England's winter of cricket 2024/25

First topic message reminder :

The squad for the tour of Pakistan has just been announced...Stokes and Crawley are back, with Dan Lawrence dropped. There are also recalls for Rehan Ahmed and Jack Leach, with Brydon Carse getting a tour also.

Full squad (likely XI then others);

Zak Crawley
Ben Duckett
Ollie Pope
Joe Root
Harry Brook
Ben Stokes
Jamie Smith (wk)
Gus Atkinson
Olly Stone
Jack Leach
Shoaib Bashir

Reserves:
Jordan Cox
Brydon Carse
Rehan Ahmed
Chris Woakes
Josh Hull
Matthew Potts

Will MacPherson noting they see Tom Hartley as more suited for the true turning wickets of SL/India/Bangladesh, hence his omission. Tests likely to be played at Rawalpindi, Multan, Rawalpindi. (Two Pindi tests...fun).

Extra seamers suggest Stokes might not be fit to bowl?

WI 46/0 after 9. This one might be over.

king_carlos wrote:Absurdly weak batting in reality. Livi going from out the ODI squad, to captaining it after a good summer sums things up. It's the reality of the schedule rather than indicative of weak white ball batting talent or bad selection I think.

Even if we're as pessimistic as possible, saying: Root doesn't bother with ODIs again. Buttler remains injured. Stokes never returns - which is by far the most likely there. Then the below top 5 still looks pretty damn powerful with 2 of Bethell, Livi and Surran behind it at 6 and 7.

1.Salt 2.Duckett 3.Jacks 4.Brook 5.Smith

Even beyond them, I really think Crawley could be fantastic in ODIs. Two new balls that don't move much, flatter pitches and boundary restrictions. I could see Crawley being brilliant in the PP.

It not on the level of the top 6 that Morgan and Bayliss had of course. That was a freak collision of generational talents peaking at similar times though. That's still a group of batters that I could see doing very well though.

Cox is a talent too in fairness. I just don't think number 3 is his spot in ODIs. I think he'd suit 6 much better. Which is sort of the frustration with these depleted squads. England really need to find finishers at 6 and 7. Cox might be that. Bethell I think will be that. Instead, they're batting 3 and 4 though as the Test players need a rest. Meh. A meh series, with meh squads.

Bold text sums it up. Kind of unavoidable. One could quibble with some of the selections (not sure I am as convinced of the merits of some of the batsmen named above) but prepared to give them time and judge them better when the sample size is larger. No one really cares about the results of these random ODI series anyway. Just hope not too many bowlers get injured...

Duty281 wrote:WI 46/0 after 9. This one might be over.

This one was over when the teams were announced. Where does the tail start with this team? At 3??

Don't forget, J Overton didn't bowl, which indicates he was picked as a specialist bat...at 8!

A sign of the white ball decline - watching this England white ball team used to be appointment viewing, something I'd make sure I work my day around to watch. Didn't even realise we were playing yesterday until I checked BBC Sport before bed!

Only good news is Jofra talking about his body feeling good, and aiming to play test cricket again in the coming 12 months. Please injury gods, let us have one good thing

All three international teams are going downhill, but none more so than the ODI team, which has gone from the world's best to below average in such a short space of time.

England have gone back to the bad old days in ODIs, where they cobble together anything they can and don't take it seriously for the bilateral series, then hope it comes off for the World Cup with whatever they've got.

It's tough with the scheduling, but they need to ringfence a core group of around 18 players who can regularly play ODI cricket, build up in terms of experience and togetherness, and send that unit to the World Cup in 2027. That's even more important with no fifty over cricket in the domestic game for leading players.

You look at the starting XI for the 2019 World Cup final. 9 of that 11 played at least 50 ODIs in the bilateral series that existed between the 2015 and 2019 World Cups. The two that didn't were Wood (40, presumably injured at stages) and Archer (eligibility not met). That's how you build a cohesive, winning team, through consistency of selection. Nowadays, selection is a joke and a mess.

And these series do matter. Because winning is a habit. England won 10 of their last 11 ODI series going into the 2019 World Cup, putting together the winning mentality that got them over the line. Now it's just a directionless mess, with England heading for three series defeats in three since the debacle of the last World Cup.

Regression. It's all over the place. England need someone to firmly grip the rudder and also to sort the scheduling out. The best players need to be available for these ODI series and England need to build a cohesive, winning unit ahead of 2027. Or England can just keep putting out teams like yesterday and wonder why it's all gone wrong again in 2027.

