England's Summer of Cricket 2022 as Joe Root Steps Down

First topic message reminder :

Duty281 wrote:What do we think of the future of ODI cricket as a whole, because its demise is once again being discussed?

Wasim Akram thinks ODI cricket should be put out of its misery; Mark Ramprakash says that Stokes' ODI retirement could be the beginning of the end for ODI cricket; but Ravi Shastri says there should be fewer T20Is.

My view is that ODI cricket should stay, and it's T20i cricket that should be abolished. T20 should remain franchise/domestic only. No need for a T20 World Cup when the IPL and such exists. If T20i cricket does stay, I think there should be no three format players, only two formats maximum. I'd be very disappointed if 50-over cricket died on an international basis.  

No format will die as long as they are generating revenues.
And much as I used to call them Meaningless-Masala-ODIs, these games as well as meaningless T20Is generate more revenue then tests.
Instead of 5 to 7 ODIs per series earlier...now limited over series comprise of 3+3.
Test Matches, "The Premium Form" of the game per purists ( including me) is still the commercially subsidized format of the game.
Now the defeats in ODIs/T20Is don't hurt as much, nor are wins remembered for long, only World Cups stay in memory.
But the international games generate high viewership rating & expensive advertisements (atleast on Indian TV)

As I wrote on the Ind-WI thread, the Indians have stopped complaining about too much cricket.
BCCI has found peace by putting out as many as 2 and a half to 3 squads now...call them Senior (or premium) and A and B squads for international games.
Ensuring prime stars get plenty of rest / rotation......and the pool of contracted players gets bigger and everyone gets full contracted fee, playing lesser games
Recently we have seen 2 Indian series running concurrently and twice VVSL has been India's national coach for a series when Dravid was with another Indian squad at the same time in another series.

If a marquee player Stokes was under BCCI management.....BCCI would have NEVER let him retire, would have done a sweet deal with him guaranteeing his workload across formats and asking him to appear for a very limited number of ODIs and T20Is and also letting him skip B grade test series.

No format will die since even these meaningless ODI&T20Is are indeed generating revenues, that are essential to subsidize tests and pump into FC, junior and women cricket development

Jeez it literally couldn't get any closer without edging.

Now I think England have just burned their last review...

Yes. Root was so sure but Stokes should not have taken any notice of him : he was rubbish at reviews as captain and hasn't changed.

Hope that doesn't come back to haunt them !

Robinson breaks through ! Rewarded for consistent pressure as he forces Mulder to play on...

England will be delighted - and perhaps a little relieved - to have grabbed that wicket just before tea. 120/5.

Robinson bowls the inducker. Really good ball, but Robinson doesn't look like he has anything for conditions where you can't bowl massive induckers after 42 overs.

South Africa probably need to double their score to have something to bowl at. On that front you'd say England are really bossing it now. The South African tail has wagged okay this series, but the odds are we have to collapse at some point.

So that stand yielded just 25 runs...but ate up 15 overs so I guess now the question is whether Verreynne and the bowlers can take advantage of the presumed wear and tear on ball and bowlers...

Ball still moving for Stokes so batting not going to be a picnic just yet !

alfie wrote:Now I think England have just burned their last review...

Yes. Root was so sure but Stokes should not have taken any notice of him : he was rubbish at reviews as captain and hasn't changed.

Hope that doesn't come back to haunt them !

Yes - and this'll almost certainly be on Olly's bingo card - why did Foakes who took the ball with a clear view and hearing of it stand idly by in the background rather than putting his oar in? A Test keeper in this age needs not only neat glovework but also the proper management of reviews.

Another inducker...lbw given...but height ? Review might reprieve him I think...

No , he's gone on the wrong end of umpire's call ! SA a bit unlucky with those lbw decisions as that might gave been given the other way on another day. But good bowling , again from Robinson.

133/6 as Jansen comes in...

Well. Robinson gets Zondo and as previously assumed... They've gone nowhere and gotten rolled

guildfordbat wrote:

alfie wrote:Now I think England have just burned their last review...

Yes. Root was so sure but Stokes should not have taken any notice of him : he was rubbish at reviews as captain and hasn't changed.

Hope that doesn't come back to haunt them !

Yes - and this'll almost certainly be on Olly's bingo card - why did Foakes who took the ball with a clear view and hearing of it stand idly by in the background rather than putting his oar in? A Test keeper in this age needs not only neat glovework but also the proper management of reviews.

