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

Pope goes not long after surviving a hilarious drop. He's had a decent start to life as 3, but not outstanding. In Pakistan it will be a different test altogether!

England haven't really figured a way to play Rabada yet.

alfie wrote:Should be lively whatever happens !  Good to hear no rain about.

 
Hi Alfie - good forecast for Friday too although you'll find me slumming it again the other side of the river. 

Meanwhile, that was a big wicket for England to lose. Looked loose from Pope.

Hi Guildford... I imagine Surrey need your support with all the personnel they're missing to England and the Hundred

Pity Pope got out : he'd played well ; and after that second stroke of luck this morning I'd hoped he might go big.

At least the 150 is up !

Jack Leach (who apparently likes batting at Lord's) peppering the boundary to get the score up to 160 : more than they might have looked like making at one stage !

He and Broad make just four players with double figures so far : you don't get too many big scores with that happening.

Ball still doing plenty though it is now 43 overs old. That might be encouraging for England's bowlers.

VTR wrote:

JDizzle wrote:

VTR wrote:I'd add Stokes to that list, not that his place is under threat of course. Not sure what he's averaging this summer but it can't be much. It's been Root, Bairstow and Pope doing much of the work all summer

Actually nearly 49! He had a 75* in the run chase at Trent Bridge, plus one other 50. He has had a lot starts and avoided the really low scores of the others - I think some of the shots he has played to get out makes it feel like he should have scored a lot more.

Wow, that's a surprise. I suppose he had some not outs. There's definitely though been some low scores in there, at times when England were in real trouble. Probably more in the category of getting starts but not going on, than Crawley who would be lucky to get to 10 most of the time

I've got him averaging a shade under 40; 239 runs in seven innings with one not out.

Well earned five for Rabada sees it all done for 165... About what I expected given the overnight scores.

Obviously an inadequate total : but if England can bowl well and hold their catches it may be enough to keep them in the game. Conditions seem likely to assist the bowlers today so they need to make sure they use them.

SA may take a more cautious batting approach than England ? We will see how that works...

165ao. Only Pope granted the scorecard some respectability. A rare golden duck for Burnley's Brian Lara.

Richly deserved five for Rabada.

With Nortje only 29, and the oldest of the lot (with not much mileage in his legs because he is a VERY late bloomer), this pace quartet probably on potential could have been the best attack we've ever had, especially as unlike previous guises, in Maharaj and Harmer we have match-winning spinners. But with only 28 Tests in the next four years, I don't know if they'll have enough games to bear that out. Can't complain too much though when every single one of them opted to play in the IPL instead of the Bangladesh series

Soul Requiem wrote:

VTR wrote:

JDizzle wrote:

VTR wrote:I'd add Stokes to that list, not that his place is under threat of course. Not sure what he's averaging this summer but it can't be much. It's been Root, Bairstow and Pope doing much of the work all summer

Actually nearly 49! He had a 75* in the run chase at Trent Bridge, plus one other 50. He has had a lot starts and avoided the really low scores of the others - I think some of the shots he has played to get out makes it feel like he should have scored a lot more.

Wow, that's a surprise. I suppose he had some not outs. There's definitely though been some low scores in there, at times when England were in real trouble. Probably more in the category of getting starts but not going on, than Crawley who would be lucky to get to 10 most of the time

I've got him averaging a shade under 40; 239 runs in seven innings with one not out.

Yes! I meant 40, haha. Fat fingers - Proof reading has never been a strength of mine. Cheers for the correction Soul!

This has been pretty rubbish from Broad and Anderson so far.

Might be stating the obvious but Rabada is pretty handy! Genuinely looks like someone that was destined to be a fast bowler. He just looks like an athlete.

Not much to worry SA in the first six overs...but that fourth over from Anderson was excellent : both bats a bit fortunate to survive it. You do need some luck opening an innings against good bowlers.

Broad doesn't look quite right yet. Not playing at all for ages isn't the ideal preparation for a Test Match even if it does mean you are well rested.

Got one now though ! Or has he ? Reviewed immediately ...and Elgar survives both the caught and the lbw !

SA having the rub of the green so far...

Jeff Navarro wrote:Might be stating the obvious but Rabada is pretty handy! Genuinely looks like someone that was destined to be a fast bowler. He just looks like an athlete.

Rabada is a beautiful bowler to watch when in full flow, there's not much he can't do with the ball. He has a tendency when out of rhythm to be expensive but still picks up wickets.

Elgar riding his luck...Crawley can't hold on to that as he slices Potts over slips...

England desperate to get one of these before lunch but not quite happening ...yet. Have to forget about their own low total and just keep probing away.

