, and hardly anyone bats/bowls well. When its a 3rd test and the series is decided, they have lost, like vs Pakistan in 1990s. When its the 5th test of an Ashes series, England have avoided loss 50% of times, and have their only above average bat average, and their best bowling average bar Melbourne.

The data is impossible to argue against, its not only easily identifiable but the trends are wildly obvious. Teams that have to play dead rubber games after winning series don't perform anywhere near as well.

And that's before you add in a near total B level attack, and the fact the game itself was basically over, then yes.... its not indicative of anything. History proves that. Mark Butcher averaged low 30s and yet he was the dead rubber king. Couldn't hit the ball off the square in Ashes games until we had lost, then had two trademark innings in OZ and Leeds where he looked like Lara in 5th test glorified friendlies

[Arthur Crabtree]

England were 180 behind on first innings, and 4-1 in the second when he came to the crease and he scored a big hundred when no one else went past 42. It didn't change the result, and maybe it wasn't Gooch v the WI at Leeds, but it was against the Australian series winning attack who were fired up enough to comfortably win the game.

Maybe you can argue about how big a positive it was, but it was certainly a positive of some kind. And if he'd failed, it would have been held up as evidence against him. Sometimes doing well in a losing game is dismissed. But surely that's actually a case of resisting when the situation is against you.

[andy]

Final day then...I'm at work so doubt il be seeing much of it would be nice to have a NZ win though to mix it up a little

[Arthur Crabtree]

Yes, come on Kiwis!

[GarlicJam]

Go the Kiwis.