creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

[Prufrock]

Finally a bit of patience being shown here by...

*Checks notes*

Buttler and Stokes?!

[BWFC_Insane]

Finally a bit of patience being shown here by...

*Checks notes*

Buttler and Stokes?!

Aye, someone had to do it. I suspect Buttler is probably one of our best batsmen now. The middle order is fine, IF we can find a top 4 that aren't useless and let them come in when we are better than 100-4.

That is the trick though. Buttler and Stokes coming in first innings with 260 ish on the board and tired bowlers would be a thing.

[Prufrock]

We need a top 3 at least. Root sacrificing himself to bat higher. He averages over 50 at 4 (and over 70 at 5! That might be due to playing there before he forgot how to convert, though)

That said it's probably a problem with the nature of the game now. White ball cricket and today pitches means everyone is a middle order batsman these days. And it isn't just us.

[Prufrock]

[BWFC_Insane]

Across both innings Jos Buttler has made 145 runs.

Across both innings England's top 5 (I include Bairstow as he is number 5 but batted later second innings) made 149.

So a number 7, yes that is right a NUMBER 7, has across two innings scored 4 less runs than England's entire top 5. Says it all.

In this calendar year only 3 England players have made a century at test level, Bairstow, Woakes and Buttler.

So our top 4 haven't had a century between them this year.

[TANGODANCER]

Across both innings Jos Buttler has made 145 runs.

Across both innings England's top 5 (I include Bairstow as he is number 5 but batted later second innings) made 149.

So a number 7, yes that is right a NUMBER 7, has across two innings scored 4 less runs than England's entire top 5. Says it all.

In this calendar year only 3 England players have made a century at test level, Bairstow, Woakes and Buttler.

So our top 4 haven't had a century between them this year.

Cor, how absolutely negative can you be? Are you talking the first four batsmen in? You know, those that face the brunt of a new ball and the cream of the opposition bowlers? Those who do their best to score and wear the bowlers down a bit? Not the best place to be but somebody has to do it. They beat us by 200+ runs, last test we beat them by that and an innings. We lost but are still 2-1 ahead. You talk like we're the Dog and Duck Sunday afternoon league. We lost a match, nobody died. Get a grip.

[BWFC_Insane]

Across both innings Jos Buttler has made 145 runs.

Across both innings England's top 5 (I include Bairstow as he is number 5 but batted later second innings) made 149.

So a number 7, yes that is right a NUMBER 7, has across two innings scored 4 less runs than England's entire top 5. Says it all.

In this calendar year only 3 England players have made a century at test level, Bairstow, Woakes and Buttler.

So our top 4 haven't had a century between them this year.

Cor, how absolutely negative can you be? Are you talking the first four batsmen in? You know, those that face the brunt of a new ball and the cream of the opposition bowlers? Those who do their best to score and wear the bowlers down a bit? Not the best place to be but somebody has to do it. They beat us by 200+ runs, last test we beat them by that and an innings. We lost but are still 2-1 ahead. You talk like we're the Dog and Duck Sunday afternoon league. We lost a match, nobody died. Get a grip.

I've demonstrated that our batting line up, you know the guys in there to make runs, have consistently failed since 2016. Not in one game. Not in one series. But consistent failure.

Their performance in this latest test was beyond abject. What is the point of picking specialist batsmen if they cannot make runs. Your analysis that they face the new ball so you can't expect any better than consistently 100-4 is hilarious. They are the people in the side to make runs to build the platforms for scores in excess of 300/350/400. Those are the scores you require in test cricket.

Our top order isn't making runs. What is the point of them then?

[jimbo]

It’s possible to support a team and be frustrated with their deficiencies at the same time. Whether our top order are out of form, whether they’re the wrong players to be there, or whether they’re the best of an extremely mediocre generation is open to debate.

Me? I worry they’re the best we’ve got, seeing as we’ve tried out pretty much everyone else. One of the problems with the explosion of t20 is that this generation are the first where that has been so prevalent growing up which undoubtably affects the way they bat in the longer form. We’re not the only country with the same problem. Batting line ups around the world look a bit flaky and for a while tests have been mostly landslide victories where teams seem unable to dig in and bat themselves back into a game.

[BWFC_Insane]

It’s possible to support a team and be frustrated with their deficiencies at the same time. Whether our top order are out of form, whether they’re the wrong players to be there, or whether they’re the best of an extremely mediocre generation is open to debate.