Saw CI headline "HUGE Win for WI",
looked up the score card to see Eng posted 209....what super blast cricket WI might have played to get a HUGE win i thought...
& then surfing around a bit thru the scorecard it dawned, this was a 50 over game. 

These bilateral white ball games are for trying and filtering out absolute misfit new players and for fine tuning potential combinations
Wins & defeats don't count except CT & WorldCups

https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/wi-vs-eng-1st-odi-marcus-trescothick-defends-quality-of-english-white-ball-cricket-after-crushing-defeat-1458054

"Because for a long period of time now you've not had our main team in white ball games. You don't really know where white ball cricket is.

"I think with the system that we've had and the volume of cricket that we've been trying to play and still look after the players, I think you could put a team together tomorrow for a World Cup, and it would probably look different to what you had this series and some of the series that we played against Australia."

Trescothick nailing the issue, although he worryingly went on to say about how England need to try and bat 50 overs. While true, that's an expectation that is normally laid out for a non-test team taking on a test nation, and shows how much England are struggling.

A lot of the younger players coming through seem to have very little game intelligence. The number of carbon copy dismissals yesterday was concerning.

That would be because the players don't ever play 50 over cricket domestically anymore ...the time the one day cup is played they are all in the hundred so they are literally learning the job in international cricket it's ridiculous

England players didn't really play 50 overs domestically when we were good either.

To me it's a bit like what the test team started going through on the slope after winning in Aus and India. a generational group of players fell into decline, injury and/or poor form and the following group wasn't on the same level. Which given the history for the last few decades or so, is more the mean than the exception. Some probably hung around a bit too long based on prior records and achievements.

The scheduling ain't helping but I'm not sure England are sure what the group they need to ring fence is yet.

GSC wrote:England players didn't really play 50 overs domestically when we were good either.

Bairstow - 68
Buttler - 70
Roy - 95

Jacks - 22
Bethell - 16
Mousley - 9

That is non international List A games played - there is definitely a generational divide, even if Buttler et al were playing more 40 over stuff domestically. It is still better prep than nothing at all.

I think England could still cobble together a very good ODI side if they picked a group of 15/16 and had consistency in selection and played the number of ODIs they did between 15-19. But at the moment they aren’t playing it domestically, selection isn’t consistent and they aren’t playing enough internationally. It’s a perfect storm.

England may not know the group they want to ring fence - but that’s because they have no domestic form to pick from!

England aren't the only team without a serious List-A comp. In fact, they were arguably the last with the Pro40.

The Indian stars barely play list-A and they put out excellent ODI teams - can basically put out two of them in fact. The CSA One Day Cup has massive issues around consistency of quality due to so many teams. The NZ domestic white ball comps often make some of the weaker county games look like a CWC. Pakistan domestic cricket is a basket case. Sri Lanka have so many pro teams that it makes the CC look streamlined - it brings even worse issues with consistency than in SA or England.

The One Day Cup in Oz is the oddest one. The Test players will turn out in that more than you'd see them in List-A England. That's due to it usually being played just before their Test summer starts though. So they have a hit if needed. It's an odd type of cricket even then though. Marnus is captaining a QLD side just now that also has Khawaja and Renshaw in the top 4. Which sounds incredible as List-A now goes. Marnus is also bowling seam up as first change, with almost satirical field settings. It's safe to say that if you watch the One Day Cup when the big boys are playing, it looks like they are there for a warmup at times! Reading through top scorers and wicket takers from recent years it actually looks very similar to what the One Day Cup and ton an extent the Blast now is in England. Talents who have yet to make the franchise circuit. Good red ball players who can't get on the franchise circuit. Then former shining stars who fell off the franchise circuit. The Big Bash is very much their premier white ball comp, even that isn't as strong now. The big all format stars are playing the IPL, then rocking up for the marquee ICC comps. Cummins has played 26 List-A games in his career. Starc 21 - he was the best bowler in ODI cricket for a prolonged period. Even a white ball specialist in Zampa, who debuted in a different era in 2012, he's only played 45 List-A games.

England aren't the anomaly in domestic 50 over cricket not being a focus anymore. It's been dying on its a**e for a long time everywhere now. T20 is just a better product domestically. I actually think ODIs can be a brilliant atmosphere and underrated money spinner if better organised. It's long enough for a full day out, 100 overs, a result on the day. Families can get a lot of cricket for their money (depending on prices...). Young professionals can have a p**s up - which puts plenty of money into grounds. Broadcasters get their ad revenue. At international level, you should be able to fill a ground even if it's third favourite for many punters.