I know you think Foakes lacks a bit of authority when it comes to review calls , guildford. He does seem to defer a little too easily to those around him - and as he's surely getting a bit more confident of his position in the side (he is , isn't he ? Or is he one of those chaps who is always a bit insecure about his place ?) he ought to have a bit more to say , I agree.

guildfordbat wrote:

alfie wrote:Now I think England have just burned their last review...

Yes. Root was so sure but Stokes should not have taken any notice of him : he was rubbish at reviews as captain and hasn't changed.

Hope that doesn't come back to haunt them !

Yes - and this'll almost certainly be on Olly's bingo card - why did Foakes who took the ball with a clear view and hearing of it stand idly by in the background rather than putting his oar in? A Test keeper in this age needs not only neat glovework but also the proper management of reviews.

I call line and collect my £20!

But I do agree Guildford with your point. Keeper is crucial in the review process

kingraf wrote:Well. Robinson gets Zondo and as previously assumed... They've gone nowhere and gotten rolled

Yeah they really didn't need to lose both of them like that. Good bowling , mind...and it hasn't looked easy at any point this afternoon.

A lot on this pair now . Obviously. Jansen's had a fine match so far : they're going to need him to keep up the good work...

Stokes 0 from 17 reviews this summer.

Soul Requiem wrote:Stokes 0 from 17 reviews this summer.

Just saw that too ! I knew it was bad but didn't think it was that awful !

And here's the other big flaw striking as Ben Stokes loses a wicket (and wastes a fine Ollie Pope catch !) due to another blasted overstep....

They do a lot right , this England side : but they also handicap themselves sometimes with basic silly errors...

Could be very important , that error. Had Jansen gone then you'd think this innings would be all but finished...now he will be back after tea as long as he survives the next few minutes.,,

Redemption comes quickly for Stokes ! That was a peach of a delivery and too much for Jansen who can't profit from his escape...

146/7 and tea comes two balls early. 6 for 76 in that session in about thirty overs ...good one for England

kingraf wrote:Well. Robinson gets Zondo and as previously assumed... They've gone nowhere and gotten rolled

Jansen goes on the stroke of tea, and SA in all sorts at 7 down with the lead just over 100. Have to agree with you Raf, once Zondo/Mulder had seen off a few overs they had to try and move the scoreboard along, we’ve seen throughout this series and in these low scoring games in England in the past, one’s gonna have your name on it more often than not

alfie wrote:Broad gets Rickelton...not much doubt about this one , review will not be saving him...

Good bit of bowling from Broad again.

Looking back to the Elgar mistake : I reckon it was the cumulative effect of being hit on the pads three times in a row that fooled umpire and batsman into the decision and acceptance...by that time Elgar had more or less forgotten where his feet were ! Was unfortunate for him : and has had a big game changing effect.

Now : 95/4 and Broad is on the charge...

Just going back to Elgar's oh so significant dismissal in a session aka how not to waste reviews. I also put blame on Petersen for not stopping Elgar's march off and at least discussing the decision with him.

Interesting thing Atherton has shown up here at tea - and something I didn't pick up on at the time : but it seems Ben Foakes had a big input into the way Broad picked up the wicket of Rickelton early in that session.
Of course a keeper can be helpful with his observations but that one seemed to involve quite a detailed level of planning. A big tick for Foakes there - even if he is still losing points for being too introverted around review judgements

guildfordbat wrote:

alfie wrote:Broad gets Rickelton...not much doubt about this one , review will not be saving him...

Good bit of bowling from Broad again.

Looking back to the Elgar mistake : I reckon it was the cumulative effect of being hit on the pads three times in a row that fooled umpire and batsman into the decision and acceptance...by that time Elgar had more or less forgotten where his feet were ! Was unfortunate for him : and has had a big game changing effect.

Now : 95/4 and Broad is on the charge...

Just going back to Elgar's oh so significant dismissal in a session aka how not to waste reviews. I also put blame on Petersen for not stopping Elgar's march off and at least discussing the decision with him.

