Eng in Lanka

Page 4 of 9 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

Go down

Eng in Lanka

Post by KP_fan on Fri 21 Nov 2014, 2:36 pm

First topic message reminder :

From not being keen on Moeen's position, Cook now uses him to open the batting and bowling sometimes.
While I am a fan of Moeen's temperament, I dont think he is the saviour that Eng is looking for.

also he won't do well as an opener for too long.

Cook has strong dislikes and it seems now Hales is on that list.


Lanks has been Mauled by India and must be at lowest possible morale.

Eng is not a great ODI side and lagging by the day as Morgan observed.

Should be an even series if not a high quality one. Lanks might still win
avatar
KP_fan

Posts : 6873
Join date : 2012-07-27

Back to top Go down


Re: Eng in Lanka

Post by VTR on Mon 08 Dec 2014, 11:44 am

Well Tredwell can only not be playing as they are thinking of going with a pace and part-time spin attack in Aus. So we might see a 7 batsman/4 bowler makeup to the team in the World Cup. Something like:

Cook
Ali
Taylor
Root
Morgan
Bopara
Buttler
Woakes
Broad
Anderson
Finn/Jordan

Batting looks decent on paper but I think we will be way off the pace unless Broad and Anderson can take early wickets

VTR

Posts : 3242
Join date : 2012-03-23
Location : Fine Leg

Back to top Go down

Re: Eng in Lanka

Post by guildfordbat on Mon 08 Dec 2014, 11:48 am

I'm glad we're all agreed on one thing - MfC takes charge of all Duckworth Lewis explanations throughout the World Cup! Very Happy

As to the England team, I fully accept the one I've proposed isn't ''perfect''. I can't see that there is currently an ideal mix and balance with only 11 players to pick. I would just emphasise that cramming the team with batsmen won't guarantee runs. As I said the other day, if the top six flop we're almost certainly going to be stuffed anyway.

The Dog and others say we should take a risk. I agree. Unless we can play 13 we have to! My risk is that my top six will come off. I think that's less of a dangerous risk than playing only four full-time bowlers with the expectation that they will all perform fine and that a fifth bowler combo won't let us down.

guildfordbat

Posts : 12487
Join date : 2011-04-07

Back to top Go down

Re: Eng in Lanka

Post by VTR on Mon 08 Dec 2014, 11:57 am

guildfordbat wrote:I'm glad we're all agreed on one thing - MfC takes charge of all Duckworth Lewis explanations throughout the World Cup! Very Happy

As to the England team, I fully accept the one I've proposed isn't ''perfect''. I can't see that there is currently an ideal mix and balance with only 11 players to pick. I would just emphasise that cramming the team with batsmen won't guarantee runs. As I said the other day, if the top six flop we're almost certainly going to be stuffed anyway.

The Dog and others say we should take a risk. I agree. Unless we can play 13 we have to! My risk is that my top six will come off. I think that's less of a dangerous risk than playing only four full-time bowlers with the expectation that they will all perform fine and that a fifth bowler combo won't let us down.

One of the problems with the team balance is we already know one batting slot is wasted on a specialist captain/accumulator/plodder. I prefer your team with Tredwell in there, but am reading between the lines on why, in spinning conditions, our leading spinner ranked around 10 in the world isn't being included. Does it allude to a pace attack only for the World Cup?

But who knows with England selection these days!

VTR

Posts : 3242
Join date : 2012-03-23
Location : Fine Leg

Back to top Go down

Re: Eng in Lanka

Post by freemo on Mon 08 Dec 2014, 12:53 pm

mystiroakey wrote:I think in ODI's we need to have the best batting line up possible. Its turning into a 20/20 styled game and although a good bowling attack may occasionally bowl a team out before the 50 overs you are never guaranteed.

Englands problem compared to the other top nations is that we score over 300 less than all of them.. Until we fix that we wont get anywhere. I am not so bothered about limiting our oppositions score to hurt the batting. I want us to be able to score at a faster rate.

scoring 265 yesterday and batting out the 50 overs is very bad in this day and age.

no it isnt...with 2 new balls its arguably going more and more towards tests...its only in India where we see ridiclously high scores..

freemo

Posts : 236
Join date : 2014-08-12

Back to top Go down

Re: Eng in Lanka

Post by mystiroakey on Mon 08 Dec 2014, 12:55 pm

scores are going up everywhere- to deny that is to deny factual evidence.

mystiroakey

Posts : 32472
Join date : 2011-03-06
Age : 41
Location : surrey

Back to top Go down

Re: Eng in Lanka

Post by freemo on Mon 08 Dec 2014, 12:59 pm

the game is more leaning towards test matches...that is obvious...2 new balls...shows that..

freemo

Posts : 236
Join date : 2014-08-12

Back to top Go down

Re: Eng in Lanka

Post by mystiroakey on Mon 08 Dec 2014, 1:07 pm

I cant explain the trend any simpler. Anything to try and negate the flow of runs is only proof that they are scoring more.

64 scores this century have been over 349 runs. Last century = 4 and all off them since 1986.

If England are down on the scoring rate- which we are compared to the other best teams-that is what we need to concentrate on. Its immaterial if measures come in to try and refocus the scoring rates- if we are still down and have players that score at a lesser rate we still will be behind the trend


mystiroakey

Posts : 32472
Join date : 2011-03-06
Age : 41
Location : surrey

Back to top Go down

Re: Eng in Lanka

Post by Mad for Chelsea on Mon 08 Dec 2014, 1:13 pm

I think England's team selection in this series almost certainly alludes that at the moment they're not going to pick Tredwell for the WC - that is, he'll be in the squad, but they don't see him in their first team right now.

While I don't agree with the decision, there's some logic to it. Tredwell's record in Australia isn't great (no wicket-taking threat), and having four seamers gives you extra options (assuming you actually don't wait until the halfway mark or later before bowling one of them...). Given that England seem set on playing seven batsmen, that means Tredwell misses out.

TBH I'm a confused mess on what I think England's best XI should be at the moment. I'm pretty sure what they're going to pick: it'll be Cook Moeen Taylor (provided he does OK in the last three games here) Root Bops Morgan Buttler Woakes Jordan Broad Anderson, I'm about 90-95% certain of it, unless something remarkable happens. The extra squad will be made up of Bell (or maybe Hales), Finn, Tredwell and A.N. Other (who could be just about anyone).

Apart from Cook who I don't think should be there I actually think that's not a bad XI. It's not perfect, but it's impossible to get a perfect XI in ODIs unless you have a genuine allrounder (and they're hardly any of those around nowadays, England used to have one in Flintoff who would have been the perfect replacement for Bops...).

