England's Summer of Cricket 2024

First topic message reminder :

Sri Lanka: 1 Dimuth Karunaratne, 2 Nishan Madushka, 3 Pathum Nissanka, 4 Angelo Mathews, 5 Dinesh Chandimal, 6 Dhananjaya de Silva (capt), 7 Kamindu Mendis, 8 Milan Rathnayake, 9 Prabath Jayasuriya, 10 Asitha Fernando, 11 Lahiru Kumara

Sri Lanka have confirmed their team. Unsurprisingly, V Fernando has been dropped after a lacklustre first game. He has been replaced by Kumara, not Rajitha. Kusal Mendis has also been replaced at 3, with Nissanka coming in to replace him. It will be Nissanka's first test in two years. His FC average is 60, but his test average is fractionally below 40.

Expected to be a very good batting wicket, and the weather is excellent for the first four days, but Monday has some rain around if we get that far. Sri Lanka have never won a test at Lord's, but they've managed to draw the last five.

A strange series win really. Felt like quite a few England players didn't really turn up, but didn't matter due to woeful top order batting from Sri Lanka. I suppose the bowling unit has generally functioned well, with wickets shared around.

After Root missed out as MotM I wondered who else has been hardly done by in this respect.

One that springs to mind is Bob Willis who had to concede to Ian Botham at Leeds in 1981 despite his match-winning bowling.

In the next match Brearley reckoned John Emburey could have got it despite it again going to Botham for his 5 for one to finish off the Aussies.

No doubt there are many other examples. Can't remember what happened to the other recent (since 1990) instances of England batters getting twin hundreds. Did any of them miss out like Root?

I think Strauss may have scored two hundreds and still lost a Test match!

VTR wrote:I think Strauss may have scored two hundreds and still lost a Test match!

Yes in India in 2008 (?) when they chased down 397 only 4 down - Sehwag won MoTM.

The next one after that was Bairstow in 2022, in that India game at Edgbaston.

Yeah that was 2008, so for the instances since Gooch, and yes or no to POTM and who it was if no

Gooch 1990 vs India,  yes
Stewart 1994 vs Windies, yes
Vaughan 2004 vs Windies, no (Ashley Giles!!)
Trescothick 2004 vs Windies, no (Flintoff)
Strauss 2008 vs India, no (Sehwag)
Bairstow 2022 vs India, yes
Root 2024 vs Sri Lanka, no (Atkinson)

So quite surprising, from Gooch onwards there's more that weren't than were. Have to say as well, I have absolutely no recollection of those Trescothick twin hundreds

Should add as well, they were all wins apart from the Stauss defeat as per Olly's message

On a different subject, have I lost the plot on this Pope stuff - he averages over 40 since the move to 3, in the literal last series against West Indies he averaged 60 (with a hundred and two fifties). Yes some poor dismissals in this series, and generally maybe hasn't quite lived up to the initial hype his FC stats suggest...but he's absolutely fine, and done a lot better than most our recent number 3s.

Pope's averaging 30 in the last 18 months, if we exclude the Ireland game (which I do because Ireland are barely test standard).

He's on a run of five innings without reaching 20, and he's delivered 7 single digit innings this year. It's something like three centuries in his last 41 innings.

It might be the case that he's the best England have got at 3, but he's definitely a weak link, absolutely hopeless against spin, and his last dismissal indicated a frazzled mind.

The top three is very hit and miss overall. A lot depends on Root and Brook, and hopefully Smith will continue his good start against stronger opposition. The India series next summer is going to be a big step up in terms of bowling strength from what England have faced this summer...and probably what they'll face this winter, with Pakistan looking dreadful and NZ going through difficult upheaval.

VTR wrote:Yeah that was 2008, so for the instances since Gooch, and yes or no to POTM and who it was if no

Gooch 1990 vs India,  yes
Stewart 1994 vs Windies, yes
Vaughan 2004 vs Windies, no (Ashley Giles!!)
Trescothick 2004 vs Windies, no (Flintoff)
Strauss 2008 vs India, no (Sehwag)
Bairstow 2022 vs India, yes
Root 2024 vs Sri Lanka, no (Atkinson)

So quite surprising, from Gooch onwards there's more that weren't than were. Have to say as well, I have absolutely no recollection of those Trescothick twin hundreds

Should add as well, they were all wins apart from the Stauss defeat as per Olly's message

That is rather surprising. I was actually intending to come on and list those handful of recent doubles - and had thought Root might have been the only one (apart from Strauss in a losing cause) to miss the PoTM : couldn't have been more wrong Nice to see the bowlers getting rewarded though...

