Yep. And the BBC wants to keep the game to two and a half hours so they can keep space for quality programmes like The One Show.
English cricket thread
- Thread starter Samid
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik and Imran hold a long overdue conversation about United's awful league form with 1 win in 7. They discuss a disappointing draw at Bournemouth, a not so disappointing draw against Liverpool and a crushing defeat at Chelsea - Is time nearly over for Erik Ten Hag?
Then in a special second half of the pod, Nik welcomes Natalie ( https://twitter.com/natalie_17) to discuss the fortunes of Manchester United Women as they booked a place in the FA Cup Final after a historic first ever win vs. Chelsea.
From attracting new viewers, its a tricky one I guess. Im sure research showed ECB that non viewers of cricket are currently unwilling to invest in 4 hours into T20, let alone a whole day for ODI or 5 days for a test!
So if they were willing to invest in 2.5 hours, what would that format look like: The 100.
Maybe it's their way of trying to get a new audience hooked onto the game, so they then quickly upgrade to longer formats. The problem for cricket lovers is that T20 is already a format with little semblance to the original formats, so Im assuming The 100 will look barely recognisable to the game we love. maybe thats what will happen: existing cricket fans may shun The 100, but it will attract a bigger non fan audience who will then get upgrade into longer formats.
That's the only reason I can think of for them to invent this.
I am actually looking forward to it , cricket in all non Asian countries needs to come up with solutions to fight against other sports . Purists will always have the test matches but the shorter formats need to keep coming up with solutions. T20 is a great concept but with the pressure of the game it ends up being a 4 hour game which when combined with travel etc makes it a 5+ hour event which is still pretty long and so will be interesting to see how this goes.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Somehow missed that Joe Denly has managed to stay in the squad.
Can't really understand why we've not gone with Burns/Sibley/Roy, tbh. Sibley will inevitable come in when Denly continues to not be test standard so it just seems a waste of a preparation game.
Batting looks even flakier than usual, actually. Everyone from Root is a place too high, and I think Curran is very fortunate to be selected over Gregory.
Thats an awful team tbh. Assuming archer/anderson/buttler will come in though
Curran was incredible last Summer against India.
That's probably got him in the side.
Agree on Denly, I imagine if he wasn't considered a good sort he wouldn't be anywhere near this side. Either that or they are massively hesitant about giving Sibley a debut in the Ashes.
I think Curran is in the side after his performance against Australia A. Also I would have him in as first choice replacement for Ben Stokes as the 4th seamer and all rounder which I guess he is there even if he is batting at 8.
I know, but he was ineffective in the West Indies and Sri Lanka and dropped for the last test of both series.
More to the point though, I don't think he's done much wrong (and the 6 wickets for the Lions were the clincher, probably; although he did only clean up the tail after going around the park) but that Gregory has done everything right. If you're not going to give players taking Div One wickets at 13 (not to mention averaging 30 with the bat) a chance then why are we playing County Championship cricket?
He wasn't great in the Winter but it might be like Woakes. In English conditions he's lethal.
I haven't seen enough of Gregory so I'm not saying they've made the right choice, just I can see why they've done it.
Denly in the team is an odd one though. Looks average at best.
Yep, completely agree. Seems a waste not to pick Sibley after he did well in the Lions game recently.
Curran has a good track record and they probably think he's a better batting option than Gregory. Can't see him cementing a place in the side though - not until his batting improves to the point at which they can play him in the top 6.
Excited to see Stone though. They obviously (and rightly) feel the team needs a bit of pace and sounds like he'll give them that. If he proves himself up to test standard we'll suddenly have a really strong battery of quick bowlers.
Again, agree. It's hard to see what the point of the Championship is when Roy can just be parachuted in from white-ball cricket, like Buttler and Rashid before him. Surely they need a rethink.
I think it's tricky; he's a player who swings the ball from the hand at around 80mph. He is a left armer, which goes in his favour, but I don't think that should be taking bucket loads of wickets at international level (although did against India, obviously) Outside of English conditions when the ball doesn't swing he is fodder, which will always be a drawback in terms of selecting a consistent team. For him to have a long term future I think he'll need to either pack on pace or improve his batting.
