creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

If you have a life outside of BWFC, then this is the place to tell us all about your toilet habits, and those bizarre fetishes.......

Moderator: Zulus Thousand of em

Post Reply
KeyserSoze
Dedicated
Dedicated
Posts: 1885
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 4:57 pm

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Post by KeyserSoze » Sat Mar 06, 2021 8:08 am

Vintage Bairstow this morning I see.
#Jesuispratley

Worthy4England
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 25207
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Post by Worthy4England » Sat Mar 06, 2021 9:25 am

As the commentator asked "What was he trying to do with that shot?" He can't have failed to notice a fielder there

BWFC_Insane
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 27902
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Post by BWFC_Insane » Sat Mar 06, 2021 9:56 am

England collapse. It’s bad when it happens so often (almost always) that you just expect it.

We need to make some decisions about some of these players because for me some are demonstrably not good enough. Are they the very best we’ve got?

Worthy4England
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 25207
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Post by Worthy4England » Sat Mar 06, 2021 10:25 am

BWFC_Insane wrote:
Sat Mar 06, 2021 9:56 am
England collapse. It’s bad when it happens so often (almost always) that you just expect it.

We need to make some decisions about some of these players because for me some are demonstrably not good enough. Are they the very best we’ve got?
I think that last sentence is key. Sure there was some turn in this pitch, but it wasn't a snake pit. The roll call for replacements doesn't look great, not sure there's a big list out there, if you take out all the ones that've been tried already.

Other thing I'd add. We've played against a very good side who have been dominant at home for some while now.

BWFC_Insane
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 27902
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Post by BWFC_Insane » Sun Mar 07, 2021 11:21 am

Worthy4England wrote:
Sat Mar 06, 2021 10:25 am
BWFC_Insane wrote:
Sat Mar 06, 2021 9:56 am
England collapse. It’s bad when it happens so often (almost always) that you just expect it.

We need to make some decisions about some of these players because for me some are demonstrably not good enough. Are they the very best we’ve got?
I think that last sentence is key. Sure there was some turn in this pitch, but it wasn't a snake pit. The roll call for replacements doesn't look great, not sure there's a big list out there, if you take out all the ones that've been tried already.

Other thing I'd add. We've played against a very good side who have been dominant at home for some while now.
Losing 3-1 is no disgrace at all. But the batting collapses are representative of wider issues. A collapse now and again is to be expected. Making 250 on a 350 pitch in India is to be expected. But we aren’t close to competitive totals other than test 1.

I mean we’ve got Buttler to come back in. Bairstow for me cannot play. Openers are problematic but not sure what the answer is there. Crawley needs to go lower down. Need to make a call for the next ashes on likes of Sibley, Pope, Lawrence - it’s a different challenge but the first two for me have pretty huge question marks over them and Lawrence obviously has just started. I do like Crawley in terms of how he plays and think there is probably a player there but maybe not one to win the ashes for you imminently.

Worthy4England
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 25207
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Post by Worthy4England » Sun Mar 07, 2021 12:48 pm

I think the England management team need to take a long hard look at themselves in amongst all of this - start at the top.

Bairstow, I think might have run his race, but there's a fair amount of that down to England management. He's not a number 3 test bat. He never has been, he's a number 7 bat. He was batting there and quite happily averaging 47 (2016-2018), when England moved him out of that slot to accommodate Buttler, who they didn't think could go in much higher. One of the openers out early and at No 3, he's facing new ball and fresh bowlers - not what he's used to at all. They pretty much had to give Buttler the gloves to justify his continued selection when after a reasonable period he was averaging low 20's. When we're comparing "averages", Buttler is behind Mitchell? (NZ) and Pant, Pant being around Bairstow's average that was - slightly higher - when England started tinkering. None of this is to deny Buttler's talent, but for this change, he's still behind where Bairstow was by an average of 12 runs per innings when the tinkering started, to accommodate him.

Ali too has been treated quite poorly, with the muddled selection of spinners. For an away series, in India, where we know spin will be a huge factor.

Crawley has showed some promise without necessarily the consistency, not convinced he's a test opener against the very best.

Openers - Burns and Sibley average nearly the same - both 30.x - but Sibley's never played against the Aussies (mind you neither has Burns over in Aus). Sibley's scores against the other 2 good teams - India and NZ - make very grim reading other than the 87 he made in the 1st test v India, but then again Burns only averaged 14 in 4 innings, in India.

All that said and acknowledging there are other question marks - the question still remains - who would we replace them with.