At domestic level though, you just can't get those crowds for List-A anymore. Domestic one day stuff also that tendency to meander glacially through the middle overs like a 90s ODI. Most sides don't have the bowling or batting depth, so you end up with part time finger spinners bowling arm balls to circumspect batters. It's a reason I loved the 40 over format at county level. I thought it mitigated that somewhat. T20 is just better at giving fans that shorter cricket fix at the domestic level.

Other countries are doing fine in that new status quo. White ball skills are largely honed in the stronger franchise comps, then the best players adjust to ODI cricket. Surely English players should be able to as well? We can't be the only place that needs a return to sold out One Day Cup finals, played in whites with a red ball, Dickie Bird umpiring and pitch invasions before the winning boundary reaches the rope!

I think the return of more Test players in our One Day comp is part of some new directive to keep them warm for the upcoming series v Pakistan which starts on Monday.

It also helps for the Test series starting on Nov 22 (if they don't pull up lame in the meantime) given that we still have a relatively higher proportion of international players representing all forms. That has been good to see, from my perspective, because I used to have concerns when our best players weren't representing their states as much as they could/should have been. Felt it was not a true reflection of the competition when so many star players were missing. However, on the flip side, it has allowed more talent to step up to the state level and achieve a level of performance they might have taken longer to get up to.

There is definitely less specialisation here (and in NZ) compared to England and India in particular and thus our players are carrying a heavier load playing across the multiple formats. Maybe we are just a little more cautious and conservative when it comes to team selections. However, by sticking to tried and trusted groups of players for as long as possible, there is also the danger when one or two call it a day at around the same time or someone gets injured and the whole house comes crashing down.

England are definitely more funky in their selections across all formats. Obviously due to the amount of possible contenders, you guys are forced to specialise more and give more players a crack at international level across all formats. I think Australia has been very lucky to have had the most success across all formats in toto (up until now) given the higher probability of an injury to one or two keys players might have and the affect that could have on the Test team. So, it has been a bit high risk but luckily also high reward. Still a bit of a worry though. We need to specialise a lot more than we do at present.

As for ODIs; I just feel privileged to have watched many of those greats ply their trade at perhaps the pinnacle of the white ball cricket revolution. Given it has been around for about 55 years and T20s for only around 20 - maybe the shine has come off 50 overs a bit - but I still enjoy watching it (even the boring middle overs... which can also still spring a surprise) and I guess that's because it's kind of embedded in our collective conscience here. We like to reminisce about the early pyjama cricket era in particular. However, it must be acknowledged that there were also some dreadfully lop-sided matches played before huge crowds and series victories in the WSC and B&H series were few and far between.

So I'd like to see the 50 over matches continue at both domestic and international level. Also love the T20. Can't watch the Hundred though.

Just heard only two Australians, Head and Cummins, have been contracted to the IPL for 2025 - so that makes it even easier to avoid. It's the wrong time zone anyway.

England win the toss and bowl first, with more rain anticipated at some point. Mahmood comes in for Overton which, on paper at least, weakens the batting. Shamar Joseph replaces Alzarri Joseph for the West Indies. It'll be Shamar's ODI debut.

England bamboozled Windies with their 9 bowling options used. Ian Austin said to be drafted in as head coach for the third ODI

Cox with a dreadful looking innings. Hope for better when it's the red ball stuff v NZ.

Salt was carrying the chase, but he's gone. Up to Bethell by the looks of it.

Livingstone's greatest ODI knock so far, his first century, is getting England over the line.

Curran with good support, but he went for 51.

Sets up a decider.

Why don't England bring Livingstone into the test match 11.
He is only 31

I have to give credit for that win after being critical of the selection. Any batting effort really would have to be built on what Salt or Livingstone can do, with some support from others. Positives are that Bethell does look like an international cricketer so far, and Turner has settled in fairly well. Though at the other end, Cox is being heavily backed but totally hapless in the 4 internationals he's now played

Haven't been able to see any of these games : can't say I am unduly bothered by this.