As to Pope : I do think he is getting a bit of extra flak because of being the stand-in captain. As Olly says , his form against West Indies was good ; and although he is certainly inconsistent it is a little early to be calling for his head... he could do with some runs at The Oval though.

My main concern about Pope is that I have serious fears about his prospects in Australia next year : but that would probably be the case about any other number three they might put up !

The batting has been rescued by the middle order a lot lately (not that this is a new thing for England !) and the Indian tourists will indeed test it further - probably more so than Pakistan or NZ if we see flat pitches. Will be interesting to see how Smith fares against tougher opposition : he has had a wonderful start ; but one should note that , while applauding his current average of 50 : Foakes averaged 70 after his first three Tests , Buttler 60 after four... doesn't always last. Really want to see a fit Stokes back in there but still not in a rush to push Brook up to three , even if I suspect he may end up there eventually.

It is a bit amusing that Pope's getting more scrutiny on his batting due to the captaincy. I actually think his captaincy has been solid enough. Though I'm very much in the camp of thinking skippers have less on field influence than is sometimes made out these days. There's just so many others win input now. It's not like Brearley's days when the skipper was practically a coach, selector, analyst and baby sitter all at once.

His record against India and Oz being so poor likely doesn't help the scepticism. Nor does how he plays spin. That stupendous century at Hyderabad is very much an outlier. His footwork to spin is usually still as poor. Almost the opposite of Root being decisive in playing as early or late as possible. His struggles to rotate the strike to good spinner is obviously a problem. I also feel that sides are targeting him a bit more with the short ball now. In addition to him being a bowled candidate early doors when he overbalances. It's a growing list of plans to get him our. The seamers will continue to bowl full and straight early. If he gets through 30 balls, then try to get a spinner on at one end and bump him from the other.

I still think that Stokes at 3 is an interesting option that England should consider. I also understand the argument that he's very good batting with the tail. He's generally at his best against the short ball and pace though, which is well suited to the top order. It would then mean that England need to find a number 6, rather than a number 3. Which is a much easier spot to allow a batter to find their feet. Be that Pope lower down or someone such as Jordan Cox. I think Jamie Smith looking so good also removes some of that need to have Stokes at 6 in order to marshal the tail. They've now got Root, Brook and Smith in the middle order who can do that.

One thing I wouldn't do is move Brook up. I think he's perfectly suited to number 5. I'd keep him there just the same as SA did with AB de Villiers.

The selectors do clearly rate Bohannon. Who is of course a number 3 by trade. He was made skipper for the Lions tour in an XI that had two Test caps opening in Jennings and Lees.

Given Pope's F-C record is fluffed up so well by runs at The Oval, it would be very characteristic if he reeled off a big ton in T3 to relieve some pressure!

Duty281 wrote:Pope's averaging 30 in the last 18 months, if we exclude the Ireland game (which I do because Ireland are barely test standard).

He's on a run of five innings without reaching 20, and he's delivered 7 single digit innings this year. It's something like three centuries in his last 41 innings.

It might be the case that he's the best England have got at 3, but he's definitely a weak link, absolutely hopeless against spin, and his last dismissal indicated a frazzled mind.

The top three is very hit and miss overall. A lot depends on Root and Brook, and hopefully Smith will continue his good start against stronger opposition. The India series next summer is going to be a big step up in terms of bowling strength from what England have faced this summer...and probably what they'll face this winter, with Pakistan looking dreadful and NZ going through difficult upheaval.

Ah the classic "if we ignore the runs he scored against some teams, limit the timeframe to just about when it cuts off some runs he did score, he's not scoring many runs!" argument.

alfie wrote:As to Pope : I do think he is getting a bit of extra flak because of being the stand-in captain. As Olly says , his form against West Indies was good ; and although he is certainly inconsistent it is a little early to be calling for his head... he could do with some runs at The Oval though.

My main concern about Pope is that I have serious fears about his prospects in Australia next year : but that would probably be the case about any other number three they might put up !

The batting has been rescued by the middle order a lot lately (not that this is a new thing for England !) and the Indian tourists will indeed test it further - probably more so than Pakistan or NZ if we see flat pitches. Will be interesting to see how Smith fares against tougher opposition : he has had a wonderful start ; but one should note that , while applauding his current average of 50 : Foakes averaged 70 after his first three Tests , Buttler 60 after four... doesn't always last. Really want to see a fit Stokes back in there but still not in a rush to push Brook up to three , even if I suspect he may end up there eventually.