Me? I worry they’re the best we’ve got, seeing as we’ve tried out pretty much everyone else. One of the problems with the explosion of t20 is that this generation are the first where that has been so prevalent growing up which undoubtably affects the way they bat in the longer form. We’re not the only country with the same problem. Batting line ups around the world look a bit flaky and for a while tests have been mostly landslide victories where teams seem unable to dig in and bat themselves back into a game.

Indeed. I think if Jennings is the best opener we've got we might as well pack it in.

Pope being picked at 4 is another joke. Probably has something but isn't a test level number 4 by a million miles yet.

But the problem is that Cook has failed consistently. Root has struggled since the captaincy in his batting and cannot make hundreds whilst also not looking comfortable at 3.

We then have a slew of middle order players all suited to batting at 6/7 but someone has to bat 5 and 8.

Its a mess. I'm not convinced that it is a simple fix. My point has only been that this is not a good test side. Far from it. We've seen a great England test side this decade. But this current one is nowhere near. And has major, major problems. It'll win some tests because in the right conditions Jimmy is the best in the world. But it'll also lose some and it will never find consistency because as a core problem it cannot and will not bat.

[jimbo]

It’s a test side carried by a bowler picking up wickets at 14 apiece for the last 3 summers. That should be the foundation of a great side.

I worry too if Jennings is the best, but he was the stand out opener in championship cricket in the early summer. Now it’s Vince, Ian Bell and Moeen Ali scoring runs. We’re just cycling through the same old names which is why I wonder who else there is?

We essentially need a top 3. Root, bairstow, stokes, Buttler, Woakes is a great 4-8.

My feelings are that the T20 generation are generally more suited to batting at 6 or 7 where generally the need to graft and grind it out is a little less. In five years maybe everyone will be a 6 or 7!?

[TANGODANCER]

I've demonstrated that our batting line up, you know the guys in there to make runs, have consistently failed since 2016. Not in one game. Not in one series. But consistent failure. Their performance in this latest test was beyond abject. What is the point of picking specialist batsmen if they cannot make runs. Your analysis that they face the new ball so you can't expect any better than consistently 100-4 is hilarious. They are the people in the side to make runs to build the platforms for scores in excess of 300/350/400. Those are the scores you require in test cricket. Our top order isn't making runs. What is the point of them then?

Dear, dear. As ever, you read things wrongly , twist words to suit your arguments and totally behave as if the opposition don't exist. I said nothing of the sort (bold above) Last test it was England v One batsman (Kohli) and a good bowling attack; none of their other players scored worth a carrot. We won. This one, mainly due to their good bowling, a tricky wicket and our batsmen being human beings and not facts and figures, we lost. Swings and roundabouts. That's what sport's about. If one team won all the time, what would be the point of playing at all? You expect to win everything we compete in or you're off on a "bottlers, rubbish, not good enough, sack em off" rant!. I have to think you're clueless; your arguments make no sense. All very, "if I can't be captain and we don't win I'm taking my ball home".

[jimbo]

But we didn’t lose this test because of a one off poor performance from our batsmen. They have underperformed for 3 years - It’s just that sometimes Root or the lower middle order have dug us out of a hole. This time they didn’t.

Our 1, 2 and 4 have averaged about 25 for 3 years - that’s awful and needs looking at.

[BWFC_Insane]

I've demonstrated that our batting line up, you know the guys in there to make runs, have consistently failed since 2016. Not in one game. Not in one series. But consistent failure. Their performance in this latest test was beyond abject. What is the point of picking specialist batsmen if they cannot make runs. Your analysis that they face the new ball so you can't expect any better than consistently 100-4 is hilarious. They are the people in the side to make runs to build the platforms for scores in excess of 300/350/400. Those are the scores you require in test cricket. Our top order isn't making runs. What is the point of them then?

Dear, dear. As ever, you read things wrongly , twist words to suit your arguments and totally behave as if the opposition don't exist. I said nothing of the sort (bold above) Last test it was England v One batsman (Kohli) and a good bowling attack; none of their other players scored worth a carrot. We won. This one, mainly due to their good bowling, a tricky wicket and our batsmen being human beings and not facts and figures, we lost. Swings and roundabouts. That's what sport's about. If one team won all the time, what would be the point of playing at all? You expect to win everything we compete in or you're off on a "bottlers, rubbish, not good enough, sack em off" rant!. I have to think you're clueless; your arguments make no sense. All very, "if I can't be captain and we don't win I'm taking my ball home".

How can I make clearer what I'm saying? I'm not talking one off's. I'm talking over a considerable time period. Averages. Which gauge performance generally. And specifically as a batting unit. Not individuals. Your top 4 cannot consistently fail...

The Lords test you refer to. None of the top 4 reached 30. Our number 7 made 137. And they couldn't bat in the conditions.

