England's Winter of Cricket 2022/23

First topic message reminder :

Of course we have the World T20 covered in a separate thread, but I thought we should have a new one for England's upcoming games this winter, which feature:

Three ODIs in Australia (17th-22nd November)
Three tests in Pakistan (1st-21st December)
Three ODIs in South Africa (27th January-1st February)
Two tests in New Zealand (16th-28th February)
Three ODIs in Bangladesh (March)

Looking forward to the tests, but I think the ODIs will be instantly forgettable!

Hmm. Both bats have come out swinging !

Tactical calculation or sign of desperation ?

Wood v Abrar... This might be lively ...

Four boundaries now for Abrar ! Brave cricket !

And only forty-five needed now. If England thought this was done , they might need to think again ...

Think this is the right choice for Pakistan. Trying to get 'em in singles would probably have been hopeless.

But the cameo is done now...Jimmy with the welcome wicket

Mahmood at ten. I believe Ali is a total ferret so this partnership is probably "it"

I confess I am missing that whisky...

alfie wrote:Mahmood at ten. I believe Ali is a total ferret so this partnership is probably "it"

I confess I am missing that whisky...

Another strong coffee for me at the end of this Wood over ....

Looks like Mahmood to block , Salman to swing now... Wood persisting with short balls.

Slip in a Yorker maybe ?

I would have given that lbw shout from Wood but concede bias and that it was probably only clipping. Annoying we only have one review left and thus can't sensibly use it when we think it's no better than umpire's call lest we end up with none left.

Yes ! Fast and straight ...Mahmood gone ...well bowled Mark Wood

Leach now ... chasing this last wicket...

Got it last week : slightly different situation today.

Salman staying stoically solid at the moment. Wood will keep giving it everything. Cat and Mouse time.

Think Wood could be done ? Salman hasn't given up...two good blows there

Robinson time...and there it is

Reviewed...but that's out !

England win

A good bowling change , one might say

Stokes can do no wrong...

Excellent Test Match

Well England don't do simple wins do they. Made it slightly harder for themselves than necessary through some slack batting but Pakistan always fighting to get back to par after their first innings collapse

Robinson on for Leach and wins it. Liked the decision to put him on at the number 11 instead of Leach.

Hard work - and harder than it should have been imo after giving up too many runs second dig, eh Duty? - but we finally got there. 

The knowledgeable Gower (something I agree with KP_f about) refers to 'the greater depth of England telling in the end'. Spot on.

Abrar my MotM. Rarely given these days to a member of the losing team but he fully deserves it.

All over. Pakistan did well to get so close. But as I said earlier there are some easy passages for the batters in a long run chase. But then things can get sticky.

How often have we seen sides seeming to make good progress towards a large 4th innings total but falling short, sometimes well short in the end?

England were indebted to their seamers, having misread the pitch and declining to play two spinners. Stokes did well with the bowling changes and had to handle the fact that Leach wasn't going to be the guy to bowl the Pakistanis out.

Bazball tactics were not really needed in the England second innings. They should have batted "normally" and then the target would have been something in excess of 400.

What a great victory and series win for England - really kept plugging away, and got the much deserved win. Fantastic from Mark Wood in particular

''Four overs of no consequence from Will Jacks'' - Gower. Damning but sadly true. Take a blow for the next match, Will.

guildfordbat wrote:''Four overs of no consequence from Will Jacks'' - Gower. Damning but sadly true. Take a blow for the next match, Will.

Give me some Rehan Ahmed in a dead rubber please Baz and Ben

I missed the period after lunch and up to the 9th wicket falling, probably a good thing as it looked like getting a bit squeaky when the 8th wicket partnership was going.  Very good effort to manufacture a win there, on a turning pitch with the front line spinner having a bit of a nightmare. The England cricket team lately seem to have that knack of just being on the right side of things, unlike the football team!

Harry Brook as PoTM. I'd have actually given it to Abrar , to be honest ...but I guess Brook had a fair case for it in the first match and missed out so maybe a bit of evening up ...

