|
|
Post by hhsussex on Nov 1, 2015 14:05:22 GMT
Once again I called the changes wrongly, and there is plenty of time to see whether Samit's spinning skills, well rewarded with two good wickets today, outweigh the phenomenal advantage that Jordan's catching would add, not to mention his agility when placed anywhere other than the slips. In batting terms I don't there is much in it at this level. Samit will outscore Jordan regularly on county wickets against county bowling, but in Tests Jordan's 180 runs at 18.00 (HS 35) sits well against SP's 109 @ 15.57 (HS 33).
For the rest of it, Pakistan have similar batting vulnerabilities to England: uncertain opening stands, a middle order that will stick or twist unpredictably, and apart from the wicketkeeper - in this match an unkown quantity - a very crumbly tail. Anderson has bowled beautifully and Broad very well in their necessarily short spells and Stokes was adequate as a back up, and now we must worry about the extent and severity of his shoulder injury, not merely for this match or the wealth of one-day games to follow, but for the much more challenging series in South Africa, which should constitute his biggest challenge to show that he can develop consistency.
|
|
|
|
Post by leedsgull on Nov 1, 2015 16:20:33 GMT
I was surprised Root was not used as Moin and Rashid were so expensive. I suspect England will play their usual attacking shots so for once lets hope some of the hitters come off. I think England deserve to draw this series.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2015 22:59:18 GMT
The England spinners were hopelessly inept today, long hops and full tosses aplenty. Listening to TMS on the car radio I heard Tufnell laying into all three and saying Panesar would have bowled better than any of them on that wicket.
Vaughan was even more scathing, paticularly about his fellow Yorkshireman Rashid whom he accused of just floating the ball up and hoping someone would make an error and smack the ball in the air to extra cover, instead of using the helpful conditions to put the batsmen under pressure.
Interesting that Pakistan only opted to play two spinners. Really can't see why you need three; if you have two good spinners they should be capable of bowling for hours and therefore a third spinner is redundant. The England policy seemed to be 'we don't have any really good spinners, but if we play three mediocre ones, they might equal one decent one'. They don't.
Tufnell's point about Panesar was debatable, given Monty's recent form. But what about Tredwell? He might not have taken a hatful of wickets, but I'd have happily put money on him going for less than two runs an over, which Moeen, Rashi and Patel are all incapable of doing.
|
|
|
|
Post by leedsgull on Nov 2, 2015 6:42:09 GMT
Yes Tredwell seems to have been forgotten. I agree that he would probably have been capable of bowling with more control. This spinner debate will be forgotten after this tour as only one will be needed in SA and next season at home. Then we tour India I believe and it will all start again. Perhaps someone will emerge next domestic season. The opportunity is certainly there. Crane?
|
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on Nov 3, 2015 8:23:22 GMT
This series is underscoring the pragmatic nature of the Bayliss/Farbrace team selection policy. Players are coming into the team to do a job of work in circumstances to which they are suited. They may not be the ideal choice for all circumstances; they may only have limited futures and will be replaced when circumstances of pitch and opposition change. Taylor and Patel in this game, Rashid throughout the series, Moeen Ali as a constant, though with shifting roles as a batsman are all examples of players who have been able to adapt their county form to Tests and to do the kob that is required of them.
That job isn't usually the one they do for their counties. At Notts Samit Patel has been a force as a middle-order batsman often with the licence to attack and set up a big score for the Notts bowling to defend, and his own bowling role has been the modern standard of offering control at one end whilst the pace bowlers whittle away. In this Test he has been modestly effective as an attacking spin bowler in partnership with Moeen Ali, and now this morning as a late middle order accumulator of runs. He may not be picked again after this series, even if his exploits win the Test and certainly he will fall to the hook shot within a few balls from Steyn and company.