It probably doesn't really matter as Anderson, Stokes, Archer and Wood are going to come in to the side at some point, but it seems a wasted opportunity to see if someone like Gregory can step up from the CC.
I think we've tried a few guys doing well at County cricket recently, Malan and Stoneman and Vince and Westley and Jennings etc, and they've pretty much all been flops.
So I can see them thinking feck it lets just bring in these world class ODI players and pray they can do a David Warner.
I think we'll certainly see Dom Sibley at some point this year though.
Malan was picked off of the back of one T20 game.
There's not much evidence to suggest that picking players through the ODI/T20 sides is a better strategy either. Buttler has worked, but Rashid, Denly, Malan, Crane (picked off the back of the same game as Malan) have all been poor.
Arguably the best recent picks have been Leach, Curran, Buttler, Foakes, and Bess (although he was a work in progress) and four of them have been selected for traditional reasons.
I think England's track record is pretty poor wherever they're selecting players from, but I don't really see any obvious evidence to suggest that white ball cricket is making players significantly more likely to come in to the red ball side and do well.
No I don't see that either.
It's definitely a gamble, but it's one I think is worth trying. I know it's a totally different form of the game and opening in England is as tough as it gets but I can see why they've thought lets give Roy a chance.
Cook apparently said the Dukes ball has done more the last few summers, than ever before. Although part of me thinks that he may have struggled a lot towards the end of his England career because he was just declining and unable to summon the concentration to bat for 6 hours anymore but that's another argument.
Yep, agree on both points.
Personally I'd rip up country cricket and replace it with a regional competition, with six-eight sides competing against one another under the direct control of the ECB.
That way you'd have all the best players competing against one another and the mediocrity would be weeded out. The matches would have no commercial significance, they'd effectively be a series of trial matches to identify England prospects (the ECB could take the games around each region and rent the grounds).
However with The Hundred coming on stream I can't imagine the ECB tweaking the championship structure any time soon.
Harsh to say Rashid was poor. He bowled well in Sri Lanka and was ok against India at home in bowler-friendly conditions. Malan has done no worse than most of our batsman during that time period, and Crane was a punt in a dead Ashes game when we'd already been smashed.
Three of the four county cricket picks you mentioned have done well (not sure how you'd class Bess as a success, work in progress or not), but how many examples have you got in the opposing ledger? Vince, Stoneman, Westley, Jennings, Ballance (second time), Ball....
As you say, selection has been poor whether they've been plucked from red or white-ball cricket. Does seem that things have improved since Smith and Taylor took over though.
Yeah that sounds a good idea but as you said, they'll be focusing all their attention on The Hundred for the forseeable future sadly.
I see we've brought in Trescothick as part of the Ashes coaching staff.
Genuinely could he not just open the batting? Please?
Middlesex Vs Surrey in the blast is a bit bonkers
Think we're taking the piss a bit with that team. If we manage to lose to Ireland, we really had it coming.
There are five players there who you'd say have proved themselves at test level.
There are five players there who you'd say have proved themselves at test level.
Nah Rashid was poor. Bowls too much rubbish, didn't trouble top order batsmen and nipped out cheap wickets to end up with a decent average, and Malan being no more rubbish is sort of the point. The only decent batsman selected over the years has been Buttler, and even then his test average of 40 with 1 century in that time is absolutely borderline 'good'. Crane was a hiding for nothing when he was selected for the team, but he was selected to the squad over far more deserving candidates with far better first class records. The fact he bowled like a bowler whose first class stats suggested he would was more because he isn't currently good enough, rather than anything else.
I'm not saying that County Cricket is a silver bullet and that runs or wickets there guarantee you can make the step up, but I do think it's significantly more likely than this current strategy. And even when we go back to the newer stalwarts of the side (i.e. ignoring Anderson and Broad who were picked a decade ago) all of Root, Stokes, Moeen, Bairstow and Woakes got into it by putting up exceptional numbers in County Cricket. There of course needs to be some context to those numbers, but that's why the selectors watch players!