Soul Requiem wrote:

Jeff Navarro wrote:Might be stating the obvious but Rabada is pretty handy! Genuinely looks like someone that was destined to be a fast bowler. He just looks like an athlete.

Rabada is a beautiful bowler to watch when in full flow, there's not much he can't do with the ball. He has a tendency when out of rhythm to be expensive but still picks up wickets.

He was excellent ! Clearly the injury issues he had coming into this Test have been settled with no adverse consequences .

That Crawley one really should be taken at this level imo

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:That Crawley one really should be taken at this level imo

Wasn't easy : went very quickly and an awkward angle . But those are the ones you need to grab when defending a small total.


SA survive to the interval and will be well pleased with that session.

Not been a good start with the ball. Lines and lengths inconsistent and it doesn't seem the English have got the new ball swinging as much as the South Africans...and if they have they're not putting it in the right areas.

This is quite frankly crap from Potts

Ball has moved around though - and beaten the bat quite often but just hasn't taken the edge - or those that have avoided the stumps or the slips hands...

Much better seeing day for the bats which makes a huge difference. But these two batsmen have done a sound job of defending the good balls and putting away anything loose : have certainly handled the bowling better than England did yesterday.

Looking good for SA at present. But it will be interesting to see what happens once one of these two get out : if they do , of course

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:This is quite frankly crap from Potts

Unusually high number of loose balls from him today: might be trying too hard ? Of course he should have had a wicket earlier but that's gone and he needs to get focused and stop leaking runs.

Time for Stokes I think.

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:This is quite frankly crap from Potts

We’ve got a seamer who struggles vs lefties and a spinner who struggles vs lefties. And a ball that goes dead very quickly. Could be a long two sessions

Runs have come rather too quickly since lunch. Whenever Jimmy isn't bowling the scoring rate tends to rattle along...

And not liking the look of that : Stokes hobbling after fielding that one.

But Anderson gets his man ! Bit unlucky for Elgar that rolled back onto the stumps - but he had some fortune earlier. And Jimmy had earned that.

Welcome break for England and not before time !

Like the look of this Erwee player, but his FC average is just below 40. Seems solid, though with a slight problem in kicking on to bigger scores when settled.

England's bowling is the same. Serving up too many boundary balls, only Anderson can bowl it dry, and the ball is now entering the old and useless phase, so this could be a long few hours for the home side. SA should put the lead past 200 from this foundation.

And now Broad's just missed a run-out chance. Think he should have got that one.

SA getting away here. Neither Broad nor Potts can exert any control ; and the half chances haven't been taken - as they miss a run out. SA going at close to four per over and just one down and it looks a long way back for England in this match.

No Leach yet and you wonder if they might have gone with another pace bowler instead... But I doubt it would have changed things too much. SA are in a comfortable spot at present and I think they play better when "in front" like this.

Going to need a BIG second innings from England , I think.

Ha ! Left the room for a few minutes and managed to miss the breakthrough...

Not too surprised Petersen got out : he never looked very secure - but still added useful runs. Potts will feel better now.

Anderson back : good move I think.

Pretty terrible shot by Peterson that to get out - no idea where the bat was coming down from! As Alfie said, he looked a little frantic throughout his brief stay.

Much needed wicket for England, but a long way behind in this one - think they'd need to keep SA below 300 to have any hope of overturning the inevitable first innings deficit to something defendable in the last dig

Well I won't write England off after 2 days, did that in most of the previous Tests this summer. Of course it will all be OK. South Africa will make 300, but Zak Crawley's run a ball double century and Jack Leach taking all ten wickets in the final innings will floor them

Time for Van der Dussen to get his first test ton.

Leach does for Markram - he's had issues against spin in his past, and that was a lazy shot really

Duty281 wrote:Time for Van der Dussen to get his first test ton.

He didn't last long thankfully! The Hope/Mitchell/Santner type must be lurking lower down the order

Is the size of the bat restricted? Jansen is obviously supersized but the bat looks comically small in his hands.

Yes, size and weight are limited. It does leave some bigger guys looking like they're batting with a toothpick

Good fightback from England. Stokes' aggression was excellent and it may be the best he's bowled all summer, but some worries he's bowled himself to the point of injury.

Just a question if England can bowl sensibly to the tail and wrap it up quickly, usually something beyond them. Maharaj is immediately getting short-stuff down the leg side.

don't understand why Leach has been taken off here

this is utter crap from england

VTR wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Time for Van der Dussen to get his first test ton.

He didn't last long thankfully! The Hope/Mitchell/Santner type must be lurking lower down the order

Looks like Jansen and Maharaj are the Mitchell and Blundell of this series.