Interesting to think what the way forward will be for selection. There is a hard core of "play every game" types in Broad, Anderson, Cook, Bell, Root and Stokes, and they would obviously like one of Bairstow and Buttler to join this crew. Elsewhere all is flexible, with Wood, Finn, Plunkett and some younger players in the mix. Will the squad continue to grow on this basis, and will one-day specialists such as Hales ever be included as automatic Test selections? If the injury to Stokes doesn't heal quickly there may have to be a change of emphasis in the selection for South Africa, and perhaps someone else will be plucked from the medium to high ranks of county players to do a job on the bouncier wickets of South Africa.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2015 9:18:09 GMT
This series is underscoring the pragmatic nature of the Bayliss/Farbrace team selection policy. Players are coming into the team to do a job of work in circumstances to which they are suited. They may not be the ideal choice for all circumstances; they may only have limited futures and will be replaced when circumstances of pitch and opposition change. Yes, and I think such pragmatism is refreshing after years in which the England side seemed to be a closed shop. It was that closed shop mentality that eventually imploded during the Ashes whitewash down under and it wasn't only Pietersen who complained about the cliqueishness of the England dressing room. Several other players such as Carberry and Tremlett made the same accusation. All these pragmatic comings-and-goings not only give England a better balanced side according to conditions match by match, but they also militate against the closed shop/clique mentality that went so badly wrong two winters ago. That's why I didn't like all that Fab Four/Famous Five nonsense by Dobell last summer on cricinfo, about there being a group of young players whose places were guaranteed for the next ten years and who would all go on to play 100 plus Tests. Two of them, Ballance and Buttler, have already been dropped and another, Moeen Ali, is only in the side until England find a quality spinner and might have lost his place already if Ansari was fit. That leaves Root and Stokes and if the latter does not recover from injury, England could conceivably go into the next Test in SA with only one of cricinfo's famous 'in the side for life' quintet. Have there been any reports on Ansari's injury, btw? Everyone says Hales will open in SA. But if Ansari is fit, would they take a gamble on him? He opens for Surrey and has shown an enviable ability to bat all day and at his own pace. He's also a far better bowler than Moeen. Listening to Sky Sports chat beween innings, Rob Key has just said "England will potentially have to bat last". Potentially??? Does he think Moeen, Patel and Rashid are going to bowl out Pakistan for under 72 and we could win by an innings?  ps: An afterthought on edit: did the closed shop/clique mentality come in with central contracts? Personally I've never felt comfortable with the concept and the theory of them was completely discredited after the Ashes whitewash when England suddenly found itself in a position in which half of its centrally contracted players had been dropped/retired/sacked with another eight or nine months still remaining on those contracts. |
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on Nov 3, 2015 9:33:44 GMT
An interesting point just made by Mrs HH when we were watching Stokes grimace as he tried to prop up an end: surely in treatment for his collar-bone injury he must have had some kind of strong painkillers prescribed, almost certainly morphine or codeine derivatives? And how does that fit against the WADA and ICC Anti Doping Codes? The latter allows for Therapeutic Use Exemptions - but these require the player to download an application form ( icc-live.s3.amazonaws.com/cms/media/about_docs/54a29dac28962-TUE%20Application%20process%20-%20effective%201Jan15.pdf) and submit to a panel for approval! Should players receiving urgent medical treatment of this kind actually be allowed to take further part in the match? Not only the apparent double-standard of "fit" players being judged by different criteria is at stake here, but also the risk of aggravating that injury by a display of rather needless he-man qualities. It also places the fielding side in an invidious position: if Misbah had directed Wahab to bowl consistently fast and short at Stokes and he had sustained a further fracture or muscle tear as a result, can you imagine the outcry? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2015 9:54:46 GMT
An interesting point just made by Mrs HH when we were watching Stokes grimace as he tried to prop up an end: surely in treatment for his collar-bone injury he must have had some kind of strong painkillers prescribed, almost certainly morphine or codeine derivatives? And how does that fit against the WADA and ICC Anti Doping Codes? The latter allows for Therapeutic Use Exemptions - but these require the player to download an application form ( icc-live.s3.amazonaws.com/cms/media/about_docs/54a29dac28962-TUE%20Application%20process%20-%20effective%201Jan15.pdf) and submit to a panel for approval! At the end of the game I think one player from each side will be selcted at random for a dope test. It would raise a very interesting conundrum if if was Stokes' name that came out of the hat! |
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on Nov 3, 2015 10:01:05 GMT
An interesting point just made by Mrs HH when we were watching Stokes grimace as he tried to prop up an end: surely in treatment for his collar-bone injury he must have had some kind of strong painkillers prescribed, almost certainly morphine or codeine derivatives? And how does that fit against the WADA and ICC Anti Doping Codes? The latter allows for Therapeutic Use Exemptions - but these require the player to download an application form ( icc-live.s3.amazonaws.com/cms/media/about_docs/54a29dac28962-TUE%20Application%20process%20-%20effective%201Jan15.pdf) and submit to a panel for approval! At the end of the game I think one player from each side will be selcted at random for a dope test. It would raise a very interesting conundrum if if was Stokes' name that came out of the hat! Precisely. I would argue that these last-ditch heroics and disadvantages that could affect the course of a game should be replaced by a full substitution principle. When a player suffers an injury in the course of the game that is substantially disabling, so that he cannot reasonably play on without aggravating the injury, then that side should be allowed to replace him with their twelfth man. That should be an irreversible decision of course, to stop any tactical manipulation by bringing in a fast bowler to replace a spinner on days 3 and 3, only for the spinner to undergo a miraculous recovery by day 4 or 5. |