You're either picking five bowlers of which a few can bat and you hope those score enough between them, or you pick seven batsmen and get through ten overs from your "fifth" bowler. I may be wrong, but it seems to me modern thinking favours having depth to the batting. SA do it (De Villiers, Duminy and Behardien as their fifth bowler combo), Aus do it (Marsh, Watson, Maxwell), SL certainly seem to have only about three specialist bowlers in this series (Dilshan, Matthews, Perrera and Mendis have filled in the rest), India are a slight exception in that Jadeja plays as an all-rounder (but again, that means they have seven batsmen if you include him).

Now you could argue that Woakes is a good enough batsman to bat at 7 in ODIs. I'd sort of agree that he has the potential, but so far he hasn't shown it (in fact I'm surprised to see that he doesn't have a 50 in List A yet), so it's understandable that England don't really like that option at the moment.

My problem is that I'm not sold on Bops at 5. If England want Morgan to go back to the "finisher" role (and thus move him down to 6), as seems the indication, then you're looking at finding another n°5. Someone basically who bats a bit like Root (good at nurdling the spinners, but can move through the gears). Can Taylor do that? It's not his role for his County, but his innings yesterday suggested he could accelerate and play the big shots (I didn't watch it live though, only highlights...) so maybe he could slot in there (and put Hales in at 3), or at 4 with Root moving down one. That however means you lose Bops's bowling, which can be useful.

Sorry for the confused post, like I said initially I'm genuinely not sure what my best England XI would be. Gun to the head, I'd go with:

Roy
Hales
Taylor
Root
Morgan (I still like him at 5, so he's staying there)
Buttler
Moeen (could do some genuine damage down the order, as he certainly can play the big shots)
Jordan
Broad
Tredwell
Anderson

but I'm not entirely convinced by this team either...

Mad for Chelsea

Posts : 11854
Join date : 2011-02-11
Age : 30

Back to top Go down

Re: Eng in Lanka

Post by mystiroakey on Mon 08 Dec 2014, 1:16 pm

Mooen (and Taylor) is the only thing we have learnt from this tour so far in the positive. Lets not shift him about..


mystiroakey

Posts : 32472
Join date : 2011-03-06
Age : 41
Location : surrey

Back to top Go down

Re: Eng in Lanka

Post by Mad for Chelsea on Mon 08 Dec 2014, 1:19 pm

mystiroakey wrote:I cant explain the trend any simpler. Anything to try and negate the flow of runs is only proof that they are scoring more.

64 scores this century have been over 349 runs. Last century = 4 and all off them since 1986.

If England are down on the scoring rate- which we are compared to the other best teams-that is what we need to concentrate on. Its immaterial if measures come in to try and refocus the scoring rates- if we are still down and have players that score at a lesser rate we still will be behind the trend


I agree mysti, but England to be fair SHOULD have posted a big score on Sunday. They lost a couple of early wickets so needed to rebuild a bit, which they did well. After 25 overs they had 122/2, from which 280 should have been the bare minimum, and 300+ a very good chance. After 34 overs they were 168/3, so still in an excellent position for a big score. The problem was Bops didn't really do enough, Buttler had a poor innings and none of the tail-enders could provide the quickfire 20 we needed from them (as Prasad did in the previous game for SL for instance). Any of those things happening would have resulted in at least 280+ which is still a decent score (a Buttler special would have seen us to over 300 probably).

Basically teams nowadays rely on wickets in hand to give it a real bash at the end, with the fielding restrictions allowing more boundaries to be hit. England couldn't do that, hence the subpar total (and I agree that it was subpar).

Mad for Chelsea

Posts : 11854
Join date : 2011-02-11
Age : 30

Back to top Go down

Re: Eng in Lanka

Post by mystiroakey on Mon 08 Dec 2014, 1:30 pm

We don't seem to have a clue on how to set a total batting first.

We are slightly better batting second. Its easier for us to try and keep up with the rate set. Years ago we were a good odi side. But our bowlers got us out of holes.

They hid our batting deficiencies. We do not have an attack anywhere that can do this again. The batters have to score faster. You are right . our tail all went out for less than a run a ball. They should be scoring 20 of 10. Or 9 of 4 etc.. If they had we would have hit 300.

mystiroakey

Posts : 32472
Join date : 2011-03-06
Age : 41
Location : surrey

Back to top Go down

Re: Eng in Lanka

Post by Mad for Chelsea on Mon 08 Dec 2014, 1:33 pm

I agree, and it's immensely frustrating because they have the potential. Jordan, Woakes, Stokes, even Broad are far better batsmen than Prasad, yet Prasad comes in and whacks 21 off 8, while our guys can't score at a run-a-ball (admittedly Prasad was whacking Root and Bops, but my point stands...)

Mad for Chelsea

Posts : 11854
Join date : 2011-02-11
Age : 30

Back to top Go down

Re: Eng in Lanka

Post by VTR on Mon 08 Dec 2014, 1:37 pm

freemo wrote:the game is more leaning towards test matches...that is obvious...2 new balls...shows that..

I think this was the case for a couple of years, and is why Bell/Cook/Trott actually worked for a bit and England did quite well (number one in the rankings for a short time).

But the game has moved on again in the last couple of years, with teams scoring at 10+ an over for the last 10-15 overs being the norm now, with scoring rates at the top also increasing again.

I'd say the accumulator role is almost redundant now, and if you are an accumulator then you need to be able to accelerate. To me this leaves Cook and Bell as dinosaurs in their approach, with a more innovative player like Root being more suited to that role.

VTR

Posts : 3242
Join date : 2012-03-23
Location : Fine Leg

Back to top Go down

Re: Eng in Lanka

Post by Mike Selig on Mon 08 Dec 2014, 1:54 pm

There was a short period of time when the two new white balls led to a bit more "old-fashioned" style cricket being played, and England with their solid top order actually did pretty well. That time has passed though and now we're seeing teams once again generally pile on the runs. Not only in India, the last ODIs in England you needed to score close to 300 to have a chance.

I was interested to read a few comments commenting on how many dot balls England seem to play out.

I am in the midst of doing some fairly involved analysis as to the relative and linked (or not) impact of percentage of dot balls and number of boundaries on high and low scores. It is fairly involved because it isn't quite as simple as number crunching: I am looking at things like how often players go for their boundary options, at what times, on whose terms (i.e. whether they are going for a boundary because they are under pressure, or is it on their terms i.e. they are looking to dominate), and how successful they are. Ditto with the dot balls, are they attempting to score, if so are they looking for the single or the boundary, if not why not, etc.

A few years ago it was accepted that anything under 50% of dot balls was a decent ODI percentage, I wonder if that has changed and if so by how much.

The game has moved on a fair amount. My gut feeling is that England do OK relatively on the dot ball front, but don't try to hit enough boundaries. My gut feeling is also that the more successful sides tend to hit boundaries more regularly throughout the innings. I'd be interested to see if the numbers and facts back this up in any way.