By the way , I don't agree altogether with Sir Fred that England just misread the pitch. They played to their own strengths - as the old West Indies teams used to do - and picked their best bowlers. Most of them are seamers. And in the end , it was those pace bowlers who won it.

Really fine achievement , winning a series in Pakistan . Another feather in the Stokes cap

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:''Four overs of no consequence from Will Jacks'' - Gower. Damning but sadly true. Take a blow for the next match, Will.

Give me some Rehan Ahmed in a dead rubber please Baz and Ben

Reckon there is a fair chance he plays , Olly. Might be some tired legs after these two games : and with the series won I'd be thinking Ahmed - and perhaps Overton - could benefit from a chance to test themselves , with one eye on the future. I'm never one to disrespect a Test match , or hand out free caps ; but these circumstances suggest some fresh bodies might actually be the best choice to try and make it a three win tour ?

I'll leave it to Baz and Ben to decide.

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:What a great victory and series win for England - really kept plugging away, and got the much deserved win. Fantastic from Mark Wood in particular

As well as Wood, a shout out too for Pope! No byes concerned in 100+ second dig overs and three catches.

Underrated nugget from Matt Roller - England have taken 10 wickets in 17 innings out of 17 since the BazBall revolution. Some effort that - especially on these decks in Pakistan.

alfie wrote:Harry Brook as PoTM. I'd have actually given it to Abrar , to be honest ...but I guess Brook had a fair case for it in the first match and missed out so maybe a bit of evening up ...

By the way , I don't agree altogether with Sir Fred that England just misread the pitch. They played to their own strengths - as the old West Indies teams used to do - and picked their best bowlers. Most of them are seamers.  And in the end , it was those pace bowlers who won it.

Really fine achievement , winning a series in Pakistan . Another feather in the Stokes cap

Yeah, as mentioned a bit earlier, Abrar was my call. Seems increasingly these days that you have to be a member of the winning side to pick up the individual award. Frankly, that's wrong. If Pakistan's last wicket pair had taken them to victory, then Abrar would almost certainly have got the award but that wouldn't have meant his and Brook's contribution to the match was any more or less.

JDizzle wrote:Underrated nugget from Matt Roller - England have taken 10 wickets in 17 innings out of 17 since the BazBall revolution. Some effort that - especially on these decks in Pakistan.

 And from you, JD.

Another stat. Joe Root is only the third player to score 10,000 Test runs and take 50 wickets.

One of the other two is quite easy to guess. The other maybe a little harder.

I've seen the answer to that so won't participate, though I will give a little clue that former England Test all rounders Mark Ealham and Ravi Bopara aren't either of them

VTR wrote:I've seen the answer to that so won't participate,  though I will give a little clue that former England Test all rounders Mark Ealham and Ravi Bopara aren't either of them

It’s Anthony McGrath then. Easy.

VTR wrote:I've seen the answer to that so won't participate,  though I will give a little clue that former England Test all rounders Mark Ealham and Ravi Bopara aren't either of them

Yeah, I also saw the answer earlier so too will keep shtum. All credit to Root for every wicket he's taken but I thought it was a bit of a manufactured stat given he's so very, very many behind the top wicket taker of the trio.

guildfordbat wrote:

alfie wrote:Harry Brook as PoTM. I'd have actually given it to Abrar , to be honest ...but I guess Brook had a fair case for it in the first match and missed out so maybe a bit of evening up ...

By the way , I don't agree altogether with Sir Fred that England just misread the pitch. They played to their own strengths - as the old West Indies teams used to do - and picked their best bowlers. Most of them are seamers.  And in the end , it was those pace bowlers who won it.

Really fine achievement , winning a series in Pakistan . Another feather in the Stokes cap

Yeah, as mentioned a bit earlier, Abrar was my call. Seems increasingly these days that you have to be a member of the winning side to pick up the individual award. Frankly, that's wrong. If Pakistan's last wicket pair had taken them to victory, then Abrar would almost certainly have got the award but that wouldn't have meant his and Brook's contribution to the match was any more or less.