But good to see that English white ball cricket hasn't become total rubbish , despite the frenzied howling of the online moaners (Haven't looked on BBC yet : will be interesting to see reactions to the latest)

Seriously this tour is about trying out a few new faces (maybe too many at once ; but that is something on which opinions will differ) and hoping some of the more established but not exactly regular star performers can take on extra responsibility. Seems a bit of both happened in this second match so that's a plus , eh ? They may well get carved up again in the next match ; but that is short form cricket.

And pleasing to see Archer hasn't broken down yet...

Can certainly see the potential of Turner/Bethell and why both are picked. Turner I thought was more myth than reality...but looks quite handy.

Thought Bethell did ok in the late summer, probably more a batter who can sneak a couple of overs than a real bowling option at the moment though

Anderson's put himself in the IPL auction. A 42 year old wildcard who hasn't played a T20 since August 2014. It was so long ago, that Ian Bell and Andrew Flintoff were playing in the same fixture!

Any takers?

Duty281 wrote:Anderson's put himself in the IPL auction. A 42 year old wildcard who hasn't played a T20 since August 2014. It was so long ago, that Ian Bell and Andrew Flintoff were playing in the same fixture!

Any takers?

The moneyball move has to be picking him up as a player for f all, then having him effectively coach for less than you'd have paid him on the coaching staff...? Not that IPL franchises really need to worry about moneyball

Jokes aside, I could see a franchise picking him up for s**ts, giggles and advertising. Then him not playing a game or maybe featuring late on if they're already out of the running. A bit like Pujara in something like 2021 when he was bizarrely picked up by CSK and not used.

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:Can certainly see the potential of Turner/Bethell and why both are picked. Turner I thought was more myth than reality...but looks quite handy.

Turner impressed me. He reminds me of Hazlewood in a really good way. The height. Natural seam bowler. Good pace - he was actually a touch quicker than I expected from seeing him Hants last summer. He struggled to control his line to the lefties at times. That's hardly a huge issue for such an inexperienced seamer though.

I can see why his early career numbers in England are so good. He can probably bowl within himself but still be at about an ideal pace to utilise many county wickets. A lot of the seamers capable of fast-medium or quicker tend to step off a yard on greener pitches to maximise that movement I think. I can also see skills that could make him successful elsewhere with his height and the potential to bowl at the sharper end of fast-medium.

Bethell looks a great talent. I just wish he was batting at 6 or 7, rather than 4. We need to find finishers for those positions. I think Bethell could be that. I just wish he was batting there. The absence of most the best top order talent due to the schedule means he's way up the order though. I'd almost prefer Surran at 4, as I think batting higher up the order could suit him well. Then Bethell at 6, as it's closer to the role I'd wanting him competing for at full strength.

When Brook went on he Lions tour the winter before his tear for Yorkshire, I remember seeing his numbers and thinking, why? Then I saw him bat and went, oh, that's why. Bethell feels a bit similar. There's so much talent there. I'd bet on the numbers catching up. I still wouldn't have him as the reserve bat in NZ. That'd be Bohannon for me. I've no qualms with him being fast tracked into the white ball setup as they rebuild though.

The big event of the day coming up. West Indies v England in the third and deciding ODI. Topley and Overton come in for Mahmood and Turner. Shepherd and Alzarri Joseph replace Seales and Shamar Joseph.

West Indies win the toss and elect to field, which has been the successful formula through the series.

Jacks has been hopeless as an opener, and never really done much for England. Luckily for England we again have the specialist finisher all the way down at 8 i.e. the guy who will be out for less than 10 and not bowl

Thank goodness there's a specialist bat at 8 - 24/4!

263/8 in the end. Salt kept it together with 74, aided by a solid 40 from Curran and equally solid 57 from Mousley. Overton clubbed 32, but even more impressively Archer finally delivered with the bat for England - 38 off 17. Perhaps his best knock for England!

West Indies did come apart as Shepherd injured himself and had to be taken off. That meant Rutherford, who I don't think was ever intended to bowl, needed to cover 3.5 overs, and then it was compounded by, I think, the West Indian skipper getting the maths wrong, leaving Rutherford to bowl the 50th. In the end, 3.5-0-57-0. Ouch.

Two great catches in the innings as well.

That's a competitive score, but I think the West Indies are narrow favourites at half time. It is a slowish pitch, so taking pace off could be key, but it seems to be a good batting wicket other than that. Small boundaries as well.

Only following on text but it seems that this wasn't even a contest...and 263 was far from competitive. So a couple of modest batting contributions from the the new boys in these games but mainly just the more established players Livingstone Salt and Curran showing much with the bat. Bit underwhelming from a rebuilding viewpoint ?