There are loads of other things I'd be interested in looking at, things like the impact of running 2s (and whether having your fielders in to stop the two is likely to cost or benefit you in the long term), the impact of the 5th bowler (how many more runs should you expect to concede if you are playing only 4 specialists, and is this impact direct - the 5th bowler goes the distance - or indirect - you have to bowl the 5th bowler at certain times and this gives you less flexibility, or you allow the opposition batsmen to play themselves in against lesser bowling, etc.). I will try to move onto these in due course.

This is all in my role as a coach, and I would be astonished if coaches around the world weren't looking at similar patterns.

As for the England world cup XI, pretty sure MfC has the likely side more or less nailed on. I have a number of concerns about this XI:
- Cook is not one of England's 11 best ODI players. Although the recent defeat did at least demonstrate that England aren't actually that much better without him, and all of England's problems won't be solved by dropping him for Hales.
- Moeen and to a less extent Taylor (especially if in very early) would concern me at the top of the order on bouncier wickets. I hope to be proved wrong.
- Bopara at 5: I've never been convinced. Almost all of his best knocks recently have been as a bit of a basher. It might be better that England play Hales (or Vince, but that ship seems to have sailed for now) up top and put in Taylor at 5, where he may be more comfortable. Or even Ballance who seems to be somewhat the forgotten many ATM.
- Lack of a real 5th bowler; although Bopara, Root and Moeen are all reasonable options. To be fair it does seem like most sides are going into the WC with 4 bowlers and then some options. My gut feeling is that 5 bowlers is preferable (and then back your batsmen to score the runs) but this may not be borne out by the facts. It would be interesting to check.
- No death bowling. England's bowling at the death in recent times has been woeful.
- No specialist spinner. Moeen still bowls too many bad balls, at the moment he is a better test spinner than ODI one.

For what it's worth and starting from a blank canvas, plus taking into account the rather not-so-good form of Stokes and Finn:
Roy
Hales
Vince
Root
Morgan
Buttler
Woakes
Jordan (I like him)
Broad
Tredwell
Anderson

Mike Selig

Posts : 4295
Join date : 2011-05-30

Back to top Go down

Re: Eng in Lanka

Post by mystiroakey on Mon 08 Dec 2014, 2:11 pm

OK well post your findings mike. It should be interesting.. 

It doesn't matter how Jordan gets his wickets if he gets them.. I like him as well. Its better to be lucky than good . although most would agree you create your own luck. Just because he gets wickets of the bad balls means he is bowling the other balls well enough. He is pressurising the batters and that is why he has had a few wickets.

mystiroakey

Posts : 32472
Join date : 2011-03-06
Age : 41
Location : surrey

Back to top Go down

Re: Eng in Lanka

Post by VTR on Mon 08 Dec 2014, 2:12 pm

Does death bowling as a concept even exist anymore - with the approach from batsmen and changes to the regulations? It used to be the case of getting as many yorkers in as possible, but that doesn't work anymore thanks in part to T20, batsmen now have strategies to hit even those for 4 or 6.

What would constitute a good death bowler now? Are there any bowlers around who could regularly keep things tight at the end of an innings?

VTR

Posts : 3242
Join date : 2012-03-23
Location : Fine Leg

Back to top Go down

Re: Eng in Lanka

Post by mystiroakey on Mon 08 Dec 2014, 2:13 pm

VTR wrote:Does death bowling as a concept even exist anymore - with the approach from batsmen and changes to the regulations? It used to be the case of getting as many yorkers in as possible, but that doesn't work anymore thanks in part to T20, batsmen now have strategies to hit even those for 4 or 6.

What would constitute a good death bowler now? Are there any bowlers around who could regularly keep things tight at the end of an innings?
I don't know because since malinga there doesn't seem to be one. But it's about variation and shock value.

mystiroakey

Posts : 32472
Join date : 2011-03-06
Age : 41
Location : surrey

Back to top Go down

Re: Eng in Lanka

Post by Stella on Mon 08 Dec 2014, 2:16 pm

No batsman can his a good yorker for six. There's still not a better ball to stop the runs, or take the wickets. A mis directed yorker can of course become a low full toss.
avatar
Stella

Posts : 6671
Join date : 2011-08-01

Back to top Go down

Re: Eng in Lanka

Post by VTR on Mon 08 Dec 2014, 2:18 pm

Well England do have good variation at the death. All those wides and no-balls keep the batsman guessing!

Joking aside, I wonder if even Malinga would be that effective now with his accurate yorkers.

VTR

Posts : 3242
Join date : 2012-03-23
Location : Fine Leg

Back to top Go down

Re: Eng in Lanka

Post by guildfordbat on Mon 08 Dec 2014, 2:20 pm

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

... Sorry for the confused post, like I said initially I'm genuinely not sure what my best England XI would be. Gun to the head, I'd go with:

Roy
Hales
Taylor
Root
Morgan (I still like him at 5, so he's staying there)
Buttler
Moeen (could do some genuine damage down the order, as he certainly can play the big shots)
Jordan
Broad
Tredwell
Anderson

but I'm not entirely convinced by this team either...

Mfc - I appreciate you're emphasising the difficulties of selection more than anything else but my main concern with this team is that Moeen & Root are automatically required to bowl 10 overs of slow stuff as the fifth bowler combo. There are no other options with the ball. Don't like that, particularly if the opposition have already got after Tredwell or even another of the front line bowlers.

guildfordbat

Posts : 12487
Join date : 2011-04-07

Back to top Go down

Re: Eng in Lanka

Post by kingraf on Mon 08 Dec 2014, 2:24 pm

Death bowling is dead. The Icc managed to kill it off with the four boundary rider rules as well as the two new balls, which means you have two hard ball at both ends rather than one really soft one. The key is getting wickets regularly during the middle overs.
avatar
kingraf
raf
raf

Posts : 16122
Join date : 2012-06-06
Age : 24
Location : To you I am there. To me I am here.... is it possible that I'm everywhere?

Back to top Go down

Re: Eng in Lanka

Post by mystiroakey on Mon 08 Dec 2014, 2:24 pm

VTR wrote:Well England do have good variation at the death. All those wides and no-balls keep the batsman guessing!

Joking aside, I wonder if even Malinga would be that effective now with his accurate yorkers.
Malinga worked because he is a 'freak' who can bowl Yorkers as a standard delivery. The shock and variation is when he doesn't bowl one.

I question his action though. Its certainly a reality that we will not produce a malinga in England because we wouldn't have allowed malinga to be malinga.

mystiroakey

Posts : 32472
Join date : 2011-03-06
Age : 41
Location : surrey

Back to top Go down

Re: Eng in Lanka

Post by Mad for Chelsea on Mon 08 Dec 2014, 2:32 pm

appreciate that guildford, and like I said I'm not particularly happy with it either. However, I'm going to disagree with you - and Mike, which is probably riskier, given that while I can just accuse you of being a boring old so-and-so with outdated views I'm not sure this applies to Mike Wink - on the five bowlers policy. My feeling is that the modern game is more set up for the 7 batsmen, and certainly modern teams seem more inclined to go that way (see my previous post).