Could believe it. The constant churn of England openers has been accompanied by other sides' top orders putting up pretty woeful numbers too. It's why Jennings stayed in the side for the winter. The problem is none of them are getting any runs away, either.
Wood they expect to be out til 4th test with a side strain
Archer til the second test
Australia have a good chance at Edgbaston tbh . In a full strength England team Broad probably doesn't play but now he might be leading the attack
Broad is out of form, but he always raises his game against the Aussies so I wouldn't be too worried yet.
You mean those two top-order wickets he took at The Oval on the last day? Or the wickets he took when he picked up five-for and turned the test against Sri Lanka?
I'm not saying he's been great - to me, he was about a 5/10 in those 9 games he played. But to focus purely on the rubbish he bowls and not on the threat he poses is wrong in my eyes.
It's the sort of argument we see time and again when it comes to quicks and wrist-spinners and it's the reason we always end up picking medium-pacers and flat-jack offies. And we always end up getting smashed overseas.
If we're going to start winning overseas we need to start identifying match-winning bowlers, taking them out of County cricket and getting them in the England set-up ASAP. It's great to see they've done that with Stone and hopefully they'll do that with Mahmood and Parkinson too.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
Can see Woakes having a really good series too.
I can see him taking over from Anderson as the team's swing bowler (although a significant downgrade obviously).
We need to surround him with pace if we're going to have a chance in foreign conditions though. Woakes, Archer, Wood/Stone and Stokes would be a threat in any country I reckon.
[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
It's because I don't think he poses a threat in test match cricket. At least not really. Sure, he'll bowl you some good balls and will get set batsmen from time to time (although I'm not sure the example of getting Rahul and Pant after they've got tons is the best proof of that, even if it was important in the match situation), that is the allure of a leggie.
His issue though, is I think, that the skills that make him (and bowlers like him) successful in ODI cricket are very different to the skills that make a good test match leggie. He's not particularly accurate, he's prone to bowling bad balls, and he can't build pressure. His strengths are his variations, and they're less important in test cricket. The result is that he needs to bowl a magic ball (or be bowling in very friendly conditions) to get a player who can pick him out, and that's just not sustainable. Only in very limited scenarios (such as the Sri Lanka series where England could play 3 spinners and only use Rashid when they could afford to attack) will he succeed. The reverse of that is Yasir Shah who is a very good test match leggie, but gets smashed in ODI cricket.
There definitely needs to be a recognition of talent. My take on it though is that if you're good enough, you're good enough to prove it with a red ball too and that the benefits of keeping open that CC pathway are worth asking talented players to back it up (as Stone and even Archer have). I accept that's not clear cut mind, but it's worth asking whether Jos Buttler, the one success we will agree on out of this policy, may be an even better test player had he been told that he had to find more time to play it over the past few years if he wanted to be selected again? I don't know the answer actually, he admits to learning a lot playing in T20 tournaments and you wouldn't want him to burn out, but it's definitely worth posing.
Yep, good post.
As I said earlier I really think we need a rethink on county cricket. Turn it into a regional comp, run by the ECB who could dictate pitch conditions etc. That way you would get the cream of the crop playing against one another and challenge the bowlers to show their skills on flat pitches.
I'd also be in favour of playing early season games in the UAE to give our bowlers further exposure in batsman-friendly conditions.
At present County cricket is failing on both its main objectives. No-one watches it and it doesn't produce enough test-ready players.
I think some posters are being unfair on Denly. I thought he’s got something about him, he did relatively well over the winter and he offers another extra spin option. Sam Curran should be batting much higher than 8, technically he’s superior to Bairstow, Moeen and Woakes. I can see Curran ending up at 5 or so in the future. Excited to see Stones, he might even be quicker than Archer. All in all a sensible lineup to experiment ahead of the Ashes.
I faced Gregory when we was at Somerset u19s, was quick but not very good, seemed a much better batsman at that stage. Craig Meschede was much more bouncy, aggressive and difficult. Really impressed with how he's developed.