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Nov 3, 2015 12:17:44 GMT
At the end of the game I think one player from each side will be selcted at random for a dope test. It would raise a very interesting conundrum if if was Stokes' name that came out of the hat! Precisely. I would argue that these last-ditch heroics and disadvantages that could affect the course of a game should be replaced by a full substitution principle. When a player suffers an injury in the course of the game that is substantially disabling, so that he cannot reasonably play on without aggravating the injury, then that side should be allowed to replace him with their twelfth man. That should be an irreversible decision of course, to stop any tactical manipulation by bringing in a fast bowler to replace a spinner on days 3 and 3, only for the spinner to undergo a miraculous recovery by day 4 or 5. Couldn't agree more, HHS. It's strange that cricket has never taken this point on board. Is there any other professional team sport that doesn't use substitutes for injured players? What is the rationale for not making this change? (the answer "because we've never done it before" is not acceptable!) |
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on Nov 3, 2015 12:54:29 GMT
Precisely. I would argue that these last-ditch heroics and disadvantages that could affect the course of a game should be replaced by a full substitution principle. When a player suffers an injury in the course of the game that is substantially disabling, so that he cannot reasonably play on without aggravating the injury, then that side should be allowed to replace him with their twelfth man. That should be an irreversible decision of course, to stop any tactical manipulation by bringing in a fast bowler to replace a spinner on days 3 and 3, only for the spinner to undergo a miraculous recovery by day 4 or 5. Couldn't agree more, HHS. It's strange that cricket has never taken this point on board. Is there any other professional team sport that doesn't use substitutes for injured players? What is the rationale for not making this change? (the answer " because we've never done it before" is not acceptable!) I suspect that is the only possible answer. For a game that prides itself on balancing out opportunities for each side, the famous "Spirit of Cricket" principle, the failure to embrace this principle effectively penalises a team who suffer misfortune. As I've said, regulation can be introduced to avoid sides "gaming" the principle. Just as with the present rule for batting runners, pre-existing injuries would not count, and there would probably have to be corroboration by the opposing team's doctor that the injury was disabling and not a tactical replacement opportunity - but there are enough doctors and physios running round the dressing rooms of ytour average Test these days to populate an entire season of Casualty! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2015 12:59:37 GMT
Sorry but the England spinners really are rubbish. With no Wood and no Stokes they really ought to be doing all the work but it's clear that Cook doesn't trust them and is having to rely on Anderson and Broad.
Hope Ansari is fit for SA becuase he deserves to be given an immediate opportunity ahead of Moeen Ali and might even solve the opening batsman problem, too.
|
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on Nov 3, 2015 13:36:47 GMT
Sorry but the England spinners really are rubbish. With no Wood and no Stokes they really ought to be doing all the work but it's clear that Cook doesn't trust them and is having to rely on Anderson and Broad. Hope Ansari is fit for SA becuase he deserves to be given an immediate opportunity ahead of Moeen Ali and might even solve the opening batsman problem, too. Is he really that much better than the three playing here, borderman? I only saw him in the pre-season friendly at Hove this year but he didn't look very impressive then. I have to say that his batting didn't look up to county opening standard, let alone Tests, but I know you have probably seen a bit more of him and perhaps the circumstances weren't right for him. It does look as if we are shuffling around batsmen-who-can-bowl-a-bit-of-spin in much the same way that we chased around for "new Bothams" in the 80s and early 90s: the line of doom from De Freitas through Capel to Mike Watkinson. |
|
|
|
Post by leedsgull on Nov 3, 2015 14:43:16 GMT
I read recently that it was hoped that Ansari might be able to take some part in the Lions tours this winter. It seems very unlikely that he will be considered for South Africa.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2015 15:09:19 GMT
Sorry but the England spinners really are rubbish. With no Wood and no Stokes they really ought to be doing all the work but it's clear that Cook doesn't trust them and is having to rely on Anderson and Broad. Hope Ansari is fit for SA becuase he deserves to be given an immediate opportunity ahead of Moeen Ali and might even solve the opening batsman problem, too. Is he really that much better than the three playing here, borderman? I only saw him in the pre-season friendly at Hove this year but he didn't look very impressive then. I have to say that his batting didn't look up to county opening standard, let alone Tests Hugely promising with both bat and ball. Bats all day in the old-fashioned adhesive way. Turns the ball and has accuracy and control. Brilliant fielder, too. Guaranteed a place in the England side for ten years and will play over 100 Tests alongside Ballance and Buttler. Well, not quite. However, he has the potential to score runs and take wickets at Test level, far more so than Moeen Ali, who I can see playing a lot of white ball cricket for England but in my opinion has been found wanting in Test cricket as both batsman and bowler. |
|