My gut feeling is that the middle-overs are not very prone to wicket-taking in any case, and the runs you might give away through your fifth bowler are more than offset by the runs you get from your extra batsman. Whether that's borne out by the stats I'm genuinely not sure, and I appreciate that this tactic requires your four bowlers to do their job properly.

My main issue is not so much with the fifth bowler policy in my team, but that Root can only be relied on for a handful of overs really (especially in Aus), which means you're expecting Moeen to bowl nearly his full spell, and I do have some reservations about that. In an ideal world Bops would have kicked on and nailed the n°5 spot with some authoritative performances, but he hasn't, and I don't think he's good enough to, so I'm going with the best of what I can.

Basically, you and Mike are saying that it's down to the six batsmen to do enough to not need a seventh. I'm saying that the four main bowlers have to do enough to not put undue pressure on the fifth and sixth bowlers. Neither to me is a perfect solution (oh for an Andrew Flintoff right now!!!), but my gut tells me 7 batsmen is a better option than 5 bowlers.

Mad for Chelsea

Posts : 11854
Join date : 2011-02-11
Age : 30

Back to top Go down

Re: Eng in Lanka

Post by guildfordbat on Mon 08 Dec 2014, 2:34 pm

Mike Selig wrote:There was a short period of time when the two new white balls led to a bit more "old-fashioned" style cricket being played, and England with their solid top order actually did pretty well. That time has passed though and now we're seeing teams once again generally pile on the runs. Not only in India, the last ODIs in England you needed to score close to 300 to have a chance.

I was interested to read a few comments commenting on how many dot balls England seem to play out.

I am in the midst of doing some fairly involved analysis as to the relative and linked (or not) impact of percentage of dot balls and number of boundaries on high and low scores. It is fairly involved because it isn't quite as simple as number crunching: I am looking at things like how often players go for their boundary options, at what times, on whose terms (i.e. whether they are going for a boundary because they are under pressure, or is it on their terms i.e. they are looking to dominate), and how successful they are. Ditto with the dot balls, are they attempting to score, if so are they looking for the single or the boundary, if not why not, etc.

A few years ago it was accepted that anything under 50% of dot balls was a decent ODI percentage, I wonder if that has changed and if so by how much.

The game has moved on a fair amount. My gut feeling is that England do OK relatively on the dot ball front, but don't try to hit enough boundaries. My gut feeling is also that the more successful sides tend to hit boundaries more regularly throughout the innings. I'd be interested to see if the numbers and facts back this up in any way.

There are loads of other things I'd be interested in looking at, things like the impact of running 2s (and whether having your fielders in to stop the two is likely to cost or benefit you in the long term), the impact of the 5th bowler (how many more runs should you expect to concede if you are playing only 4 specialists, and is this impact direct - the 5th bowler goes the distance - or indirect - you have to bowl the 5th bowler at certain times and this gives you less flexibility, or you allow the opposition batsmen to play themselves in against lesser bowling, etc.). I will try to move onto these in due course.

This is all in my role as a coach, and I would be astonished if coaches around the world weren't looking at similar patterns.

As for the England world cup XI, pretty sure MfC has the likely side more or less nailed on. I have a number of concerns about this XI:
- Cook is not one of England's 11 best ODI players. Although the recent defeat did at least demonstrate that England aren't actually that much better without him, and all of England's problems won't be solved by dropping him for Hales.
- Moeen and to a less extent Taylor (especially if in very early) would concern me at the top of the order on bouncier wickets. I hope to be proved wrong.
- Bopara at 5: I've never been convinced. Almost all of his best knocks recently have been as a bit of a basher. It might be better that England play Hales (or Vince, but that ship seems to have sailed for now) up top and put in Taylor at 5, where he may be more comfortable. Or even Ballance who seems to be somewhat the forgotten many ATM.
- Lack of a real 5th bowler; although Bopara, Root and Moeen are all reasonable options. To be fair it does seem like most sides are going into the WC with 4 bowlers and then some options. My gut feeling is that 5 bowlers is preferable (and then back your batsmen to score the runs) but this may not be borne out by the facts. It would be interesting to check.
- No death bowling. England's bowling at the death in recent times has been woeful.
- No specialist spinner. Moeen still bowls too many bad balls, at the moment he is a better test spinner than ODI one.

For what it's worth and starting from a blank canvas, plus taking into account the rather not-so-good form of Stokes and Finn:
Roy
Hales
Vince
Root
Morgan
Buttler
Woakes
Jordan (I like him)
Broad
Tredwell
Anderson

Mike - your analysis seems interesting and hopefully valuable. Look forward to finding out the results in due course.

Your England team is remarkably similar to mine. Identical from 4 to 11 in fact. I would also have Roy in for Cook if possible (I thought Cook was a ''given'' when I chose.) Imo Moeen and Taylor (even after only one knock) deserve their places ahead of Hales and Vince at the moment.

As you've probably seen from my earlier posts, I'm also not convinced about Bopara. I too like Jordan but would flag again how especially important confidence is to him. It was lack of that and resulting inconsistency which kept him out of the Surrey side rather than any lack of talent.

guildfordbat

Posts : 12487
Join date : 2011-04-07

Back to top Go down

Re: Eng in Lanka

Post by Mad for Chelsea on Mon 08 Dec 2014, 2:37 pm

kingraf wrote:Death bowling is dead. The Icc managed to kill it off with the four boundary rider rules as well as the two new balls, which means you have two hard ball at both ends rather than one really soft one. The key is getting wickets regularly during the middle overs.

yes, and no. The idea of a specialist death-bowler (Malinga the obvious one, and something England tried to do with Dernbach) is indeed dead. However, the art of death bowling in itself still exists, it just needs people to re-adjust their expectations and agree that 8-9 runs at the death is a very good over, 10-12 acceptable, anything above not so good. And also to realise that there will be overs which go for loads and you have to accept that (not helped by commentators banging on about "full and straight" and "yorkers" every other minute mad).

That England struggle at the death is true, they struggle more than other teams IMO. Jordan seems to do OK, but they haven't really got anyone else who I'd feel reasonably confident of not getting tonked.

Mad for Chelsea

Posts : 11854
Join date : 2011-02-11
Age : 30

Back to top Go down

Re: Eng in Lanka

Post by guildfordbat on Mon 08 Dec 2014, 3:55 pm

Mad for Chelsea wrote:appreciate that guildford, and like I said I'm not particularly happy with it either. However, I'm going to disagree with you - and Mike, which is probably riskier, given that while I can just accuse you of being a boring old so-and-so with outdated views I'm not sure this applies to Mike Wink - on the five bowlers policy. My feeling is that the modern game is more set up for the 7 batsmen, and certainly modern teams seem more inclined to go that way (see my previous post).

My gut feeling is that the middle-overs are not very prone to wicket-taking in any case, and the runs you might give away through your fifth bowler are more than offset by the runs you get from your extra batsman. Whether that's borne out by the stats I'm genuinely not sure, and I appreciate that this tactic requires your four bowlers to do their job properly.