Absolutely with you on that one - Abrar's first innings contribution was all that kept Pakistan even close to being in the game, and it's not on him that their first batting performance put them too far behind. Backed up with a decent effort second time up. For me, it's the equivalent of a batsman getting a big 100 and a 50 , which no-one managed, so as an individul performance he was the best on display.

sirfredperry wrote:Another stat. Joe Root is only the third player to score 10,000 Test runs and take 50 wickets.

One of the other two is quite easy to guess. The other maybe a little harder.

Easy one has to be Jacques Kallis

Second one Allan Border? - No, only 39 wickets

Quick Wikipedia check shows I had the wrong Aussie captain, who I'd almost forgotten was something of an all rounder when he started.

Slightly surprised to see that Sachin wasn't far off - took 46 test wickets and scored a few more than 10K runs.

In the end, the most likely end occurred.
Pak's talent was let down by their bad match planning, cluttered thinking and inability to equal Eng in winning critical moments.

Umpire Joe Wilson's handling of reviewed decision is plain incompetent. This guy has not gotten his head around what variables to be considered nor does he follow a clear process in his head when reviewing a referred decision.

That he will sometimes arrive at a correct decision will be a pure coincidence and not a result of his analysis.
Congratulations to Eng...they have now whats not a mean achievement...a series win in Pak and what could be a clean sweep still

dummy_half wrote:

sirfredperry wrote:Another stat. Joe Root is only the third player to score 10,000 Test runs and take 50 wickets.

One of the other two is quite easy to guess. The other maybe a little harder.

Easy one has to be Jacques Kallis

Second one Allan Border? - No, only 39 wickets

Quick Wikipedia check shows I had the wrong Aussie captain, who I'd almost forgotten was something of an all rounder when he started.

Slightly surprised to see that Sachin wasn't far off - took 46 test wickets and scored a few more than 10K runs.

Yes. I had actually wondered if Sachin had also got to fifty wickets. But the other one isn't hard to call.

Root the first spinner to reach this particular milestone

The Root thing has me thinking about all-rounder achievements in Test cricket.

Off the top of my head, I think there's only one guy who has made 5,000 runs and taken 400 wickets.

Apart from this player, I think no one has made 4,000 runs and taken 400 wickets, although Imran Khan and Sean Pollock were close.

Stuart Broad is among those who have chalked up 3,000 runs and taken 300 wickets. Those attempting to recall the others who have reached this landmark may be either surprised or stumped by one of the achievers.

Stokes, incidentally, is not far off reaching the double of 2,000 runs (he's miles past that of course) and 200 wickets.

sirfredperry wrote:The Root thing has me thinking about all-rounder achievements in Test cricket.

Off the top of my head, I think there's only one guy who has made 5,000 runs and taken 400 wickets.

Apart from this player, I think no one has made 4,000 runs and taken 400 wickets, although Imran Khan and Sean Pollock were close.

Stuart Broad is among those who have chalked up 3,000 runs and taken 300 wickets. Those attempting to recall the others who have reached this landmark may be either surprised or stumped by one of the achievers.

Stokes, incidentally, is not far off reaching the double of 2,000 runs (he's miles past that of course) and 200 wickets.

I would hazard a guess that an SK Warne would be one of them? Broad’s 169 ruined any chance of anyone getting near his run total with no century record!

Warne, certainly, is one of the 300/300 crowd, but he was not my "surprise" one.

Probably safe to say that Broad's runs stats would have been even more impressive but for that blow in the face years back.

sirfredperry wrote:The Root thing has me thinking about all-rounder achievements in Test cricket.

Off the top of my head, I think there's only one guy who has made 5,000 runs and taken 400 wickets.

Apart from this player, I think no one has made 4,000 runs and taken 400 wickets, although Imran Khan and Sean Pollock were close.

Stuart Broad is among those who have chalked up 3,000 runs and taken 300 wickets. Those attempting to recall the others who have reached this landmark may be either surprised or stumped by one of the achievers.

Stokes, incidentally, is not far off reaching the double of 2,000 runs (he's miles past that of course) and 200 wickets.