Truly terrible, maybe it's karma though for that Jamie Overton innings

Six overs lost today due to slow over-rates.

England's performance in the field much the same. Too full (v the top order), too attacking and too many boundary balls served up. SA went at 3.7 today without ever throwing the bat, they just capitalised on rubbish balls, and that's with the added factor of the slow outfield which turned many 4s into 3s, 3s into 2s etc.

And then after the top order were knocked over, it was time for the long SA tail. Greeted with split fields, lots of short and leg-side bowling and the usual awfulness whenever England are confronted with the tail. Maharaj and Jansen (both test averages below 20) were able to add 72 in 12 overs and they didn't need to work hard for it.

We're all at a loss why England persist with this.

England well behind in the test. They'll need at least 400 in the third innings to have a realistic shot. They'll need to work a fifth miracle.

Not the fightback I was hoping for...

Confess I missed a lot of the last session : probably should have stayed asleep as by the time I re-surfaced Maharaj and Jansen were undoing the good work of the bowlers over the previous hour or so ! But can't say I am surprised that England persisted with a lot of short stuff to them as they have been very clear that they believe it is the best % method with an old ball. Just unfortunately it seems to fail all too often Suppose Stokes (for all he conceded runs at a gallop) did get a couple with his bouncers so win some / lose some. In truth the bowling to the tail part is where they most miss an extreme pace option - but not much can be done about that because they are all still in sick bay...

Over the day , I think it is fair to say the problem for England was that their potential wicket taking balls (and to be fair there were actually quite a lot) constantly just failed to take the edge - on another day it goes the other way ; while in between they served up far too many loose deliveries which SA were able to score off without risk. Perhaps a more steady "bore them out" method might have worked better on this occasion ; but we will never know. Since they have just won four Tests in a row probably a bit much to say they don't know what they are doing. I do think the fact that many of them haven't been playing red ball cricket for ages due to the weird domestic programme this year hasn't helped - but again not a lot they could do about it.

Can they come back ? Generally I'd say no ; but the last four games have made me wary of writing this team off. Will need to (a) wrap this up quick-smart with the new ball and (b) bat big second innings. Both possible ; but SA have the wind in their sails and will not make it easy. I hope for a contest as always but if it does continue to go downhill I hope people will keep things in perspective : no team - or player - can get it right every time. If they lose this - to a pretty handy opponent - it won't mean the last four wins were a fluke and we're back where we started. Just that Test Cricket is a tough gig and if you are even a little off your best you can get quickly hammered...

That is an unbelievable catch by Broad!

England persisting with this short ball stuff with the new ball and no Anderson or Broad.

Duty281 wrote:England persisting with this short ball stuff with the new ball and no Anderson or Broad.

Total nonsense

I'm going to say it; Ben Stokes' captaincy is utter garbage, somehow gone backwards from Root. He's been saved by some miraculous batting from Root and Bairstow, those chases were largely required due to abject bowling to the lower order.

I do not love these fields with a new ball. To a number ten. If I were one of the bowlers , I'd feel insulted.

Keep seeing analysts claiming this policy is best. Not convinced.

I'd love to see the actual analytics. I could believe Anderson/Broad etc average [insert low average here] with the short ball against tail-enders, but I'd bet cash money those wickets have come within the flow of an otherwise normal bowling strategy. No such thing as easy in international cricket, but 130kph bouncers are probably the easiest type of ball to face as a stock ball unless the bowler is Neil Wagner.

Hey look - pitch the ball up with the new ball, and it gets a nick - who would've thought it?

Ha. Jansen nicks a well pitched up ball shaping away and is caught at slip.

Fancy that

alfie wrote:Ha. Jansen nicks a well pitched up ball shaping away and is caught at slip.

Fancy that

I'm not sure that in the long term half volleys to set lower order batsmen will prove to be a more fruitful tactic, to be fair

kingraf wrote:I'd love to see the actual analytics. I could believe Anderson/Broad etc average [insert low average here] with the short ball against tail-enders, but I'd bet cash money those wickets have come within the flow of an otherwise normal bowling strategy. No such thing as easy in international cricket, but 130kph bouncers are probably the easiest type of ball to face as a stock ball unless the bowler is Neil Wagner.

Exactly. The essence of use of the short delivery is surely to keep the batsman uneasy...not knowing it is coming every ball. A judicious mix of different lengths from good bowlers , with a new ball , usually works against batsmen of , shall we say , lesser quality. No need to depart from normal procedure just because the last three are in...

But what do I know ? Someone gets paid to come up with these plans. I must be just old fashioned.