My main issue is not so much with the fifth bowler policy in my team, but that Root can only be relied on for a handful of overs really (especially in Aus), which means you're expecting Moeen to bowl nearly his full spell, and I do have some reservations about that. In an ideal world Bops would have kicked on and nailed the n°5 spot with some authoritative performances, but he hasn't, and I don't think he's good enough to, so I'm going with the best of what I can.

Basically, you and Mike are saying that it's down to the six batsmen to do enough to not need a seventh. I'm saying that the four main bowlers have to do enough to not put undue pressure on the fifth and sixth bowlers. Neither to me is a perfect solution (oh for an Andrew Flintoff right now!!!), but my gut tells me 7 batsmen is a better option than 5 bowlers.

MfC - whilst you may struggle to attain a senior position within the Diplomatic Service Very Happy , that's a very clear and well explained post as regards our contrasting views. I certainly agree with you that there isn't a perfect solution. Just a couple of comments on the sentence I've put in bold:

1. The fifth and sixth bowlers still need to have a degree of adequacy. However you define that, I'm unconvinced that Root does. If he was a more reliable bowler, I would be more inclined to consider your 7/4 approach. Tactics are one thing but you also have to take into account the skill sets available.

2. As well as the four main bowlers having a responsibility to ease the pressure on the fifth and sixth bowlers, a related responsibility will rest upon the captain in ensuring that bowlers 5 and 6 begin and end their spells at the right times. That will be difficult for Cook who has hardly been a commanding and reassuring leader so far when we have been in the field.

guildfordbat

Posts : 12487
Join date : 2011-04-07

Back to top Go down

Re: Eng in Lanka

Post by VTR on Mon 08 Dec 2014, 4:28 pm

freemo wrote:this would be my side for the world cup

1.Hales
2.Moeen
3.Ballance
4.Taylor (c)
5.Morgan
6.Ravi
7.Buttler
8.Woakes
9.Rashid
10.Broad
11.Finn

Why would you pick Rashid as our lead spinner in ODIs?

VTR

Posts : 3242
Join date : 2012-03-23
Location : Fine Leg

Back to top Go down

Re: Eng in Lanka

Post by msp83 on Mon 08 Dec 2014, 6:18 pm

mystiroakey wrote:
VTR wrote:Well England do have good variation at the death. All those wides and no-balls keep the batsman guessing!

Joking aside, I wonder if even Malinga would be that effective now with his accurate yorkers.
Malinga worked because he is a 'freak' who can bowl Yorkers as a standard delivery. The shock and variation is when he doesn't bowl one.

I question his action though. Its certainly a reality that we will not produce a malinga in England because we wouldn't have allowed malinga to be malinga.
There is nothing illegal about Lasit Malinga's bowling action, absolutely nothing whatsoever. Its perfectly legal and legitimate. The only sensible point on the basis of which it can be questioned is that it makes him far too injury prone, even forcing him to quit test at a young age. But without that action, Malinga wouldn't have been Malinga.
Even the Slinger has been taken the the cleaners more often than it used to happen to him but most of those have happened to him at the beginning of a spell, he still remains an absolute champion during the end overs....... But there is not many else, in fact no body else of similar class in the present-day game.

msp83

Posts : 13598
Join date : 2011-05-30
Location : India

Back to top Go down

Re: Eng in Lanka

Post by mystiroakey on Mon 08 Dec 2014, 6:34 pm

i dont think you understand the point made.

a bowler like that wouldn't come from england and probally not Aus or SA either. We would coach it out of them as it so close to being illegal.  Our system is worlds apart from what you may understand Msp

mystiroakey

Posts : 32472
Join date : 2011-03-06
Age : 41
Location : surrey

Back to top Go down

Re: Eng in Lanka

Post by freemo on Mon 08 Dec 2014, 6:54 pm

VTR wrote:
freemo wrote:this would be my side for the world cup

1.Hales
2.Moeen
3.Ballance
4.Taylor (c)
5.Morgan
6.Ravi
7.Buttler
8.Woakes
9.Rashid
10.Broad
11.Finn

Why would you pick Rashid as our lead spinner in ODIs?



leg spin option in limited overs cricket is fantastic option..... he has had a seriously good couple of years in domestic cricket and i think he's a bloody good player, therefore I would pick him..

freemo

Posts : 236
Join date : 2014-08-12

Back to top Go down

Re: Eng in Lanka

Post by mystiroakey on Mon 08 Dec 2014, 7:10 pm

My question is why would anyone pick the rookie as the captain?

like why!

mystiroakey

Posts : 32472
Join date : 2011-03-06
Age : 41
Location : surrey

Back to top Go down

Re: Eng in Lanka

Post by kingraf on Mon 08 Dec 2014, 7:25 pm

Don't know about Aus or England, but a Malinga would have no problem coming up the local system. As has been mentioned, he's action is perfectly legal, and for my money, can't possibly have more bend the Shaun Tait's, it just would have changed to ensure he doesn't have to quit the game aged 30.
avatar
kingraf
raf
raf

Posts : 16122
Join date : 2012-06-06
Age : 24
Location : To you I am there. To me I am here.... is it possible that I'm everywhere?

Back to top Go down

Re: Eng in Lanka

Post by mystiroakey on Mon 08 Dec 2014, 7:32 pm

Well you dont know the English system.

I am hoping it will be changed soon - or we will never have that slingy bowler- be it spin or fast. They get coached out of any bend..or they used to at the very least.

mystiroakey

Posts : 32472
Join date : 2011-03-06
Age : 41
Location : surrey

Back to top Go down

Re: Eng in Lanka

Post by KP_fan on Mon 08 Dec 2014, 7:50 pm

mystiroakey wrote:i dont think you understand the point made.

a bowler like that wouldn't come from england and probally not Aus or SA either. We would coach it out of them as it so close to being illegal.  Our system is worlds apart from what you may understand Msp

thats true....English system produces percentage players....
No freak talents like sehwag, malinga, bhajji, mendis travel through to top level.

among shoulder powered slingy types....Jeff thomson was the most prominent one......then there was a slingy 160kph bolwer in australi also in the last 5 years who had a nervous breakdown also...whose name eludes me.
Those who have seen Rumesh Ratnayke...would know who inspired Malinga Smile
avatar
KP_fan

Posts : 6873
Join date : 2012-07-27

Back to top Go down

Re: Eng in Lanka

Post by VTR on Mon 08 Dec 2014, 10:31 pm

Dear lord, I hadn't notice Taylor was captain of the XI including Rashid. And what has Ballance done to cement that number three spot, other than not play an ODI for absolutely ages.

VTR

Posts : 3242
Join date : 2012-03-23
Location : Fine Leg

Back to top Go down

Re: Eng in Lanka

Post by Mike Selig on Mon 08 Dec 2014, 10:44 pm

mystiroakey wrote:Well you dont know the English system.