Chaminda Vaas is surprisingly in the 3000+ and 300+ club

there are 4 Indian spin bowling allrounders with some distinction
Jadeja is 2500+ and 242 and one can assume will get past 250+...and most likely 3000+ and 300+
Ashwin is nearly 3,000 and 400+
Bhajji and Kumble as I recollect did 2500+ and 400+

KP - Whoops. I'd forgotten Vaas, who used to chip in with some very useful runs. Jadeja has some excellent stats already.

But that still leaves my "mystery" 300/300 man.

I'll try Herath and Vettori

sirfredperry wrote:The Root thing has me thinking about all-rounder achievements in Test cricket.

Off the top of my head, I think there's only one guy who has made 5,000 runs and taken 400 wickets.

Apart from this player, I think no one has made 4,000 runs and taken 400 wickets, although Imran Khan and Sean Pollock were close.

Stuart Broad is among those who have chalked up 3,000 runs and taken 300 wickets. Those attempting to recall the others who have reached this landmark may be either surprised or stumped by one of the achievers.

Stokes, incidentally, is not far off reaching the double of 2,000 runs (he's miles past that of course) and 200 wickets.

Botham fell 17 wickets short of that. Wonder what he'd have done had his back not gone in the mid 80s, hugely reducing the effectiveness of his bowling.

VTR wrote:I'll try Herath and Vettori

Herath didn't get close to 3000 runs, but Vettori is definitely a player (like Shaun Pollock) whose stats show a far better player than maybe was perceived - 4500 runs at an average of 30 and 362 test wickets

sirfredperry wrote:KP - Whoops. I'd forgotten Vaas, who used to chip in with some very useful runs. Jadeja has some excellent stats already.

But that still leaves my "mystery" 300/300 man.

I'm not sure if he's your ''mystery'' man, Sir Fred, but what about Hadlee? Has he been mentioned yet?

Whilst having some respect for Hadlee's ability and continuing commitment to the NZ cause, I was never totally won over by him. Felt his own stats benefitted at times by having such ordinary Test team mates. Had he been born a West Indian, I'm not sure he would have been a regular in their side during their years of dominance which largely coincided with his career.

guildfordbat wrote:

sirfredperry wrote:KP - Whoops. I'd forgotten Vaas, who used to chip in with some very useful runs. Jadeja has some excellent stats already.

But that still leaves my "mystery" 300/300 man.

I'm not sure if he's your ''mystery'' man, Sir Fred, but what about Hadlee? Has he been mentioned yet?

Whilst having some respect for Hadlee's ability and continuing commitment to the NZ cause, I was never totally won over by him. Felt his own stats benefitted at times by having such ordinary Test team mates. Had he been born a West Indian, I'm not sure he would have been a regular in their side during their years of dominance which largely coincided with his career.

Going to have to disagree with you here GB - Hadlee's probably in the top 5 (Test match) seamers I've watched, having followed cricket since around 1980. Would put him just below Marshall and McGrath and on a level with the likes of Akram and Waqar. Always thought he was slightly generously considered an all rounder, as he was clearly a lesser batsman than his contemporaries Botham, Imran and Kapil.

dummy_half wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:

sirfredperry wrote:KP - Whoops. I'd forgotten Vaas, who used to chip in with some very useful runs. Jadeja has some excellent stats already.

But that still leaves my "mystery" 300/300 man.

I'm not sure if he's your ''mystery'' man, Sir Fred, but what about Hadlee? Has he been mentioned yet?

Whilst having some respect for Hadlee's ability and continuing commitment to the NZ cause, I was never totally won over by him. Felt his own stats benefitted at times by having such ordinary Test team mates. Had he been born a West Indian, I'm not sure he would have been a regular in their side during their years of dominance which largely coincided with his career.

Going to have to disagree with you here GB - Hadlee's probably in the top 5 (Test match) seamers I've watched, having followed cricket since around 1980. Would put him just below Marshall and McGrath and on a level with the likes of Akram and Waqar. Always thought he was slightly generously considered an all rounder, as he was clearly a lesser batsman than his contemporaries Botham, Imran and Kapil.