Fair point. Watching it again in normal time , though : as I actually thought at the time , it seemed as if the ball was straightening as it hit (optical illusion or something in the way the batsman moved ?) but presumably the same view was taken by both umpire and non-striker ? Very clear in slo-mo that it's missing leg...but they don't have the benefit of that view

alfie wrote:Interesting thing Atherton has shown up here at tea - and something I didn't pick up on at the time : but it seems Ben Foakes had a big input into the way Broad picked up the wicket of Rickelton early in that session.
Of course a keeper can be helpful with his observations but that one seemed to involve quite a detailed level of planning. A big tick for Foakes there - even if he is still losing points for being too introverted around review judgements

Alfie - wasn't watching over tea. Could you add a bit more please.

OK Guildford...

It seems after an over in which Broad had bowled a few out swingers to Rickelton , Foakes engaged him in quite animated conversation ; Stokes joining the conversation later : and subsequently they changed the field , and Broad adjusted his length and produced a couple of sharp inswingers...the second of which pinned Rickelton stone dead. Broad immediately rushed pointedly to Foakes and congratulated him on his input. I love it when a plan comes together...

Meanwhile Rabada didn't hang around long. Wonder why he came in ahead of Maharaj ?

Maharaj is a fighter. Has picked off a couple of loose balls from Stokes , useful runs . I know Stokes has done big damage but he's had a long spell ...maybe time to go back to Robinson ?

alfie wrote:OK Guildford...

It seems after an over in which Broad had bowled a few out swingers to Rickelton , Foakes engaged him in quite animated conversation ; Stokes joining the conversation later : and subsequently they changed the field , and Broad adjusted his length and produced a couple of sharp inswingers...the second of which pinned Rickelton stone dead. Broad immediately rushed pointedly to Foakes and congratulated him on his input. I love it when a plan comes together...

Meanwhile Rabada didn't hang around long. Wonder why he came in ahead of Maharaj ?

Thanks, Alfie. Appreciated.

Foakes has the makings of a great Test keeper and is helping others as flagged here but he still needs to help himself more. Going back to your earlier post, I'm not sure if he lacks confidence but I would say he's extremely - probably overly - polite. 

I saw him interviewed by Daniel Norcross at a Surrey awards evening a year or two back. Out of nowhere, Norcross took the p*ss out of Foakes' bright teeth and attempted a gag about them. Upon further probing and with some of the keeper's team mates itching to stick one on Norcross, Foakes gently explained they had been implanted following a car crash.

Anyway, Stokes has recently spoken out in support of Foakes. Hopefully, that'll help him in not being backward in coming forward.

Cheers , Guildford ...thanks for the extra info re Foakes personality.

Broad having a good day as he cleans up Maharaj...end of this innings can't be far away. Wonder if Verreynne - who has been very patient - will have a swing now ?

All done as Anderson gets Verreynne - who did try a swing - with an easy c&b ...

England need 130 . Bowlers have done their job...let's hope the bats are up to theirs.

130 to win. Talk of winning it tonight? They'll certainly try, but it could let SA back in if England slip to 20/3!

This is a crazy match, surely an Oval pitch can't be a 30 wickets in 5 sessions bad. I call terrible batting

I think ultimately, it's been a good series between two teams who've roughly been about the same. Both teams only have one score north of 175 in the series, so the batting teams will have a lot to answer for.

For England, given the conditions that were on display in the Australia series, they'll be praying to get one more chance. The middle order probably picks themselves at the moment, and I think Foakes' hundred has probably bought him some time, even though I'm not convinced by him.

For South Africa, its been a shocking series for the batting team, with only fifty, but you've got to stick with someone at some point. Bavuma comes back, which should help sure up the batting team. But otherwise, Rickelton is 26, Verryenne is 26, Markram is 28. Even Petersen is only 29. They've all got really good domestic records, so you might as well run with them for 10-15 Tests and hope some of them start to stick. Janneman Malan averages 50 in First class cricket and 53 in ODI, so I'd hope he'll be blooded in, ideally in Erwee's place. Erwee is the fourth 30-something opener we've selected in the last five years, and as the amount suggests, the "experience" ploy is just not working. They tend to get dropped as soon as they go through a form trough, so you might as well get someone like Malan in and stick with him.

For South Africa, England went from 84/2 to 158 all out. SA went from 91/2 to 170 all out. And of course, the Proteas were 32/6 day one. So wickets do fall in clumps here.

Marco Jansen drops one off the first ball and with a target that small, can't afford that

Crazy start....Lees offers a pretty ordinary chance to slip and Jansen drops it ! Will be surprised if Lees makes many anyway , but it would have been a super start for SA.