Worthy4England
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 25207
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Post by Worthy4England » Sun Mar 07, 2021 2:57 pm

Root batted opener, 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7..his best averaging position is 5 at 67...over 31 innings. He more often bats at 4, averaging 52.

Stokes has opened and batted in every position from 3-11 his best is 5 at 45 over 30+ innings but he's batted more often at 6, averaging 37.

Buttler has batted opener, 5, 6, 7 and 8. His best average is at 6 at 51, he most often bats at 7 where he averages 31.

Bairstow has batted from 3-8. His best is 7 at 39 and that's where he's batted most.

Lawrence has already been used at 3, 5 and 7, his best is 7 @ 42, but that's where he's batted least.

Pope's batted from 4-7, most often at 6, he averages slightly better at 5 with 37

Crawley has batted opener, 3, 4 and 6. He's got his best average at 3 (82), as an opener where he's batted most, he averages 20. 3 of his 4 innings at 3 have netted around 20 as an average, he just managed to hit 267 v Pakistan which makes this average really high.

Foakes bats 7 or 8, he's better at 7 where he averages 45.

For openers, Denly who we all said wasn't good enough averages slightly higher than both Sibley and Burns (albeit not by much). Jennings is mid-20's.

In summary, we have lots of batsmen 5, 6,7. purely on "best average", Root would be 5, Buttler 6 and Lawrence 7. But then Stokes doesn't fit and he clearly needs to.

We have major problems at 1-4, although to accommodate Stokes, Root averaging 52 at 4 rather than 67 at 5, might make some sense, but it feels like we're 3 or 4 top quality, top order batsmen missing...

BWFC_Insane
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 27902
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Post by BWFC_Insane » Sun Mar 07, 2021 3:16 pm

Agree with much of that on the management there worthy. Huge mistakes been made. I’m not sure all of it is purely down to moving people down or up though. Bairstow simply developed a better white ball game than red ball and forgot how to play test match cricket. So much of his previous technique has become muddled. Now chasing everything with hard hands. Playing inappropriate shots.

Buttler the complete reverse. He was a squarely white ball player who has found a way through hard work over time to become a test level wicket keeper batsman - at least the batting part.

I also think the batting order and success is a function of the overall team. Playing at number 7 when you often have 300 on the board already is different to what a number 7 might do when frequently they come in during a collapse.

Agree the top order is a fundamental huge issue - I don’t think we have what I’d call a single test quality opener to call on nor number three either. Crawley could make a good number three in time but equally might not.

Worthy4England
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 25207
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Post by Worthy4England » Sun Mar 07, 2021 5:04 pm

Part of the problem with the Buttler thing is that he's too sporadic for me. In our last 8 series, he's averaged 30 or under in 6 of them and the two he's done really well in have been against weaker opposition. Given his strength was supposed to be his batting rather than his keeping, he's not really got me convinced.

Enoch
Icon
Icon
Posts: 4269
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 7:08 pm
Location: The Garden of England.

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Post by Enoch » Wed Mar 10, 2021 7:04 pm

Worthy4England wrote:
Sun Mar 07, 2021 2:57 pm
Denly who we all said wasn't good enough
:shock:

Worthy4England
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 25207
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Post by Worthy4England » Thu Mar 11, 2021 8:07 am

Enoch wrote:
Wed Mar 10, 2021 7:04 pm
Worthy4England wrote:
Sun Mar 07, 2021 2:57 pm
Denly who we all said wasn't good enough
:shock:
Nearly all... :-)

BWFC_Insane
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 27902
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Post by BWFC_Insane » Thu Mar 11, 2021 11:47 am

Worthy4England wrote:
Sun Mar 07, 2021 5:04 pm
Part of the problem with the Buttler thing is that he's too sporadic for me. In our last 8 series, he's averaged 30 or under in 6 of them and the two he's done really well in have been against weaker opposition. Given his strength was supposed to be his batting rather than his keeping, he's not really got me convinced.
On Buttler I know we disagree and I guess its relative to what you expect and compare him to. I think he's technically very very good. But of course he struggled initially and I guess still will have a weakness against consistent line and length fast bowling of the sort Australia are capable of for example. But I think as a number 7 wicket keeper batsman he's more than good enough - especially the Buttler of the last year or so. Also to be noted that he likely would have played spin in India better than most in the actual side did so there is that. But he's by no means ever going to be a consistent average 45-50 player and never ever the answer to our top order. Also think Foakes is a good player and better keeper but Buttler to me potentially with the bat is more versatile and could play a role now to either attack or rebuild and is good enough to come in and do either as the situation dictates. Which for me is quite powerful an option.