Hi dummy - as always with this sort of thing, very much a game of opinions. Agree with you about Hadlee being slightly generously considered an all rounder for the reason given. Fine bowler though Hadlee undoubtedly was, he  - as a bowler, not talking about all rounders - would for me be behind such West Indian speedsters of around his era as Marshall, Holding, Roberts, Garner, Ambrose and Walsh. Their strength being highlighted not just by the batsmen they rolled over but fellow West Indian fastmen who only occasionally got a game.

The mystery man I was thinking about was, indeed, Vettori, although I also overlooked Vaas.

Hadlee, for me, was a great player and his stats were even more impressive BECAUSE of playing in a comparatively weak team.

sirfredperry wrote:The mystery man I was thinking about was, indeed, Vettori, although I also overlooked Vaas.

Hadlee, for me, was a great player and his stats were even more impressive BECAUSE of playing in a comparatively weak team.

Hi Sir Fred - I kinda (down with the kids there!) get that. Credit to Hadlee for the wickets he took and sometimes keeping NZ in the game but I doubt whether he would have had the opportunity to bowl so much if he'd had better players around him.

I'm certainly not rubbishing Hadlee for a moment. Just believe there were some greater bowlers (from other countries, especially the West Indies) throughout his time.

Meeting up with a knowledgeable NZ cricket pal next week when he arrives from Auckland. I'll get his opinion and then post here, whether it supports me or not.

Re: Sir Richard Hadlee, its quite a fair observation that he was more of a bowling all-rounder at test level.
His image of being world class , one of big four I believe came from his  all-rounder show in English County cricket...with a few  super bumper seasons.
He played for Nottinghamshire and did what I recall was  called double of 1000 runs and 100 wickets in a season at least once or may be twice.

1980s the center of cricketing universe was England and its county contacts offered by the standards of those times good money,  prestige, recognition, press publicity and high quality cricket.
The big five were all playing for  counties by mid 80s....Clive Rice being the fifth who i believe played also for Notts..
Andd there were all-rounder single wicket competitions and fast bowling speed measuring competitions.
Hadlee participated in these and that added to his all-rounder image

Imran had agod like aura ...he was measured fastest, won the tournaments and with his dashing looks, celebrity women and socialites falling over him was the top among the big 5 on all counts....and his stats also tell the same story.
In my personal view the best all-rounder of all times.....ahead of Sobers.
Btw to make up the numbers Marshal, Jeremy Conny and Sarfaraz also participated in these single wicket all rounder tournaments

KP Fan - Your mention of Imran, who was seriously quick on his day, is a reminder of seeing him opening the bowling for Sussex at the fag-end of a, gloomy, day at The Oval.

I was surprised they had begun, considering the light. First ball of the Surrey innings, Imran came storming in and the next minute the ball was at the Vauxhall End. Four byes. I don't think anybody saw it. The umpires promptly took the players off.

sirfredperry wrote:KP Fan - Your mention of Imran, who was seriously quick on his day, is a reminder of seeing him opening the bowling for Sussex at the fag-end of a, gloomy, day at The Oval.

I was surprised they had begun, considering the light. First ball of the Surrey innings, Imran came storming in and the next minute the ball was at the Vauxhall End. Four byes. I don't think anybody saw it. The umpires promptly took the players off.

Mark Nicolas had written an article on Imran not too long back aptly titled When Imran blew me away
summing up the speed, the style and the aura of the man
https://www.thecricketmonthly.com/story/1224397/when-imran-khan-blew-me-away

Very nice piece re Imran.

Interesting discussion. A lot of very fine bowlers mentioned - and I am always a bit wary of trying to "rank" them... Different times , opposition , conditions... and their own careers all had their higher and lower points so I feel comparisons are never really absolute.

I would rate Hadlee higher than many on here , probably largely because of his excellent record against , and particularly in , Australia. Saw a fair bit of it live so sticks out more ... but the raw figures alone are outstanding. How many visiting fast bowlers average 17.83 in this country - from four tours , spread over 14 years ? To take one , random comparison : Michael Holding averaged 24 over a roughly similar spread...

Jimmy Anderson is a freak, exhibit 100:

https://twitter.com/ohlookitswill_/status/1602625907583229953?s=46&t=TBtvaP0Lj4o_OUhYK4WqjQ