I am hoping it will be changed soon - or we will never have that slingy bowler- be it spin or fast. They get coached out of any bend..or they used to at the very least.

I do wish people would stop quoting this "England would have coached this out of him" cliché. It's not true anymore, hasn't been for going on 10 years. If you bother to actually talk to coaches, go to workshops and club sessions then this is evident. English cricket is very aware of the mistakes made in the past, in particular with regard to overcoaching and just as importantly the rigidity of training methods, and has worked/is working very hard to improve on this front.

You do of course still get the odd "dinosaur" who can't or won't change his ways, but thankfully these are now few and far between and getting even rarer.

On the other hand the younger and more current coaches, particularly those involved in the high performance side of things and increasingly the youth sections of decent clubs, pay comparatively little attention to technique beyond things like playing off a solid base etc.; in fact they do relatively little of what the layman would consider coaching. It's mainly now about tactics, strategies, gameplans, mindsets, mental approaches etc. On the technical side you look for the mechanical aspect which is actually damaging to the game and work on that, or if anything is unsafe.

The one criticism I would have of the English coaching cohort at present is I feel there is a tendency to be too much in awe of the science, by which I mean both the ever changing and improving new tools and techniques associated with video analysis and the like and the number crunching which goes on. To some extent this is entirely understandable: I am a bit of a science "geek" myself, I love what I would call "modern coaching" but there is so much info out there that it is all too easy to become so ensconced that you forget that at its heart cricket is a relatively simple principle: you have to score runs without getting out, and take wickets without conceding runs.

There is a lot and I mean a LOT that we can learn from the science, but the key is to use it wisely. Overuse or poor use can lead to playing the game by numbers and being too rigid. The numbers and stuff are good for giving you a plan A, even plans B,C,D etc. But you still need to be able to adapt on the spot. Cricket is ever changing and there are so many variables and intangibles that you can't reduce it to a formula, or even a large number of formulae.

I am not saying don't make use of the technology; you would be foolish not to (and likewise the stereotype of say Pakistan playing by instinct is equally outdated - they use as much analysis as the next team), and there is loads of use to it. But I do worry that at times we are so much looking for the magic recipe that we aren't producing as many thinking cricketers as we should be; it remains key to let young players especially make up their own minds and learn from their mistakes.

I know guildford and I have talked about this in the past, and that he feels that the fact that young internationals rarely get the chance to learn to be leaders in county cricket has also played its part. He probably has a point, it is probably a combination of factors.

Mike Selig

Posts : 4295
Join date : 2011-05-30

Back to top Go down

Re: Eng in Lanka

Post by Good Golly I'm Olly on Mon 08 Dec 2014, 10:51 pm

VTR wrote:Dear lord, I hadn't notice Taylor was captain of the XI including Rashid. And what has Ballance done to cement that number three spot, other than not play an ODI for absolutely ages.
Tbf Ballance like Taylor has a ridiculous list A record too (think his average is like 7th on that all time list), and he's shown he can play international cricket this summer.
avatar
Good Golly I'm Olly

Posts : 45408
Join date : 2011-09-18
Age : 23
Location : Chris Woakes's wardrobe

Back to top Go down

Re: Eng in Lanka

Post by Mad for Chelsea on Mon 08 Dec 2014, 10:53 pm

further to my point about the modern trend favouring the seven batsmen approach, today's ODI between Pakistan and NZ:

http://www.espncricinfo.com/pakistan-v-new-zealand-2014/engine/match/742619.html

both go with seven batsmen, interesting as Vettori and Afridi could be considered decent enough batsmen for the n°7 spot (indeed Afridi ended up playing a crucial knock from n°8), but still the teams prefer a longer batting line-up (with the slight caveat that I honestly have no idea if Haris Sohail is a genuine all-rounder or more of a part-time bowler, though all his FC stats suggest very much the latter, certainly Neesham fits more of the Bops mould).

Now I'm not saying just because teams seem to be heading this way that makes it right, and guildford makes a good point about ressources too, but I thought it backed up my point too well to not deserve a mention Very Happy

Mad for Chelsea

Posts : 11854
Join date : 2011-02-11
Age : 30

Back to top Go down

Re: Eng in Lanka

Post by mystiroakey on Mon 08 Dec 2014, 11:32 pm

Mike Selig wrote:
mystiroakey wrote:Well you dont know the English system.

I am hoping it will be changed soon - or we will never have that slingy bowler- be it spin or fast. They get coached out of any bend..or they used to at the very least.

I do wish people would stop quoting this "England would have coached this out of him" cliché. It's not true anymore, hasn't been for going on 10 years. If you bother to actually talk to coaches, go to workshops and club sessions then this is evident. English cricket is very aware of the mistakes made in the past, in particular with regard to overcoaching and just as importantly the rigidity of training methods, and has worked/is working very hard to improve on this front.

You do of course still get the odd "dinosaur" who can't or won't change his ways, but thankfully these are now few and far between and getting even rarer.

On the other hand the younger and more current coaches, particularly those involved in the high performance side of things and increasingly the youth sections of decent clubs, pay comparatively little attention to technique beyond things like playing off a solid base etc.; in fact they do relatively little of what the layman would consider coaching. It's mainly now about tactics, strategies, gameplans, mindsets, mental approaches etc. On the technical side you look for the mechanical aspect which is actually damaging to the game and work on that, or if anything is unsafe.

The one criticism I would have of the English coaching cohort at present is I feel there is a tendency to be too much in awe of the science, by which I mean both the ever changing and improving new tools and techniques associated with video analysis and the like and the number crunching which goes on. To some extent this is entirely understandable: I am a bit of a science "geek" myself, I love what I would call "modern coaching" but there is so much info out there that it is all too easy to become so ensconced that you forget that at its heart cricket is a relatively simple principle: you have to score runs without getting out, and take wickets without conceding runs.

There is a lot and I mean a LOT that we can learn from the science, but the key is to use it wisely. Overuse or poor use can lead to playing the game by numbers and being too rigid. The numbers and stuff are good for giving you a plan A, even plans B,C,D etc. But you still need to be able to adapt on the spot. Cricket is ever changing and there are so many variables and intangibles that you can't reduce it to a formula, or even a large number of formulae.

I am not saying don't make use of the technology; you would be foolish not to (and likewise the stereotype of say Pakistan playing by instinct is equally outdated - they use as much analysis as the next team), and there is loads of use to it. But I do worry that at times we are so much looking for the magic recipe that we aren't producing as many thinking cricketers as we should be; it remains key to let young players especially make up their own minds and learn from their mistakes.

I know guildford and I have talked about this in the past, and that he feels that the fact that young internationals rarely get the chance to learn to be leaders in county cricket has also played its part. He probably has a point, it is probably a combination of factors.

its good to see that its changing Mike. I saw this documentary last year about a bowler who was a decent spinner but was sacked by his club because his arm was too bent- but on recap it was less than other international spinners. If i could remember his name i would tell you. As you are a coach i will listen to what you say and hope its true.