Just on Stokes/Crawley - see reports today from Tim Wigmore that both are expected to be fit for the Pakistan tour. Whether Stokes is ok to bowl still to be determined.

If Stokes is fit to play but not bowl in Pakistan, might that feasibly put more pressure on Pope?

They will want 5 bowling options on those dead Pakistan pitches. They haven't been willing to go in without 5 bowling options at home in this series! If Stokes plays as a batter, then Pope is surely the next to miss out in order for them to balance the side? On the '22 Pakistan tour, they had Stokes still bowling after all.

1.Crawley 2.Duckett 3.Stokes 4.Root 5.Brook 6.Smith 7.Woakes 8.Atkinson 9.Wood/Stone 10.Leach 11.Bashir

Surely in those conditions they'll want 3 seamers for rotation and the two spinners? Which lends itself to something more like that.

I share everyone's scepticism at Woakes overseas it should be said. If they need a bowler who can bat at 7 to balance the side then the options are very low on the ground though. Carse made a ton in his last CC game but his bowling returns have been poor since returning from that ban. Rehan is still so young and learning to convert his abundant talent into consistent results. Surran seems completely out the picture in Tests, plus his bowling would hardly suit the conditions.

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Pope's averaging 30 in the last 18 months, if we exclude the Ireland game (which I do because Ireland are barely test standard).

He's on a run of five innings without reaching 20, and he's delivered 7 single digit innings this year. It's something like three centuries in his last 41 innings.

It might be the case that he's the best England have got at 3, but he's definitely a weak link, absolutely hopeless against spin, and his last dismissal indicated a frazzled mind.

The top three is very hit and miss overall. A lot depends on Root and Brook, and hopefully Smith will continue his good start against stronger opposition. The India series next summer is going to be a big step up in terms of bowling strength from what England have faced this summer...and probably what they'll face this winter, with Pakistan looking dreadful and NZ going through difficult upheaval.

Ah the classic "if we ignore the runs he scored against some teams, limit the timeframe to just about when it cuts off some runs he did score, he's not scoring many runs!" argument.

It is a relevant thing to mention when we're talking about his place in the side today. His record against India and Australia is shocking both home and away. His numbers at three are boosted by that century against Ireland. He's capable of some brilliant innings but his shortcomings are there for all to see. As KC has already stated, his playing of spin is not up to test standard, he's a terrible starter and there are a growing list of technical issues.

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Pope's averaging 30 in the last 18 months, if we exclude the Ireland game (which I do because Ireland are barely test standard).

He's on a run of five innings without reaching 20, and he's delivered 7 single digit innings this year. It's something like three centuries in his last 41 innings.

It might be the case that he's the best England have got at 3, but he's definitely a weak link, absolutely hopeless against spin, and his last dismissal indicated a frazzled mind.

The top three is very hit and miss overall. A lot depends on Root and Brook, and hopefully Smith will continue his good start against stronger opposition. The India series next summer is going to be a big step up in terms of bowling strength from what England have faced this summer...and probably what they'll face this winter, with Pakistan looking dreadful and NZ going through difficult upheaval.

Ah the classic "if we ignore the runs he scored against some teams, limit the timeframe to just about when it cuts off some runs he did score, he's not scoring many runs!" argument.

I'm taking the last 18 months because we're discussing the pressure on him and that's related to his recent form, not how he did in the summer of 2022.

I'm ignoring Ireland because they're barely a test team. Pope probably gets tougher games in the County Championship than he did against Ireland.

Using the same criteria for everyone else, last 18 months and only against teams in the WTC, Pope averages the lowest of the established top seven. Duckett 35. Crawley 38.5. Root 62. Brook 50. Stokes 33.5. Smith 50 (very early days, obviously). Pope at 30.3. That's why there's growing pressure on Pope.

It's valid when England are building a team to try and win in Australia. Is Pope a viable #3 against the best seam attack in the world and Lyon behind them. Do accept viable options are thin on the ground however

king_carlos wrote:If Stokes is fit to play but not bowl in Pakistan, might that feasibly put more pressure on Pope?

They will want 5 bowling options on those dead Pakistan pitches. They haven't been willing to go in without 5 bowling options at home in this series! If Stokes plays as a batter, then Pope is surely the next to miss out in order for them to balance the side? On the '22 Pakistan tour, they had Stokes still bowling after all.

1.Crawley 2.Duckett 3.Stokes 4.Root 5.Brook 6.Smith 7.Woakes 8.Atkinson 9.Wood/Stone 10.Leach 11.Bashir

Surely in those conditions they'll want 3 seamers for rotation and the two spinners? Which lends itself to something more like that.