But really whether you play Buttler or Foakes the problems start above. Bairstow to me is the polar opposite of Buttler in that his test game has gone South as his white ball improves. Buttler has undoubtedly recognised his weakness in red ball stuff and at least tried to overcome it. But Bairstow now seemingly plays the same regardless....he used to be a better test player but seems he can stop being bottom hand dominated.

Worthy4England
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 25207
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Post by Worthy4England » Thu Mar 11, 2021 2:58 pm

Not sure we disagree - just the extent of his current performances and ability. :-) He's a decent pick as WK/Bat, maybe the best we currently have. But you were comparing our batting line up to those of the best. Buttler was picked for his batting (because at the time, Bairstow was keeping) - so, for me, you have to count him as a batter who can keep, rather than a keeper who can bat. On that front, whilst improving, he's probably still behind Pant's recent performances and Watlings' lengthy career stats and ahead of Tim Paine, who also has the captaincy to think about. It's just another area where we're not quite up to muster of the current best in the world...

I think Buttler's average in two test series against the Aussies (neither of which were in Aus) is around 20 from 10 innings. in fairness he improved from the first series to the second (from 15 to 25)...But it's just another batting position where I think we might struggle in Aus.

jimbo
Passionate
Passionate
Posts: 2754
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 9:34 am

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Post by jimbo » Thu Mar 11, 2021 4:52 pm

I don’t think it can be argued that our batting is really weak. We can shuffle players around all we want but at the end of the day you can’t find a winning formula if they just aren’t good enough. It used to be that averaging 40 was the benchmark for success in an England shirt. That’s now slipped to 30, and too many of our players are viewed as having a good day when they score 60. India won because they had Sharma, Gill, pujara, Kohli, Rahane, Pant, and to a lesser extent Ashwin who are all capable of going big when needed. Chances are a couple of them will get scores and dig them out of trouble whereas we won 3 games when Root scored 180+ and lost 3 when he didn’t.

Worthy4England
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 25207
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Post by Worthy4England » Thu Mar 11, 2021 5:31 pm

About sums it up, Jimbo, but there doesn't seem to be a big list of possible "replacements" who could come in and average 40+...and to compete in world test comp, a couple who will.push 60+

Worthy4England
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 25207
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Post by Worthy4England » Fri Mar 26, 2021 5:58 pm

Good ODI win today. Excellent innings from Stokes - 99 in 52 balls and Bairstow 124 in 112 balls. Chasing 337, passed the total with best part of 7 overs to spare....

User avatar
TANGODANCER
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 38968
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 9:35 pm
Location: Between the Regency and the Rubaiyat and forever trying to light penny candles from stars.

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Post by TANGODANCER » Fri Mar 26, 2021 7:10 pm

Worthy4England wrote:
Fri Mar 26, 2021 5:58 pm
Good ODI win today. Excellent innings from Stokes - 99 in 52 balls and Bairstow 124 in 112 balls. Chasing 337, passed the total with best part of 7 overs to spare....
Splendid stuff. Cricket is as unpredictable as anything else.
Si Deus pro nobis, quis contra nos?

BWFC_Insane
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 27902
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Post by BWFC_Insane » Sat Mar 27, 2021 2:10 pm

Worthy4England wrote:
Fri Mar 26, 2021 5:58 pm
Good ODI win today. Excellent innings from Stokes - 99 in 52 balls and Bairstow 124 in 112 balls. Chasing 337, passed the total with best part of 7 overs to spare....
Should’ve won the first one too. When you think our entire first choice bowling attack wasn’t playing, Archer, Wood, Woakes it’s fairly phenomenal. World champions for a reason.

User avatar
TANGODANCER
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 38968
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 9:35 pm
Location: Between the Regency and the Rubaiyat and forever trying to light penny candles from stars.

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Post by TANGODANCER » Sun Mar 28, 2021 1:04 pm

India 329 all out. That's the target as we bat...Come on.... :oyea:
Si Deus pro nobis, quis contra nos?

BWFC_Insane
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 27902
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Post by BWFC_Insane » Sun Mar 28, 2021 2:07 pm

Openers gone cheaply which is the only way India have a chance I reckon. Tough chase now for England and a middle order that haven’t batted much. And ball skidding on a bit.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 36 guests