Lets try it this way.....

Since 106 we've been 100-4 or worse in 50% of our innings. Our top order isn't making 150 the majority of the time. This isn't discussing a one off. A two off. Or even failure across one series. This is across 30 odd tests.

Lets look at the batting averages of our top 4 - Cook 45, Jennings 23, Root 51, Pope 18

India's top 4 - Dhawan 42, Rahul 37, Pujara 49, Kohli 54

Do you see a difference there?

Lets compare the averages in the past two years. Given that is the period I'm talking about.
Cook - 38, Jennings 23, Root 49, Pope 18

Dhawan - 45 , Rahul - 41 , Pujara - 51 , Kohli - 71

Please don't talk about "reducing players to numbers on a page". Batting averages are a direct measure of performance. Not a complete one. But certainly when 3 of your top 4 average below 40 in the past 2 years and 2 of them average below 30 - that is a massive sign of weakness.

[jimbo]

But then stoneman, Ballance, Vince, Hales, Jennings again, Lyth, Robson, Compton, Trott mark 2, carberry, Malan all average about 30 or below also. We’ve been through so many top order options but they’ve all been much of a muchness.

[Prufrock]

Tbf, India's players play half their tests on baked dust bowls racking up 600. Ours play half under clouds with it going round corners.

That and everyone's inability to play away is going to knock their averages. India's top order, Kohli aside have been pretty pants, and they're better than us.

[jimbo]

Yeah, hence my point about top orders being flaky all round the world. Recently there’s been far more blow out results. As soon as one team gets on top, the opposition batsmen tend to fold. The stats about the decline of draws are startling. There’s been hardly any good, close test matches in the last few years, and for me that’s the biggest threat to the game. No one wants to see a series of one sided contests. I genuinely think that short form cricket carries some responsibilty for it.

[TANGODANCER]

Please don't talk about "reducing players to numbers on a page". Batting averages are a direct measure of performance. Not a complete one. But certainly when 3 of your top 4 average below 40 in the past 2 years and 2 of them average below 30 - that is a massive sign of weakness.

Di I? Must have had a dementia attack, I don't remember that bit? Anyway, one day I'd like to nip round to your place and see your trophy cabinet; with your standards it must out-do Jimmy Anderson, Jeffrey Boycott, Ronaldo, Messi, Tiger Woods and Usain Bolt all put together.Bet it costs you a fortune in silver polish.

[Prufrock]

Yeah, hence my point about top orders being flaky all round the world. Recently there’s been far more blow out results. As soon as one team gets on top, the opposition batsmen tend to fold. The stats about the decline of draws are startling. There’s been hardly any good, close test matches in the last few years, and for me that’s the biggest threat to the game. No one wants to see a series of one sided contests. I genuinely think that short form cricket carries some responsibilty for it.

Aye, think we agree. I said earlier everyone is a middle order batsmen now. Once the newness of the ball has gone it's much easier to play the attacking white-ball shots they're all used to. Need a few with Cook's mentality (if not execution) to buy some time before Root gets in.

Damning to the rest of then that Butler and Stokes were able to knuckle down, but then they were both gone very quickly once the second new ball appeared.

Can't have helped India that they played one 3 day game over here in prep mind. Think that's another factor. Arguably that's also the short forms' fault too as there's no time for proper tours (/the time there is is spent belting it around).

[BWFC_Insane]

Tbf, India's players play half their tests on baked dust bowls racking up 600. Ours play half under clouds with it going round corners.

That and everyone's inability to play away is going to knock their averages. India's top order, Kohli aside have been pretty pants, and they're better than us.

How many would we make in India? Or in Australia on great batting pitches? Our problems are technique of our top order. It’s clear as day. Even Cook in the past few years gets out the same way every time.

[BWFC_Insane]

Please don't talk about "reducing players to numbers on a page". Batting averages are a direct measure of performance. Not a complete one. But certainly when 3 of your top 4 average below 40 in the past 2 years and 2 of them average below 30 - that is a massive sign of weakness.

Di I? Must have had a dementia attack, I don't remember that bit? Anyway, one day I'd like to nip round to your place and see your trophy cabinet; with your standards it must out-do Jimmy Anderson, Jeffrey Boycott, Ronaldo, Messi, Tiger Woods and Usain Bolt all put together.Bet it costs you a fortune in silver polish.

Why are you trying to shift the discussion.

Can you give me an answer to a simple question ‘Is our batting lineup a good test batting line up’.

That needs a yes or no. And then some data to justify either way. I’ve strongly argued no and provided a whole host of data to support that. What is your actual argument and what data are you using to support it?