|
||||||||
International Cricket 2016 |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#4076 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: North London
Posts: 5,117
|
Quote:
There is no way that's a proper balance. If Borthwick is picked primarily for his batting you only have 4 specialist batsmen, it's madness. Bairstow is keeping so can't expect to bat too high.
There are wicket keepers that batted higher than 5. Take your point about the balance, though. |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#4077 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hull - UK City of Culture
Posts: 27,237
|
Its an interesting conundrum. Surely Jimmy and Stokes will return and Ball will go. But who else ? Finn could be useful at OT but if he is picked in place of a batsmen then we have 5 seamers and 1 less batsmen.
Personally I reckon the XI will be Cook Hales Root Vince Ballance Bairstow Stokes Woakes Rashid Broad Anderson |
|
|
|
|
#4078 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: exeter
Posts: 14,623
|
Quote:
It's just an opinion, not madness.
There are wicket keepers that batted higher than 5. Take your point about the balance, though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4079 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: North London
Posts: 5,117
|
Quote:
Yes maybe madness is an over-reaction, but it just doesn't seem a sensibly balanced team to me
![]() ![]() I think I was feeling a bit sorry for Ball. I think he did very well and would be better than Finn. He's tall and quick, and I think it would be a shame to drop him. I'm interested in the idea of balance in general when it comes to all-rounders, though. Does it matter too much if there are lots of all-rounders instead of pure batters? If they bat well, then they bat well, and they can be used primarily as batsmen, who can back up the bowling if necessary. |
|
|
|
|
|
#4080 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: exeter
Posts: 14,623
|
Quote:
Thanks
![]() I think I was feeling a bit sorry for Ball. I think he did very well and would be better than Finn. He's tall and quick, and I think it would be a shame to drop him. I'm interested in the idea of balance in general when it comes to all-rounders, though. Does it matter too much if there are lots of all-rounders instead of pure batters? If they bat well, then they bat well, and they can be used primarily as batsmen, who can back up the bowling if necessary. If we were to pick people on secondary abilities, I think I'd prefer catching ATM, all our tight losses over the last three years have had key dropped catches involved. |
|
|
|
|
|
#4081 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 21,762
|
Quote:
Its an interesting conundrum. Surely Jimmy and Stokes will return and Ball will go. But who else ? Finn could be useful at OT but if he is picked in place of a batsmen then we have 5 seamers and 1 less batsmen.
Personally I reckon the XI will be Cook Hales Root Vince Ballance Bairstow Stokes Woakes Rashid Broad Anderson
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4082 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hull - UK City of Culture
Posts: 27,237
|
Quote:
great minds think alike , those are the same changes i suggested earlier
![]()
|
|
|
|
|
#4083 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: North London
Posts: 5,117
|
If only Boycott's granny were available for selection...
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4084 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: exeter
Posts: 14,623
|
Quote:
great minds think alike , those are the same changes i suggested earlier
![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
#4085 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 7,776
|
6 matches is a small sample size though and got 48 in the first innings far better than the 30/3 start.
|
|
|
|
|
#4086 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: exeter
Posts: 14,623
|
Quote:
6 matches is a small sample size though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4087 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 7,776
|
Quote:
Well yes, but the other matches he averaged well over 50 aren't so why change it?
England more likely to win having a strong top order than a weak top order and a strong middle order. plus the lesser talented players are more likely to score from the older ball than facing the newer ball. with compton failing at 3, England don't really have option barring borthwick and if he fails chances are they would have to go back to root anyway. guessing they wanted Vince to get more than 4 test matches but with his technique he was never really going to score runs at 3 anyway so they probably thought moving Root to 3 was the best option in the long run. |
|
|
|
|
#4088 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 21,762
|
Quote:
Why do you both want Joe at no3 though, it just doesn't work.
what real difference does it make between 3 and 4 when you could be in within an over batting in either position ? its superstitious mumbo jumbo imo
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4089 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: exeter
Posts: 14,623
|
Quote:
Well for one England need a better start and it is better for England to have the best players bat in the top order rather than new or lesser talented players taking 2 spots in the top 3.