Couple of things puzzle me a bit : Mousley is supposed to be an allrounder , is he not ? Yet he isn't used at all here , while all the bowlers that have been in action have been basically ineffective ? For that matter , Bethell's bowling use in these games could best be described as "token". Given this series is apparently being seen mainly as a learning stage for newcomers , I'd have thought it might have been a good idea to actually test them out properly in the roles for which they have been selected ?

I see Overton actually bowled in this match - and had a wicket ; but only four overs so presume he was being "managed". Good that he actually was able to start bowling at least.

Anyway , t20s yet to come so we may learn a bit more about the "next generation". Maybe.

Well it's a complete mess of course. As you point out, loads of all rounders picked but not really trying out their bowling. Most concerning things are how bad Cox looks so far, looking more like the new James Bracey than anything else. And also Archer hardly taking a wicket, the guy who is going to bowl us to Ashes victory in a year's time

I don't think it was too bad a score, but England bowled terribly from the start. West Indies scored 65 off the first ten and it was game over. England are also relying on Livingstone to bowl too much.

Three ODI series defeats in a row. That one to a team not in the top eight. Dark times.

Five T20s next!

alfie wrote:Only following on text but it seems that this wasn't even a contest...and 263 was far from competitive.  So a couple of modest batting contributions from the the new boys in these games but mainly just the more established players Livingstone Salt and Curran showing much with the bat.  Bit underwhelming from a rebuilding viewpoint ?

Couple of things puzzle me a bit : Mousley is supposed to be an allrounder , is he not ?  Yet he isn't used at all here , while all the bowlers that have been in action have been basically ineffective ? For that matter , Bethell's bowling use in these games could best be described as "token".  Given this series is apparently being seen mainly as a learning stage for newcomers , I'd have thought it might have been a good idea to actually test them out properly in the roles for which they have been selected ?

I see Overton actually bowled in this match - and had a wicket ; but only four overs so presume he was being "managed". Good that he actually was able to start bowling at least.

Anyway , t20s yet to come so we may learn a bit more about the "next generation".  Maybe.

This comes down to it being a T20 squad for some ODIs, in reality. It is literally the same squad for both. Mousley is an interesting death bowler after what he did in the Hundred. Overton is one of England's few lower order hitters with a very good SR - I'm sceptical of it transferring to better comps to be honest, but, his SR in T20s is impressive. Neither are really ODI options. They just have so many players absent that they picked a T20 squad for the ODIs.

The series was played as a thanks to the Windies for touring during covid. As Jason Holder said, these tours are a financial lifeline for Windies cricket. Ideally, after what the Windies did to get that tour on and keep the lights running during covid, I think the ECB owed them better than throwaway white ball games. It should've been a more serious tour with stronger sides. Fitting that into the schedule is a different matter though.

As a T20 side, it does look a bit better. It's not strong. There's just too many absentees. The players are at least in roles that make sense for the format though. Bethell a bit higher up the order makes sense in T20s. Overton as a hitter at 7 at least has logic to it, even if I doubt he'll come off against the best. Surran bats as high as 3 in the IPL - using him as more of a batter who bowls when conditions suit is reasonable. Mousley will presumably actually be used as a death option.

1.Salt 2.Jacks 3.Cox 4.Livi 5.Bethell 6.Curran 7.Overton 8.Mousley 9.Jof 10.Rashid 11.Mahmood/Turner/Topley

The white ball bowling has lacked standouts in all phases since the Morgan side declined. Jof is elite in all three phases - so rare. Woakes was elite in the PP. Dilly and Plunkett were elite in the middle. Wood bowled rockets with smart matchups. Stokes filled in overs to give flexibility. They had multiple elite options in the PP and middle. The death bowling until Jof came in was weaker. They compensated through taking middle overs wickets with Dilly and Plunkett, plus just backing themselves to blast more runs of course.

It feels a bit like they are looking at stacking the middle overs with options who could bowl. Dilly of course. Livi as a second spinner. Maybe try to steal an over with Jacks or Bethell. Overton could bowl back of a length, a bit quicker, Plunkett style in the middle. Surran could maybe put it into the pitch with slower balls. Really juggle those middle overs options to buy yourself breathing room elsewhere.