[/QUOTE]
It's because I don't think he poses a threat in test match cricket. At least not really. Sure, he'll bowl you some good balls and will get set batsmen from time to time (although I'm not sure the example of getting Rahul and Pant after they've got tons is the best proof of that, even if it was important in the match situation), that is the allure of a leggie.
His issue though, is I think, that the skills that make him (and bowlers like him) successful in ODI cricket are very different to the skills that make a good test match leggie. He's not particularly accurate, he's prone to bowling bad balls, and he can't build pressure. His strengths are his variations, and they're less important in test cricket. The result is that he needs to bowl a magic ball (or be bowling in very friendly conditions) to get a player who can pick him out, and that's just not sustainable. Only in very limited scenarios (such as the Sri Lanka series where England could play 3 spinners and only use Rashid when they could afford to attack) will he succeed. The reverse of that is Yasir Shah who is a very good test match leggie, but gets smashed in ODI cricket.
There definitely needs to be a recognition of talent. My take on it though is that if you're good enough, you're good enough to prove it with a red ball too and that the benefits of keeping open that CC pathway are worth asking talented players to back it up (as Stone and even Archer have). I accept that's not clear cut mind, but it's worth asking whether Jos Buttler, the one success we will agree on out of this policy, may be an even better test player had he been told that he had to find more time to play it over the past few years if he wanted to be selected again? I don't know the answer actually, he admits to learning a lot playing in T20 tournaments and you wouldn't want him to burn out, but it's definitely worth posing.[/QUOTE]
Completely agree. Rashid doesn't really bowl quick enough for test cricket given his inaccuracy.
It's because I don't think he poses a threat in test match cricket. At least not really. Sure, he'll bowl you some good balls and will get set batsmen from time to time (although I'm not sure the example of getting Rahul and Pant after they've got tons is the best proof of that, even if it was important in the match situation), that is the allure of a leggie.
His issue though, is I think, that the skills that make him (and bowlers like him) successful in ODI cricket are very different to the skills that make a good test match leggie. He's not particularly accurate, he's prone to bowling bad balls, and he can't build pressure. His strengths are his variations, and they're less important in test cricket. The result is that he needs to bowl a magic ball (or be bowling in very friendly conditions) to get a player who can pick him out, and that's just not sustainable. Only in very limited scenarios (such as the Sri Lanka series where England could play 3 spinners and only use Rashid when they could afford to attack) will he succeed. The reverse of that is Yasir Shah who is a very good test match leggie, but gets smashed in ODI cricket.
There definitely needs to be a recognition of talent. My take on it though is that if you're good enough, you're good enough to prove it with a red ball too and that the benefits of keeping open that CC pathway are worth asking talented players to back it up (as Stone and even Archer have). I accept that's not clear cut mind, but it's worth asking whether Jos Buttler, the one success we will agree on out of this policy, may be an even better test player had he been told that he had to find more time to play it over the past few years if he wanted to be selected again? I don't know the answer actually, he admits to learning a lot playing in T20 tournaments and you wouldn't want him to burn out, but it's definitely worth posing.[/QUOTE]
Completely agree. Rashid doesn't really bowl quick enough for test cricket given his inaccuracy.
England win toss and bat.
Definitely the right call with the forecast and Lord's usual proclivity to be dry, but it's very green and a real test for Roy.
Definitely the right call with the forecast and Lord's usual proclivity to be dry, but it's very green and a real test for Roy.
Didn't realise how good Murtagh's figures were at Lords for County Cricket.
He'll pose problems for us.
He's a good player, but (and this serves as something of a reply to @JohnnyKills point about CC failing yesterday) he's definitely a beneficiary of the ECB relegating CC matches to the extremes of the season where pitches are greenest. Not sure it really helps anyone apart from dibbly dobbly, accurate seamers who can nibble it around and even then, I'm not sure it's giving them the challenge to wrinkle out wickets on pitches that aren't conducive to that sort of bowling.
Not the most convincing of starts from Roy 
Oof Roy got away with it there.