England more likely to win having a strong top order than a weak top order and a strong middle order. plus the lesser talented players are more likely to score from the older ball than facing the newer ball. |
|
|
|
|
|
#4090 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: exeter
Posts: 14,623
|
Quote:
i'm not as worried about where people bat as some
what real difference does it make between 3 and 4 when you could be in within an over batting in either position ? its superstitious mumbo jumbo imo ![]() Not superstitious at all when stats back it up, number 3 has long been considered a specialist position, sorry have I just made this up? Are you going to say openers are a superstitious position, too? After all they could be batting within an over or two of the middle-order. |
|
|
|
|
|
#4091 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 21,762
|
Quote:
Not superstitious at all when stats back it up, number 3 has long been considered a specialist position, sorry have I just made this up? Are you going to say openers are a superstitious position, too? After all they could be batting within an over or two of the middle-order.
i really dont see what difference there is other than superstition between batting #3 and #4 as in either position you could be coming into the game in the first over or the 50th over talent is what counts and in sport at that level they should be playing each ball on its merits anyway not thinking "oh no i am batting in the 3rd over where on average i usually wouldn't be batting til the 20th over so i am bound to fail today" root was developed as an opening batsman and was intended to play in that position for england, are you really trying to say a converted opening batsman cant cope with batting at #3 ? |
|
|
|
|
|
#4092 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: exeter
Posts: 14,623
|
Quote:
openers are obviously an exception given they are guaranteed to be in facing the new ball
i really dont see what difference there is other than superstition between batting #3 and #4 as in either position you could be coming into the game in the first over or the 50th over talent is what counts and in sport at that level they should be playing each ball on its merits anyway not thinking "oh no i am batting in the 3rd over where on average i usually wouldn't be batting til the 20th over so i am bound to fail today" root was developed as an opening batsman and was intended to play in that position for england, are you really trying to say he cant cope with batting at #3 ? He of course can cope with batting at 3, but at the moment he's scoring at almost double down the order, so there is absolutely no reason whatsoever, that I can see, not to bat him down., It's just stupidly counter-intuitive not to do so. |
|
|
|
|
|
#4093 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 21,762
|
just to add i just did a quick calculation of the average point he entered the game batting at #4 and it was in the 16th over and in almost half his innings batting at #4 he was at the crease within the first 10 overs
so he has still been facing the new ball even batting at #4, so what real difference should it make coming in at #3 ? |
|
|
|
|
|
#4094 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: exeter
Posts: 14,623
|
Quote:
just to add i just did a quick calculation of the average point he entered the game batting at #4 and it was in the 16th over and in almost half his innings batting at #4 he was at the crease within the first 10 overs
so he has still been facing the new ball even batting at #4, so what real difference should it make coming in at #3 ? |
|
|
|
|
|
#4095 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 21,762
|
Quote:
and yet he's still averaged less than half at 3, sport is mental more than physical at this level.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4096 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: exeter
Posts: 14,623
|
Quote:
which agrees with my point its superstition rather than anything technical or about the state of the game
![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
#4097 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 21,762
|
Quote:
Umm, if you are making any mental reason whatsoever, which is about 95% of any sport as superstition then yes you're right, well done and let's hope Joe bats at 3 again and scores half as what he would do, coz he doesn't believe in silly superstition, or basic mathematical stats either, YAY.
i just do not accept that the difference in what number he is on the scorecard should make such a difference by itself, and the sample size atm is far too small to make any real judgements whether its the right thing to do or not he is meant to be one of the best three test batsmen in the world, if he cant adapt to moving one spot in the batting order without seeing a massive difference in his weight of runs then there is something wrong edit : and btw 6 of those 10 innings he batted at #3 were back in 2013 away to australia on that terrible ashes tour, he is a far different player now than he was then |
|
|
|
|
|
#4098 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 12,252
|
Cook not happy about the Pakistan celebrations afterwards..
Might be somebody being bitter or trying to use them as motivation for the next test? |
|
|
|
|
|
#4099 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hull - UK City of Culture
Posts: 27,237
|
Quote:
Why do you both want Joe at no3 though, it just doesn't work.
|
|
|
|
|
#4100 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 4,402
|
Quote:
Cook not happy about the Pakistan celebrations afterwards..
Might be somebody being bitter or trying to use them as motivation for the next test? |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 16:22.