It hypothetically means that the second specialist seamer (be it Mahmood/Turner/Topley) can be picked more as a PP specialist and Mousley can just bowl at the death. Maybe try to get 3 PP overs in for that seamer straight away up top? Australia have maximised Hazlewood brilliantly by doing that.

It's the sort of planning the white ball setup were excellent at previously. The use of Stokes in the World T20 win was a great example. They habitually used him for overs 1 and 7. Generally the lowest scoring overs in T20s. Very smart. Similar with Surran being used as a death option in Australia with the massive square boundaries. If they are looking at Surran as more of a batter who bowls, then I'd love him often bowling overs 1 and 7 like Stokes did. If it swings, he could be dangerous in that first over. Then sneak him in again just after the PP.

West Indies fast bowler Alzarri Joseph has been suspended for two matches for leaving the field after an argument with captain Shai Hope during the third one-day international against England.

Joseph, 27, was unhappy with a field placement off his bowling, and did not celebrate dismissing Jordan Cox before walking off at the end of the fourth over.

West Indies started the next over with only 10 players on the field and Joseph walked off again later after two misfields off his bowling.

Pathetic conduct from Alzarri Joseph. At 27 he really should do better.

Duty281 wrote:West Indies fast bowler Alzarri Joseph has been suspended for two matches for leaving the field after an argument with captain Shai Hope during the third one-day international against England.

Joseph, 27, was unhappy with a field placement off his bowling, and did not celebrate dismissing Jordan Cox before walking off at the end of the fourth over.

West Indies started the next over with only 10 players on the field and Joseph walked off again later after two misfields off his bowling.

Pathetic conduct from Alzarri Joseph. At 27 he really should do better.

Symptomatic of WI's biggest problem, lack of discipline and team harmony.
Pak guys beat each other up in the dressing room but are able to avoid shenanigans on field

Decent win in the end, now that the ODI warm ups for this series are out of the way. Familiar concerns remain, Jacks doing next to nothing as usual, woeful death bowling that meant they weren't chasing about 150. Conceding outlier performances to the tail, in this case Motie could easily have been mistaken for Lance Klusener.

Salt is fast becoming indispensable and one of the best bats in World T20 cricket.

His England T20 career numbers now reading a SR of 167.52 with an average of near 39. Those are elite numbers.

Three centuries in 32 innings is outrageous as well. Maxwell and Sharma lead the all time T20i centuries list with five, but they've both played over 100 innings. Yadav has four in 72 innings. Only Davizi, with three in 31, is matching Salt....and he plays for the Czech Republic, so the standard of opposition might be a little lower!

Salt says thanks for the jinx , Duty

Didn't matter though : Buttler's turn to supply the batting fireworks. Batting second obviously helped England in this one ; but fair to say they'll be feeling happier about their 20 over form than the 50 ... at least for now.

That is a heck of a jinx. Another good win then, Jacks did a bit better, but still I believe hasn't ever made a T20 fifty for England. Death bowling comments could be cut and paste most matches

My google & Twitter feed has been throwing in articles in both English and Hindi talking about the amazing new spinner Eng have found who bowls off-spin at 75mph

Incredible indeed, looked incredible Dan Mousely in the one video I found of him where he hit 83mph

Mousley is really fun to watch. I've no idea if there's longevity in what he's doing. I'm really happy that England are giving it a go though.

Yorkers from seamers have become less regular at the death as the margin for error is so small. It always was a small margin, but, if you hit it, then it couldn't get hit. Shots like the scoop changed that though. There's plenty of batters who can now turn a very good yorker into a boundary behind square on either side. Yorkers are still a weapon, but it's in an arsenal with other options. As opposed to guys like Flintoff who had a brilliant ODI record and rep as a death bowler largely by trying to bowl 5 yorkers an over.

Mousley bowling 75 mph yorkers off 3 paces in the Hundred was both effective and just really intriguing. Logically, 'spinners' are usually more accurate than seamers. The tiny run up that he flies through gives less time for a batter to shift their feet, look to scoop, etc. Plus, if they shape to scoop very early, then Mousley can take all the pace off, bowl a regular off-break and there's suddenly not enough there for the batter to work with. It's really interesting.

Part of me suspects that he might be found out. Trying to bowl yorkers off 3 paces like that, all from the shoulder, he does seem liable to bowl full tosses more often than others. Might batters adjust to the tiny runup and basically play him like a 75mph medium pacer bowling off a regular, longer runup? If Paul Collingwood was doing the same thing at the death off his runup then he'd be hit into space! Mousley really isn't putting much action on the ball either. It does seem to just be rapid arm balls. They've been very effective at times though. He might prove to be a one trick pony that gets worked out.