What does it do to morale ? Six off the first over.

Lees seems to have a sort of death wish...nearly run out now. And beaten , but no edge I think .Surely SA won't waste a review on him ?

They're asking...but no joy. Silly , I think.

Does look like they are keen to get the day off tomorrow.

Or maybe Lees has decided he's a dead duck unless he can produce something miraculous here so he's just trusting to the gods and swinging at everything...

alfie wrote:Does look like they are keen to get the day off tomorrow.

Or maybe Lees has decided he's a dead duck unless he can produce something miraculous here so he's just trusting to the gods and swinging at everything...

Assuming the light's ok, what's the latest that play can go on today? Scheduled finish is 6.30 but as the intended 98 overs won't have been bowled by then, it can be extended to 7.00. However, can the umpires then add an extra half-hour if they think a positive result is likely in that time?

guildfordbat wrote:

alfie wrote:Does look like they are keen to get the day off tomorrow.

Or maybe Lees has decided he's a dead duck unless he can produce something miraculous here so he's just trusting to the gods and swinging at everything...

Assuming the light's ok, what's the latest that play can go on today? Scheduled finish is 6.30 but as the intended 98 overs won't have been bowled by then, it can be extended to 7.00. However, can the umpires then add an extra half-hour if they think a positive result is likely in that time?

Can theoretically go until 19:30, but the light is likely to fade before then.

They should just get it done in the dark, like in Karachi 2000, rather than drag everything out for another day.

guildfordbat wrote:

alfie wrote:Does look like they are keen to get the day off tomorrow.

Or maybe Lees has decided he's a dead duck unless he can produce something miraculous here so he's just trusting to the gods and swinging at everything...

Assuming the light's ok, what's the latest that play can go on today? Scheduled finish is 6.30 but as the intended 98 overs won't have been bowled by then, it can be extended to 7.00. However, can the umpires then add an extra half-hour if they think a positive result is likely in that time?

Atherton answering my question. They can go on beyond 7.00 but it's doubtful the light will continue to hold for long after that.

Duty281 wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:

alfie wrote:Does look like they are keen to get the day off tomorrow.

Or maybe Lees has decided he's a dead duck unless he can produce something miraculous here so he's just trusting to the gods and swinging at everything...

Assuming the light's ok, what's the latest that play can go on today? Scheduled finish is 6.30 but as the intended 98 overs won't have been bowled by then, it can be extended to 7.00. However, can the umpires then add an extra half-hour if they think a positive result is likely in that time?

Can theoretically go until 19:30, but the light is likely to fade before then.

They should just get it done in the dark, like in Karachi 2000, rather than drag everything out for another day.

Thanks, Duty. Your post crossed with Atherton's answer and my last post.

Agree with you about Karachi 2000 being the precedent to follow.

Assuming England win this (by no means certain!) they will have won 6 from 7 tests this summer. A fantastic return. Especially having lost about 400 tests in the last few years playing in a more "traditional' test match style.

I'm sure there will be grumbling about the opposition being this and being that, but England were at a terribly low ebb before this summer and they don't exactly have a team full of superstars themselves.

As ever with most English cricket fans, there will be a fixation what they can't/haven't/won't do rather than what they can and have done, but this has been a great return. Whether it is sustainable or not remains to be seen but having watched them grind out defeat after laborious defeat recently, I've thoroughly enjoyed this test match summer and am looking forward to seeing the next couple of years which I haven't felt for a long time.

They're really going to take them off when Crawley's seeing it absolutely fine, aren't they?

Now that's a very nice fifty for Zac Crawley

Lees has been rather streaky and a bit fortunate...but Zac has played really well in this innings. Just what England want from him , of course ...just wish he could do it more often !

45 more to win. Will the light allow a finish tonight ?

Going by the Karachi precedent , plenty of time to finish this. Don't have Mr Bucknor umpiring though...I remember he enabled that game to continue against the protestations of the Pakistan players , because he was a bit cheesed off at their time wasting tactics...

Will these umpires be as flexible ?

Cricket hates cricket. And Broad had his pads on!

That's just peak stupidity. 33 to win, Lees and Crawley seeing it fine. Have some bloody common sense rather than drag it out until tomorrow.

Ah well...rules , eh ? Bit rigid , I think ...but off they come. So tomorrow , England will complete the formalities in front of two men and a dog.