I share everyone's scepticism at Woakes overseas it should be said. If they need a bowler who can bat at 7 to balance the side then the options are very low on the ground though. Carse made a ton in his last CC game but his bowling returns have been poor since returning from that ban. Rehan is still so young and learning to convert his abundant talent into consistent results. Surran seems completely out the picture in Tests, plus his bowling would hardly suit the conditions.

I was thinking that England might go for that balance if Stokes can't bowl, because the idea that the South African style balance can work has been given legs by some good innings from Woakes and, especially, Atkinson. but I still think it's unlikely.

I'm starting to think Woakes will go on the Pakistan tour. He's very experienced, can be the attack leader, and offers a bit with the bat. It is personally an option I would stay a million miles from, however.

Whatever England pick, however, shouldn't make a great deal of difference. Pakistan are a shambles. They've only made 275+ once in four attempts on great batting wickets v Bangladesh's bowling, and are heading for ten home tests in a row without a win.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/articles/clygw7xxd1xo

McCullum as white ball coach as well then. Tres will still take the reigns for the Australia and Windies series. Then Baz will come in for the tour of India before the Champions Trophy.

He makes some sense for a rebuild. He's done it well with the Test side already and with Morgan gone, I do think Buttler will suit a louder voice alongside him. If McCullum weren't already Test coach then he'd have been an obvious candidate here. He was considered more of a white ball candidate then red ball one when Key gave him the Test gig afterall.

Then obvious concern is workload with combining the roles. If we are going to see less Test cricket, might that be less of an issue though compared to the Flower era for instance? 6 Tests this summer. 6 in the winter. 6 next summer. Then the Ashes.

I think it can be managed. Especially if he has a strong right hand man who could potentially lead on the day in some lower key white ball series, with McCullum still controlling selection, overall tactics, etc. That might allow McCullum the time to not end up being away from home for too much of the year. Which is eventually the death knell for many coaches. I believe Flower was spending 250-300 days a year away from his family in the end. That's difficult for anyone to maintain regardless of wage or prestige of a job.

Given it seems we may see some more convergence of our best Test and white ball players again, it may also make sense to have a singular voice getting that balance between the two? I think Duckett and Crawley could be very good ODI players. Brook and Smith should be stars in three formats. Atkinson looks like he could be an all format player. Likewise, Hull has the raw attributes to thrive in all three. Maybe Turner too.

If they are willing to be more flexible than other setups have been in the past then maybe it could work.

I saw an article conveniently timed a few days propping up the idea of this happening. I guess it must been inspired

I don't like it - just far far too much workload for one man to undertake himself, and if he's going to offload a bunch of white ball tours to an assistant, what is the point of being the coach anyways?

I really don't see many, if any, benefits to having someone cover both. Fear it could have a poor effect on the red ball team.

GSC wrote:I saw an article conveniently timed a few days propping up the idea of this happening. I guess it must been inspired

I saw the Shemilt article on the Beeb but felt it was more of a conjecture one when I read it. The BBC are usually behind the rumours if anything with ECB matters. Well, behind on publishing them anyway. Obviously the TMS team are very clued in. They are also very conservative with releasing much though.

I really like TMS radio as a light hearted entertainment show that's based around cricket. It's often overlooked that the ECB and TMS have a very, erm, cooperative relationship though. The ECB basically hands the BBC radio broadcast rights behind closed doors. The contract is extended quietly well ahead of it expiring and rumoured to be a generously cheap deal for the BBC. Which does beg the question, what are the ECB getting for this symbiotic relationship...?

Whilst I love the lighter hearted side of TMS and BBC cricket coverage, it must be said that they have mostly been extremely kind to the ECB when it comes to reporting on the damage the big three takeover has done to the game as a whole. The journalistic side can leave a lot to be desired given the BBC should be holding a body such as the ECB to rights. Agnew is a brilliant broadcaster for the lighter stuff that TMS does very well. I do wonder if the more casual England cricket fan might be better informed of the ill deeds our board has done to the game at large were a true journalist such as CMJ still at the helm there.

I tend to find that articles signposting something like this tend to come more from the likes of Will McPherson these days. Though it's completely possible that the ECB nudged Shemilt to right a fluff piece a couple of days early just to get the landing lights on early.

I think it makes sense as more of a Czar overseeing the whole operation. Think the day to day would be a bit much. Certainly scope for Trescothick or Flintoff to take control of the side, given our record of turning former players into coaches hasn't produced much yet

The Czar is meant to be Rob Key, though.