As said though, I'm just glad they're giving him the chance to find out either way. I really wish they'd done that with Benny Howell when he was at his peak. There was a period when Howell's stats in the middle overs were absurd. He was a similarly odd bowler. His cricinfo page says "right-arm medium". In reality, he was a 'quick spinner'. He had about a dozen slower balls that did different things. Many were genuinely deviating off the pitch too. Batters just couldn't hit him for a long period. He was very tough to get away square due to the pace. He bowled wicket to wicket with smart fields, got a ton of players caught at long-on and long-off with miss hits down the ground from the battery of slower balls. Some would dip. Some would turn. Batters couldn't line him up. England just weren't interested at that point in some weird medium pacer though, sadly. I think that Howell bowling in tandem with Dilly in the middle overs of T20i's could've been a brilliant weapon.

I'm glad they're having a look at something different this time. He shouldn't have played the ODIs but that's the schedule and having a T20 squad for 50 over games, so obviously not Mousley's fault!

king_carlos wrote:  

Part of me suspects that he might be found out. Trying to bowl yorkers off 3 paces like that, all from the shoulder, he does seem liable to bowl full tosses more often than others. Might batters adjust to the tiny runup and basically play him like a 75mph medium pacer bowling off a regular, longer runup?

Mousley will be observed carefully, strategies developed to counter him. However process of evolution is both ways, he should evolve too to bowl classic off spin at normal slow pace, even slower slighted deliveries and use the 75mph+ as a surprise odd delivery once every over or other over.
Hi USP is he can deliver without discernible change to action, maybe develop a seam-up version of the faster one, that will swing in the air.

In general T20 is driving cricket into a zone of innovation that I find exciting.
The reverse, switch hits became a norm, then the Dil-Scoop, ramps were normalized and audacious batters even attempt reverse scoops.
India has given license to openers like Abhishek sharma to play only 10 ball inning.... and go from ball-1 in an attempt to give them 16 runs from 6 ball or 24 off 10.
The era of get-set, see-off, build the inning & accelerate is over....if you delivered 300% in 6 balls or 200% in 10 balls at top, your job is done.

Bowling has had lesser innovations  though likes of Livingstone & Riyan parag are pushing the bar towards offering both off-spin & leg spin in addition to their primary batting skills.  Slow ball bouncers is probably the only innovation that faster men have shown.
FC & List A cricket has had ambidextrous bowlers who are yet to appear on the internal scene.
Mousley is the unique first offering express pace for a spinner.

I am waiting to see a seamer who can bowl spin though Beau Webster for Aus at the fringe of making debut routinely does in FC  and Great Sobers & the freak Syd Barnes did in historical times successfully.
Andrew Symonds & Pink/Purple haired Colin Miller of Aus also practiced both trades less successfully though.

Imagine the flexibility accorded by a bowler who is a 3rd/4th seamer  in the 1st inning who can be competent spinner in 2nd inning when pitch is turning.
Since the evolution of Franchise cricket that has brought money  in last 2 decades cricketing innovation  have evolved more than it did in 2 centuries before that

I'm really not sure about Barnes. Doesn't make sense to me there'd be no similar bowler since. I think he could well have been bowling cutters, which every bowler does now, but if you were one of the first and not even always bowling to professionals, I could see it could create havoc. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if Darren Stevens is a better bowler

Barnes wasn't the only combination bowler in the uncovered pitch era, just the best by a mile. Bob Appleyard also had an astonishing record bowling in a similar fashion. When he was lethal on wet pitches, Jim Laker basically bowled cutters at medium pace too of course. Alan Knott being one of many to observe Laker being a cutter bowler as much as a spinner.

Combination bowlers were relatively common until pitches were covered and seamers needed to get quicker. Where they largely disappeared. I think that points to the real question. Is it possible to consistently put those revs on the ball with a fast bowlers arm speed without injuring yourself? Mustafizur did it briefly and spellbindingly for Bangladesh, then ruined his shoulder. Tymal Mills and Anrich Nortje's back of the hand slower balls are basically googlies with 90+mph arm speed - both have had awful injuries. Pat Brown basically bowls like that with his slower balls - injured a lot. Bumrah more recently has done it whilst staying on the field a bit more. T20 is definitely bringing that skill back a bit. Putting proper revs on the ball as a seamer is a skill you can build a career on in T20 now. Whether it can be done with a modern seamers arm speed without ruining the bowlers body is the question.