All a bit last century - or the one before : with a touch of modern technology to enforce the illogical early close

Cricket is so dumb sometimes.

A bit of a farce, but it's going to be a good series win to round off a memorable Test match summer.
Think they left about 100 runs out there in the first innings, but hasn't mattered in the end. South Africa looked good in the first Test but truly woeful with the bat after that, and now onto a very worrying lack of Tests for them over the next couple of years

Don't want to be too critical of SA - who showed at Lord's how well they can play when it all goes right ; but I am at a bit of a loss to understand how they are in such a strong position re WTC ...  to consider them better than either India or Australia at present seems a nonsense. (Though of course it isn't that long since they had that remarkable home series win over India - a credit to their determination ; and , dare I suggest ,  a case of perhaps playing above themselves ?)  Probably just serves to point up the weaknesses of this WTC points system - which is fun , but hardly definitive .

Their bowling is certainly very impressive. A nice battery of pace men , left arm variety even , as well as both extreme pace and command of swing - and a very good spinner (probably fair to say they lack a real allrounder to justify a bowling role and also shore up the batting).

But it is the batting that concerns me : they make even England look like a solid line-up by comparison  I suspect most of us were totally unsurprised by the fold up of the second innings after Elgar got out...sort of almost appear two good balls away from disaster at all times. Even at Lord's , where they managed to post a good enough score to take command of the match , it was a triumph of dogged honest effort mixed with some poor English tactics rather than a display of batting skills : they've never looked like making serious runs since.

As kingraf says , some of them are young enough to develop - but they are going to need to do so quickly and that isn't as easy to do when you essentially lack established top class players to build around (due respect to Elgar but he might be past his best , and probably isn't going to be around all that much longer). Bavuma has improved recently but you'd hardly class him as a powerhouse so I don't think you can use his absence as much of a factor. Add in the long tail and those bowlers are going to have a lot to do to make them competitive with the better sides around.

Perhaps I am being too harsh and should just give more credit to the English bowling - which has been generally excellent in the last two games. And it is true they've not had much luck with the conditions for much of their recent innings. But I reckon they need to have one or two bats step up a level rather quickly or they are going to slip down the rankings despite the strong team ethic that has been on display on this tour through the white ball games and the first Test.

I do wish them well. A strong SA team is always one that produces entertaining series - not least when they face off against Australia ; and I want to see some good cricket in December !

It is a pity the series couldn't finish in front of a proper crowd ; but rules is rules , I guess. Can't blame the umpires (except perhaps for setting the light level precedent too low the evening before !) because they are constrained by regulations. But I do think the light rules need a rethink.

In the "old days" , light was all about the batsmen - who are , after all , the ones in physical danger in poor light. Not really sure the modern system is an improvement. But in any case a certain amount of flexibility should surely be built in to allow a no longer in any way doubtful finish to be effected on days like this. How farcical it would have been if , say , the mandated decision to come off had left just six runs to win rather than 33 ! Yet under the rules it would still have happened...

The argument that it might rain all day Monday so SA could potentially be unfairly treated doesn't hold water (no play on words intended). Games have adjusted times to make up lost overs during the first four days for years ; and the fact that the "extra half hour" , made available to finish a match , is now part of the rules means that the losing team has no intrinsic right to possible weather relief on the final day of any match. If bad weather saves them on the actual day they are just lucky - but it isn't part of the contract in advance.

On this occasion I have no doubt the SA lads would have been as content as England's to have the whole thing over and not have to drag themselves back out for twenty-five minutes or so tomorrow to complete the formalities.

Most of the time this sort of issue doesn't arise , so the "set light level" makes some sense. But I think we could trust umpires (and match ref if necessary ?) to decide when to waive the rules in the service of common sense. Any chance the ICC might consider a change , I wonder ?

It's just a total nonsense all this light stuff - just a small small dose of common sense would make everything much better. How about in a test match in September, starting the game before half the day is pretty much over?
11am starts are nonsense this late in the season, start at 10:30 for christ sake.

And umps, as soon as it gets a bit dark, stop looking for the first excuse to go and have your dinner for the evening - it was ludicrous how early they went off on Saturday, it was clear skies and floodlights hadn't even begun to take effect!

I hadn't realised quite how good a start to his test career that Robinson has had; 51 wickets in 11 matches at under 20. Strike rate and economy are also very very good.