I think this is OK *if* McCullum can manage the workload. And my first instinct is that the workload is too much. There's plenty of good breaks between the test series, allowing McCullum to recharge and then focus his energies on preparation, squad selection, research etc. for future test series.

Now those break periods are going to be filled with limited overs games, and he's going to have to do the same preparation/squad selection/research etc. for two more formats of the game. And there's an ICC Trophy every year. And there's a lot more travel and time away from home - e.g. the winter of 2025/2026, England's test side only goes to Australia. But the limited overs side is also going to NZ, Sri Lanka and India in that winter.

2027 is going to be manic, because England play the Ashes in the summer and the ODI World Cup just a couple of months after. So, McCullum will be preparing for both frantically, and the mental toll that bad results could take is exacerbated. The risk of burnout is very high.

I think, overall, I'm against the move. It's certainly going to shorten McCullum's lifespan as England's head coach of the test team. And it's the test team I mostly care about. Despite Shemilt believing that McCullum is probably the best thing to happen to English cricket in two decades, a laughable claim, the test team still hasn't improved from when McCullum took over, and there's big pressure on to deliver a positive result against India next summer, and at least do something halfway credible in Australia, and I wouldn't want McCullum distracted from those tasks because he's also thinking about the T20 World Cup in 2026 and the ODI World Cup in 2027, or even what the squad should be for the ODI trip to NZ that happens in between.

I think it will lead to a greater harmony between the red ball and white ball teams. I think Crawley and Duckett will get more prominent roles with the white ball units as a result. It'll be interesting to see if McCullum wants to develop a greater synchronicity between the bowlers in both red ball and white ball as well, which is something that England haven't really done for nearly ten years, but is something that the likes of Australia still do.

Hull in for Potts for the next Test. Quite an attacking line up, only really Woakes that can "bowl dry" in that line up. England clearly not going all out for the 3-0 and having a look at a prospect, unless Potts is injured?

Hull in for Potts is a reasonable change, an added point of difference in the attack at least. Potts felt a bit surplus to requirements in that bowling line up, having a look at a tall left armer makes much more sense.

Makes sense to pick Hull and have a look at him. I was disappointed England didn't take a chance on Pennington in the previous series after naming him in the squad.

Might not bode well for Potts that he's been dropped after two tests where he didn't really do much to establish himself, and so he might not feature in the winter tests.

Left arm pace bowlers are pretty damn rare for England in tests. I think only S Curran and Sidebottom in this century? So it'll be a novelty at least. Atkinson, Stone and now Hull means that Sri Lanka will probably be scoring quickly!

Alan Mullally played a Test in January 2000, so just about makes it. Before that you're into the likes of Mike Smith, a one cap and wicketless wonder

Edit, never trust Wikipedia, Mullally also terrorised the Aussie batting line up at Headingley in 2001. For some reason people remember Mark Butcher more

VTR wrote:Alan Mullally played a Test in January 2000, so just about makes it. Before that you're into the likes of Mike Smith, a one cap and wicketless wonder

Edit, never trust Wikipedia, Mullally also terrorised the Aussie batting line up at Headingley in 2001. For some reason people remember Mark Butcher more

I'd rather not remember that Smith test; think the Aussies were four down for not a lot when Thorpe dropped Matty Elliott (went on to score 199) off of Smith. 58 no balls in that match which seems like a lot.

Yeah that was it, would have been 50-5, instead Elliott and Ponting put on over 250. Final innings score was over 500. It was 1-1 going into that match, though the Aussies were starting to dominate the series

Duty281 wrote:Makes sense to pick Hull and have a look at him. I was disappointed England didn't take a chance on Pennington in the previous series after naming him in the squad.

Might not bode well for Potts that he's been dropped after two tests where he didn't really do much to establish himself, and so he might not feature in the winter tests.

Left arm pace bowlers are pretty damn rare for England in tests. I think only S Curran and Sidebottom in this century? So it'll be a novelty at least. Atkinson, Stone and now Hull means that Sri Lanka will probably be scoring quickly!

Potts looks to me like a capable backup, who if England need him too, can come in for a test or two and put in a good shift and not disgrace himself. Clearly put some effort in to get strong, and improve his batting...so maybe he can continue to grow as a bowler too...but at this point, I think he's a reserve.

Expect Hull will be very raw and erratic, but from what I have read from interviews of his coaches, he's a quick learner and "very coachable". Hopefully he can show some glimpses of what potential they see in him! As you say, makes sense to have a look.