The malinga thing is however a bit different- I think its due to his genetic make up over anything else(his joints are made up differently)- not only was he a freakishly amazing Yorker bowler because of his style but also i think its actually an impossible action for many people to physically do.. I doubt we will find another one in our life times.


mystiroakey

Posts : 32472
Join date : 2011-03-06
Age : 41
Location : surrey

Back to top Go down

Re: Eng in Lanka

Post by Mike Selig on Mon 08 Dec 2014, 11:59 pm

I would say the thing about bent arms is a bit different from just being unorthodox; it doesn't stem from a "I know best and my method is right" attitude so much as actual concern about what happens if and when the player reaches a certain level and suddenly gets reported. So I wouldn't be too quick to jump on a coach for encouraging a young spinner to bowl slightly differently because he genuinely believed the spinner was chucking it. Worth bearing in mind that whilst it's easy to type "less than other international spinners" it is less easy making that judgement call without necessarily having the stringent testing methods, and when the call you make could have such a big effect on the young guy's future.

Moreover the one about mystery spinners is an interesting one. Mainly because it was tolerated/ignored/encouraged/not picked up on (delete as appropriate according to your level of mischievousness or cynicism) at ICC level for so long. So there was a bit of a feeling of "well we may as well not discourage spinners from chucking it" in some quarters, and of course now the ICC is clamping down on things and erm... I really really hope not too many youngsters become collateral damage, but I fear...

For example in France we have a talented young (18 year old) off-spinner who can "bowl" a doosra. Now I'm biased: I don't actually believe you can legally bowl a doosra unless you have some kind of double-jointed kink to help you along. But that's irrelevant. What is relevant is that we (that is in France) have absolutely no way of knowing for sure whether this kid chucks it or not: we can film him and analyse things from there (and have) but that's not conclusive if it's borderline (and it is); we certainly can't rely on human perception, we know that doesn't work. So what do you do? A year or so again I was telling him to bowl it, as nobody would dare call it given how things were going; now we are having to reconsider. As an aside he remains a very very good off-spinner even without his doosra; with his doosra he wouldn't be miles off first class standard though.

Mike Selig

Posts : 4295
Join date : 2011-05-30

Back to top Go down

Re: Eng in Lanka

Post by msp83 on Tue 09 Dec 2014, 7:49 am

mystiroakey wrote:i dont think you understand the point made.

a bowler like that wouldn't come from england and probally not Aus or SA either. We would coach it out of them as it so close to being illegal.  Our system is worlds apart from what you may understand Msp
Mysti, had you said something like this about a non-conventional spinner, I would have understood it. But Malinga's action is nowhere near close to being illegal, its absolutely, perfectly legal........ Just that not many bowlers have found success with a round-arm action in international cricket in contemporary times. There were bowlers did that in the past, but not many in recent times and so not many are used to such an action, so some think its bordering on the illegal that is far from being true.
But the system in England would have perhaps converted Lasit Malinga to a military medium county bowler, there is every chance of it. They even messed up the likes of James Anderson in the name of injury management early in his career, and we know the story of Steven Finn, although his case is a bit different.

msp83

Posts : 13598
Join date : 2011-05-30
Location : India

Back to top Go down

Re: Eng in Lanka

Post by VTR on Tue 09 Dec 2014, 9:25 am

Olly wrote:
VTR wrote:Dear lord, I hadn't notice Taylor was captain of the XI including Rashid. And what has Ballance done to cement that number three spot, other than not play an ODI for absolutely ages.
Tbf Ballance like Taylor has a ridiculous list A record too (think his average is like 7th on that all time list), and he's shown he can play international cricket this summer.

I've been thinking about these averages and have come to the conclusion they are fairly meaningless. Taylor and Ballance would have built those averages playing a lot of 40 over cricket (more chance of a not out), against some fairly friendly bowling attacks. I see second on the list currently is Pujura, who I have never heard being spoken of as a great ODI player.

Obviously there are some great players in the list, but they have built their averages in the international game e.g. Bevan, Kohli, Dhoni, ABDV all up there.

I am glad that Taylor is getting a run at the moment, but Ballance had a chance and did not convince in the ODIs he has played

VTR

Posts : 3242
Join date : 2012-03-23
Location : Fine Leg

Back to top Go down

Re: Eng in Lanka

Post by Mike Selig on Tue 09 Dec 2014, 11:16 am

msp83 wrote:
But the system in England would have perhaps converted Lasit Malinga to a military medium county bowler, there is every chance of it. They even messed up the likes of James Anderson in the name of injury management early in his career, and we know the story of Steven Finn, although his case is a bit different.

See earlier post. Getting progressively fed up with people with little or no idea as to what is actually going on repeating clichés they have picked up from the press. This myth of overcoaching is largely just that: a myth. I know this because I have actually worked in this environment, met and talked with the current coaches and discussed these very issues. What allows you to say that "there is every chance of [England converting Malinga into a military medium county bowler", apart from anecdotal evidence from more than 10 years ago, and personal prejudice against the England system for the way they've managed some of your favourite players (which is nothing related to overcoaching)?

Anderson was 10 years ago BTW. That was a perfect example of overcoaching (nothing to do with injury management AFAIK - if it was I'd be a lot more sympathetic).

Finn is very different: his action HAD to be changed, because as it used to stand he was bowling no-balls. Criticising England for tinkering with Finn's action would be like criticising Pakistan for tinkering with Ajmal's action now. It's lunacy. Finn's action needed remedial work - the issue was how, when, by who and by what means. And then poor man-management. Nothing to do with overcoaching though.

It seems to me that some people think coaching is easy: it's not, or we'd all do it; in fact you make judgements calls on everything all the time, based on a number of factors, and then nobody notices anything until things go wrong.

So since everybody seems keen to lambast English coaching at the moment let's talk about some of the recent successes as well:
- Morgan developed a massive technical glitch which was smoothly coached out of him
- the pace of Moeen Ali's bowling
- Broad from all over the place with the odd fantastic spell has become one of the better seamers around
- Mushtaq did some brilliant work with Swann
- Bell's batting transformation (tests)

Some of this goes completely unnoticed, but these are real successes.

Worth noting that the English coach education system remains the standard around the world.

I'm not even an England supporter much, but common misconceptions which just get repeated without anybody actually knowing what they are talking about just annoy me.

None of this precludes the fact that England's ODI plans at the moment make no sense.

Mike Selig

Posts : 4295
Join date : 2011-05-30

Back to top Go down

Re: Eng in Lanka

Post by mystiroakey on Tue 09 Dec 2014, 11:20 am

VTR wrote:
Olly wrote:
VTR wrote:Dear lord, I hadn't notice Taylor was captain of the XI including Rashid. And what has Ballance done to cement that number three spot, other than not play an ODI for absolutely ages.
Tbf Ballance like Taylor has a ridiculous list A record too (think his average is like 7th on that all time list), and he's shown he can play international cricket this summer.