Re how Barnes would stack up to modern bowlers. That's always the case. Obviously, if you compare someone without the benefit of a century of progress and development in a sport to someone with that, then they wont seem remarkable.

Frank Tyson was considered the fastest bowler ever in his day. If you watch footage, he runs in almost sideways, looking like he'll fall over, then has the follow through of a spinner. Compared to modern bowlers obviously he wasn't that quick. The important thing is how he stacked up to his peers though. If he was faster than anyone they'd faced, then he was rapid.

Barnes' record is astonishing compared to his peers. There are many pre 1900 bowlers in the best Test averages. Prior to WG Grace, batters played either off the front or back foot though. A hangover from underarm and then round arm bowling. Grace himself famously bowled roundarm rather than fully overarm until the end of his career due to the cross over for players such as him. Batters didn't go forward or back. They did one or the other to everything. Overarm bowling became rampant against that technique and no one was scoring runs. Batters had learnt how to bat against underarm and roundarm, suddenly they weren't facing that. In response to that change, Grace started going forward or back depending on where the ball pitched. Then batters steadily copied suit. There are several English and Aussie seamers in that late 1800's period with astonishing bowling averages as batters tried to adjust. Bowlers were on top for a long time. Then batters adjusted. Along came the likes of Jack Hobbs. Barnes bowled in that slightly later period when the batters he bowled at had learnt to play cricket facing overarm bowling. Within that period his record is anomalous compared to his peers. That's what matters for my money.

Basically all seamers coming through now learn how to bowl the outswinger, inswinger and wobble seam. A few decades ago, Test great seamers could have a chapter written in their autobiography about how learning the inswinger in their twenties changed them as a bowler. In the era when most seamers just bowled outswing, learning the inswinger made you the anomaly. That's how progress happens though. They learned the inswinger, so more of the next generation learn both coming through. Jimmy Anderson masters the wobble seam after watching Mohammad Asif. Now everyone bowls the wobble seam. The same will happen with the next development. Everyone has learned the wobble seam, someone will find the next thing batters haven't dealt with, everyone will copy it. The fact that Jimmy wont learn whatever that next skill is shouldn't diminish his achievements and influence in his time and among his peers. Malcolm Marshall didn't learn the wobble seam, he's still in the discussion for the best seamer ever due to his achievements in comparison to his peers. That's the real thing to look at in these discussions across eras. What was their record and impact like in the period they played.

Yeah, he was clearly the best of the era, but I was more addressing the point about waiting for there to be another fast spinner. My argument being there's probably hundreds of them bowling at the moment, but those skills are now the norm rather than the new type of bowling to adapt to

KC - Did you mean Jim Laker (who I always thought was a fairly conventional spinner) or Underwood? Your reference to Knott suggests the latter.

Also, there were plenty of good judges of players, including Benaud, who reckoned Tyson was proper fast, at least for a short period in the mid 50s before his body broke down. Plus was bowling to the back foot no ball rule and could slide a yard through the crease. I think it's safe to say that he topped 90 mph at least, which would still be my benchmark for true fast.

Agree though with most of the rest of your comments - A Sid Barnes born now wouldn't have success in first class and Test cricket as a bowler of medium paced cutters (although it might be interesting in T20 and T50 games, especially on wickets that offer a bit of grip - look how many wrist spinners / mystery spinners there are now in the game compared with the pre-Warne days), but then he'd have 150 years of advancement in bowling techniques to learn from , and be brought up on variously covered wickets and astro (at club junior levels) rather than on uncovered wickets.

https://youtu.be/1NJGLkiioiQ?si=K5IpuRYXbkwkluD_

Boycott on Syd Barnes for those interested in this mysterious character..
To be clear on difference between a bowler bowling seam and spin like.sobers or Symonds is one thing.....
Barnes could swing and cut the same delivery in two different direction ...like the few Wow magical deliveries seen from Akram.
Stats of Barnes
Test cricket avg 16 and 7 wkst/ test
All.FC and 2nd.class and test included avg 6
Last 120 test wickets at 12

No comments on England's era defining series win. Overton even had a bowl, and took a few wickets!

Would have commented, but I was obviously out of it after celebrating like Freddie in 2005 after this unbelievable, historic win.

The number eight bowling. Will it catch on?