Chance for England to win all their home tests in a summer for the first time since, I think, 2004?

Yes, first chance for a perfect summer since 2004. England got close in 2010 and 2022, falling a test short both times.

Yeah, Potts looks like a capably Andy Bichel style seamer who will step in and do a good job but likely doesn't have the tools to be first choice in a strong attack. A really useful squad option though. His record in F-C cricket is very good and he's largely done well in Tests thus far.

I'm happy to see Hull given the go. It's a gamble, no doubt, but there's so much potential. I don't think England have ever had a left-arm seamer with his sort of release point in Tests. Topley in white ball cricket of course, but not Tests. Mullally was tall but like many English seamers in the 90s he collapsed through the crease and didn't brace his front leg fully. Mullally was very much an older fashioned swing bowler, a good one too. Hull is a different sort of bowler with a more modern action though. He's taller than Mullally anyway, but uses every bit of that height with the braced front leg.

Hull also has that delayed/lagging bowling arm after front foot impact. His chest driving forwards before the bowling arm, then the bowling arm being the last thing to pull through as late as possible after his front foot lands. Which is such a mainstay in modern fast bowling coaching to create the catapult effect. Mitch Starc is one of the clearest actions to see that skill. Delaying the bowling arm as much as possible whilst the chest and hips drive forward creates the separation between the front hip and rear shoulder (i.e. the bowling arm) that modern coaches love. That gets as big a stretch as possible in the upper body, the theory being that gets the catapult effect which gives extra pace.

Hull is very much the modern day bowler with his very high release point and that action. Being a left-armer when England generally produce so few is just another exciting facet. He's very raw and his debut might not go to plan, but I like that England are looking at someone who offers different threats.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/article/2024/sep/05/jos-buttler-calf-injury-rules-him-out-england-t20i-series-australia-cricket

Buttler's problematic calf injury is still troubling him, and he'll be out of the T20 series v Australia (Salt will be captain) and is also a doubt for the ODI series that follows (Brook might be captain).

Buttler hasn't played competitive cricket for just over two months and this has been a recurring issue for him. Hopefully it doesn't spell the beginning of the end, but at the age of 34 you start to wonder.

Saw this and found it interesting, basically matches players won in which they scored a century.

Ponting- 30 from 41
Waugh- 25 from 32
Root- 23 from 34
Hayden- 23 from 30
Bradman- 23 from 29
Kallis- 22 from 45

No Tendulkar, Lara or Sangakkara in the top six which is a surprise, less surprising not to see Chanderpaul.

See there are reports that England's tour to Pakistan...might not actually happen in Pakistan, due to renovations of venues. Chance it might have to be played in UAE or Sri Lanka.

Not that as it stands we could even watch it over here anyways.

What a shambles

Soul Requiem wrote:Saw this and found it interesting, basically matches players won in which they scored a century.

Ponting- 30 from 41
Waugh- 25 from 32
Root- 23 from 34
Hayden- 23 from 30
Bradman- 23 from 29
Kallis- 22 from 45

No Tendulkar, Lara or Sangakkara in the top six which is a surprise, less surprising not to see Chanderpaul.

Chanderpaul was in some poorer sides towards the end. Lara was there at the beginning of the Windies falloff but they did also start producing some very flat wickets at times. Maybe a higher draw percentage there?

Tendulkar played in a period of insanely flat home pitches in India. I'd guess that must just be high draw percentage as well.

Sanga is a surprising one given the sheer number of tons he scored and playing with Murali. The Noughties were a fantastic era to be a batter generally as well. Lots of flat pitches. I'd be surprised if his draw percentage at home was higher though. Sri Lanka pitches turn sharply and Murali was obviously lethal. Off topic, but I consider Prassana Jayawardene one of the best keepers I've seen due to that combo!

I've not got time to look up the numbers myself just now as I'm on a short break. I might do over the weekend though. It's an interesting one.

Another really fun stat is 'only century in an innings' and 'only century for your team in a win'. Ponting is one of my favourite cricketers for instance, but when you combine the Australian sides he played in, good home batting conditions, good batting conditions generally in the Noughties and the old Kookaburra being useless to bowl with, I'd guess quite a few of those centuries in wins may have been in innings where others tonned up too. Especially at home.

Lanka has replaced their spinner with the other Fernando & brought back Kusala Mendis.
Looks like a seam friendly pitch.
Hope they can put up a fight like T1

king_carlos wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:Saw this and found it interesting, basically matches players won in which they scored a century.

Ponting- 30 from 41
Waugh- 25 from 32
Root- 23 from 34
Hayden- 23 from 30
Bradman- 23 from 29
Kallis- 22 from 45

No Tendulkar, Lara or Sangakkara in the top six which is a surprise, less surprising not to see Chanderpaul.

Chanderpaul was in some poorer sides towards the end. Lara was there at the beginning of the Windies falloff but they did also start producing some very flat wickets at times. Maybe a higher draw percentage there?

Tendulkar played in a period of insanely flat home pitches in India. I'd guess that must just be high draw percentage as well.

Sanga is a surprising one given the sheer number of tons he scored and playing with Murali. The Noughties were a fantastic era to be a batter generally as well. Lots of flat pitches. I'd be surprised if his draw percentage at home was higher though. Sri Lanka pitches turn sharply and Murali was obviously lethal. Off topic, but I consider Prassana Jayawardene one of the best keepers I've seen due to that combo!

I've not got time to look up the numbers myself just now as I'm on a short break. I might do over the weekend though. It's an interesting one.

Another really fun stat is 'only century in an innings' and 'only century for your team in a win'. Ponting is one of my favourite cricketers for instance, but when you combine the Australian sides he played in, good home batting conditions, good batting conditions generally in the Noughties and the old Kookaburra being useless to bowl with, I'd guess quite a few of those centuries in wins may have been in innings where others tonned up too. Especially at home.

Tendulkar- 51 centuries, 21 draws, 11 losses, 19 wins
Dravid- 36 centuries- 17 draws, 4 losses, 15 wins
Chanderpaul- 30 centuries- 10 draws, 9 losses, 11 wins
Sangakkara- 38 centuries- 14 draws, 5 losses, 19 wins (Didn't lose a home test match in which he scored a century)

Soul Requiem wrote:

king_carlos wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:Saw this and found it interesting, basically matches players won in which they scored a century.

Ponting- 30 from 41
Waugh- 25 from 32
Root- 23 from 34
Hayden- 23 from 30
Bradman- 23 from 29
Kallis- 22 from 45

No Tendulkar, Lara or Sangakkara in the top six which is a surprise, less surprising not to see Chanderpaul.

Chanderpaul was in some poorer sides towards the end. Lara was there at the beginning of the Windies falloff but they did also start producing some very flat wickets at times. Maybe a higher draw percentage there?

Tendulkar played in a period of insanely flat home pitches in India. I'd guess that must just be high draw percentage as well.

Sanga is a surprising one given the sheer number of tons he scored and playing with Murali. The Noughties were a fantastic era to be a batter generally as well. Lots of flat pitches. I'd be surprised if his draw percentage at home was higher though. Sri Lanka pitches turn sharply and Murali was obviously lethal. Off topic, but I consider Prassana Jayawardene one of the best keepers I've seen due to that combo!

I've not got time to look up the numbers myself just now as I'm on a short break. I might do over the weekend though. It's an interesting one.

Another really fun stat is 'only century in an innings' and 'only century for your team in a win'. Ponting is one of my favourite cricketers for instance, but when you combine the Australian sides he played in, good home batting conditions, good batting conditions generally in the Noughties and the old Kookaburra being useless to bowl with, I'd guess quite a few of those centuries in wins may have been in innings where others tonned up too. Especially at home.

Tendulkar- 51 centuries, 21 draws, 11 losses, 19 wins
Dravid- 36 centuries- 17 draws, 4 losses, 15 wins
Chanderpaul- 30 centuries- 10 draws, 9 losses, 11 wins

Thanks, Soul. Interesting.

Dravid's loss percentage there is crazy low but a lot of draws too. A surprising number of losses for the little master. I guess that India were really struggling for seamers for most his career though. Zaheer was a marvellous bowler but frequently lacking support. India's recent seamer stocks are a new thing, not least driven by Kohli to be fair to him.

The first half of Ishant's Test career was approaching being a meme it was so bad! Then he got the wobble ball and pushed his length a metre up the pitch, as so many seamers did after hawkeye and analysis showed that seamers were bowling too short. The tech showed they needed to be fuller, then the wobble ball facilitated it as they didn't need it swinging to bowl so full without getting driven. Then bowling averages for seamers absolutely plummeted for a while.

Chanderpaul's is about what you'd expect given that Windies were falling away so drastically whilst he kept churning out runs through the malaise.

The popular stat recently is that away Test wins are at about the same percentage, just that draws have largely disappeared and been replaced by home wins. Hence it being so difficult to win series away from home now. So there's certainly that to factor into these stats.

KP_fan wrote:Lanka has replaced their spinner with the other Fernando & brought back Kusala Mendis.
Looks like a seam friendly pitch.
Hope they can put up a fight like T1

Interesting selection. They dropped both Kusal Mendis and V Fernando for the second test, but now they've brought them back, indicating a scrambled selection policy. I would have liked to have seen Rajitha get a go. Madushka has been dropped for this one, which needed to happen, and Nissanka bumped up to open.

All seam is perhaps fair enough with The Oval not a spinning track and lots of cloud forecast.

Duty281 wrote:

KP_fan wrote:Lanka has replaced their spinner with the other Fernando & brought back Kusala Mendis.
Looks like a seam friendly pitch.
Hope they can put up a fight like T1

Interesting selection. They dropped both Kusal Mendis and V Fernando for the second test, but now they've brought them back, indicating a scrambled selection policy. I would have liked to have seen Rajitha get a go. Madushka has been dropped for this one, which needed to happen, and Nissanka bumped up to open.

All seam is perhaps fair enough with The Oval not a spinning track and lots of cloud forecast.

I think the root of imbalance was in Ratnayke never looking like a 3rd seamer but rather a 4th .
Seaming pitch gives them the option to balance the attack putting Fernando in.as 3rd  and Ratnayke as appropriately 4th with D Silva & Mendis more than part time spin.

Fernando being a left armer and Ratnayke's batting keeps Rajitha out.
This is one toss Lanka needs to win and bowl first, else they might be blown out of the test match by lunch time.
Eng cannot afford a slip if WTC spot is on their radar screen.

So a lot of emphasis on seam/pace from both sides... Weather a bit dodgy , I believe ?

Having difficulty in getting too excited about this one given the seeming inevitability of the result - unless Sri Lanka can find a way to put two really good days together. And the fact that England are seeing it primarily as a free trial for Hull , while a point of interest , suggests they are rather assuming more success coming their way.

As for Hull : I get the attraction ; though part of me (probably the old fashioned bit ) is just a little conflicted about awarding a cap to someone purely on what might be called "style points" rather than any actual accomplishments at the lower level. Can't deny it will be fascinating to see what he can do though !

England top three might fancy getting a few runs this time after a very thin couple of games... and I do hope Woakes and Atkinson don't find a sixth Test in a row too much as the last thing needed is an injury to any more of the first choice bowlers. Might see Root pass a couple more on the total run table ?

Sri Lanka win the toss and bowl first - England would have done the same.

Agree, would have liked to see Rajitha come in, not V Fernando. Been pretty surprised by some of Sri Lanka's selections this series.

Not raining then...but a bit of a bowlers' day ? I gather that this time no one is critical of Sri Lanka's choice to field first.
Three tosses in a row so Pope has another black mark on his captaincy skills as he is obviously lousy at coin flipping... Still as a mate of mine once said "nobody wants to be noted as a famous t*sser ..."

Might be a testing first hour for the short-of-runs top order.

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:Sri Lanka win the toss and bowl first - England would have done the same.

Agree, would have liked to see Rajitha come in, not V Fernando. Been pretty surprised by some of Sri Lanka's selections this series.

Fair point. V Fernando wasn't that threatening previously , was he ? Maybe better than Rathnayake but not sure having both of them to back up the main pair is a recipe for success. A Fernando has been very good though ; so if he could get better support...

Forecast for much of the test is heavy cloud, but not much actual rain expected.

Few of England's batting order with a point to prove. Duckett and Pope would like some runs. Lawrence, this could be his last test.

alfie wrote:Not raining then...but a bit of a bowlers' day ? I gather that this time no one is critical of Sri Lanka's choice to field first.
Three tosses in a row so Pope has another black mark on his captaincy skills as he is obviously lousy at coin flipping... Still as a mate of mine once said "nobody wants to be noted as a famous t*sser ..."

Might be a testing first hour for the short-of-runs top order.

Side note - I lost nine consecutive tosses this season just gone for our club side.

Dan Lawrence just isn't good enough for test cricket, is he

Lawrence didn't look confident at all , did he ? No surprise to see him get out with that indecisive attempt to play there... To be totally fair he really isn't an opener ; but I'm afraid this short series filling in for Crawley hasn't done his overall record any favours.

Duckett had a bit of luck early on but looks to be in the groove now. Which might help Pope settle on his home ground...

Considering the bowler friendly conditions, I make that England's hour. Pope seems to have started a bit more confidently than lately...aided by receiving (gratefully !) a few pies.