I've been thinking about these averages and have come to the conclusion they are fairly meaningless. Taylor and Ballance would have built those averages playing a lot of 40 over cricket (more chance of a not out), against some fairly friendly bowling attacks. I see second on the list currently is Pujura, who I have never heard being spoken of as a great ODI player.

Obviously there are some great players in the list, but they have built their averages in the international game e.g. Bevan, Kohli, Dhoni, ABDV all up there.

I am glad that Taylor is getting a run at the moment, but Ballance had a chance and did not convince in the ODIs he has played

Pujara is only young and has only played a few ODI's

Its a bit tough to judge him just yet.. he has another 10 plus years in the game


mystiroakey

Posts : 32472
Join date : 2011-03-06
Age : 41
Location : surrey

Back to top Go down

Re: Eng in Lanka

Post by msp83 on Tue 09 Dec 2014, 12:11 pm

Mike Selig wrote:
msp83 wrote:
But the system in England would have perhaps converted Lasit Malinga to a military medium county bowler, there is every chance of it. They even messed up the likes of James Anderson in the name of injury management early in his career, and we know the story of Steven Finn, although his case is a bit different.

See earlier post. Getting progressively fed up with people with little or no idea as to what is actually going on repeating clichés they have picked up from the press. This myth of overcoaching is largely just that: a myth. I know this because I have actually worked in this environment, met and talked with the current coaches and discussed these very issues. What allows you to say that "there is every chance of [England converting Malinga into a military medium county bowler", apart from anecdotal evidence from more than 10 years ago, and personal prejudice against the England system for the way they've managed some of your favourite players (which is nothing related to overcoaching)?

Anderson was 10 years ago BTW. That was a perfect example of overcoaching (nothing to do with injury management AFAIK - if it was I'd be a lot more sympathetic).

Finn is very different: his action HAD to be changed, because as it used to stand he was bowling no-balls. Criticising England for tinkering with Finn's action would be like criticising Pakistan for tinkering with Ajmal's action now. It's lunacy. Finn's action needed remedial work - the issue was how, when, by who and by what means. And then poor man-management. Nothing to do with overcoaching though.

It seems to me that some people think coaching is easy: it's not, or we'd all do it; in fact you make judgements calls on everything all the time, based on a number of factors, and then nobody notices anything until things go wrong.

So since everybody seems keen to lambast English coaching at the moment let's talk about some of the recent successes as well:
- Morgan developed a massive technical glitch which was smoothly coached out of him
- the pace of Moeen Ali's bowling
- Broad from all over the place with the odd fantastic spell has become one of the better seamers around
- Mushtaq did some brilliant work with Swann
- Bell's batting transformation (tests)

Some of this goes completely unnoticed, but these are real successes.

Worth noting that the English coach education system remains the standard around the world.

I'm not even an England supporter much, but common misconceptions which just get repeated without anybody actually knowing what they are talking about just annoy me.

None of this precludes the fact that England's ODI plans at the moment make no sense.
Well, as someone who is involved in the system, I respect what you say. However, there is enough reason to believe that in England establishment, there is not enough encouragement for unorthodox bowling or batting for that matter. It can be a matter of perceptions, or conceptions imbibed from the context without even one realizing it, just have a relook at your own comment on the doosra. Not sure many coaches from the subcontinent will agree.

msp83

Posts : 13598
Join date : 2011-05-30
Location : India

Back to top Go down

Re: Eng in Lanka

Post by msp83 on Tue 09 Dec 2014, 12:15 pm

And anyways the thrust of my comments was Malinga's action. It is sheer nonsense to suggest that there is something illegal about his action.

msp83

Posts : 13598
Join date : 2011-05-30
Location : India

Back to top Go down

Re: Eng in Lanka

Post by mystiroakey on Tue 09 Dec 2014, 12:28 pm

Some respected cricketers and ex cricketers will allways question malingas action as a possible chuck.. Please note no one says all his or other bowlers are slingers.. But some are. This 15 degree rule is set up to be broken once in a while . And many have and many do occasionally. I don't understand why you think some spinners action is different to malingas and that any negative towards spinners can't be attributed to quick bowlers...He like some spinners bowl with a significantly bent arm over say other top bowlers like swan, warne or McGrath .

The only way out IMO is to just allow it all and get over it. What is wrong with chucking anyway? It will just create more variance. The batters have it to easy anyway.


mystiroakey

Posts : 32472
Join date : 2011-03-06
Age : 41
Location : surrey

Back to top Go down

Re: Eng in Lanka

Post by VTR on Tue 09 Dec 2014, 12:29 pm

mystiroakey wrote:
VTR wrote:
Olly wrote:
VTR wrote:Dear lord, I hadn't notice Taylor was captain of the XI including Rashid. And what has Ballance done to cement that number three spot, other than not play an ODI for absolutely ages.
Tbf Ballance like Taylor has a ridiculous list A record too (think his average is like 7th on that all time list), and he's shown he can play international cricket this summer.

I've been thinking about these averages and have come to the conclusion they are fairly meaningless. Taylor and Ballance would have built those averages playing a lot of 40 over cricket (more chance of a not out), against some fairly friendly bowling attacks. I see second on the list currently is Pujura, who I have never heard being spoken of as a great ODI player.

Obviously there are some great players in the list, but they have built their averages in the international game e.g. Bevan, Kohli, Dhoni, ABDV all up there.

I am glad that Taylor is getting a run at the moment, but Ballance had a chance and did not convince in the ODIs he has played

Pujara is only young and has only played a few ODI's

Its a bit tough to judge him just yet.. he has another 10 plus years in the game


Agreed he has time, but my point is he is second and I don't hear many India supporters demanding his selection. And that's probably because of his style which seems more suited to Tests to me. Ballance has rightly or wrongly been deemed the same - I seem to remember some criticism of a lack of scoring options, fine in Tests but not for modern ODIs

VTR

Posts : 3242
Join date : 2012-03-23
Location : Fine Leg

Back to top Go down

Re: Eng in Lanka

Post by mystiroakey on Tue 09 Dec 2014, 12:31 pm

There is loads of news on his lack of a chance in ODI's . Many do not agree with his exclusion at present.

mystiroakey

Posts : 32472
Join date : 2011-03-06
Age : 41
Location : surrey

Back to top Go down

Re: Eng in Lanka

Post by VTR on Tue 09 Dec 2014, 12:39 pm

Well selections will always be divisive. But I don't see where Pujura fits into the current India team - he is an excellent number 3 in Tests, but not an expansive player which seems to be more and more a requirement for an ODI batsman.

VTR

Posts : 3242
Join date : 2012-03-23
Location : Fine Leg

Back to top Go down

Re: Eng in Lanka

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 4 of 9 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum