The International Cricket Thread

[tomd2103]

Have felt down about this series so far, but listening to the post match discussions actually feel a bit more accepting of the situation now.

We aren't a top side at the moment and I think we have to accept that now.  The last year hasn't been great at all, but we have played the three best sides in the world at the moment, with three very strong bowling attacks.  Looking at the positives, we have two top class middle order batsmen, some options at wicket keeper and still have some decent enough seam options.   Malan has scored some runs at three and looks like he could be an option there for the immediate future. 

Where I think we really need some planning and thought are the situations with the openers and spinners.  Both are areas of real weakness and are being constantly exposed against better sides.  We really need to invest some time in thinking about a proper approach for those roles and what we actually want them to do and select suitable options accordingly.

Just feel we are at a bit of a crossroads at the moment and have felt for a while now that the current international schedule just isn't sustainable.  For example, after this series and the white ball games after, that really should be it and the players should be heading home for a break before the county season starts.  6 weeks of that and then into a two test series at the end of May start of June.  Instead, they fly out almost immediately after Australia  to the West Indies and then back home and almost straight into the packed summer schedule over here.

Over the past couple of decades, the ECB have positioned themselves as the ones who fund the game in this country and international cricket is their cash cow (along with the Hundred now).  One of the main problems with governing bodies financing sport (get it with rugby as well) is that the internationals fund the whole structure, but there is only so many of them you can play.  That then leaves the situation where they look to play more and more games at the detriment of the structure as a whole.

[PaulWinch again]

Also to Paul E’s point above there’s another weird choice. I might be wrong here but haven’t they sent the Lions home? Therefore not having anyone to call on.

I'd missed that but if so that makes the squad selection even more questionable.

Found it - https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.espncricinfo.com/story/england-lions-in-australia-2021-22-england-opt-against-keeping-squad-members-on-1293341%3fplatform=amp.

Yep really questionable, because you have a squad but essentially the back up batsmen are unselectable and they have literally no cricket to make a case for selection.

[paul_e]

Have felt down about this series so far, but listening to the post match discussions actually feel a bit more accepting of the situation now.

We aren't a top side at the moment and I think we have to accept that now.  The last year hasn't been great at all, but we have played the three best sides in the world at the moment, with three very strong bowling attacks.  Looking at the positives, we have two top class middle order batsmen, some options at wicket keeper and still have some decent enough seam options.   Malan has scored some runs at three and looks like he could be an option there for the immediate future. 

Where I think we really need some planning and thought are the situations with the openers and spinners.  Both are areas of real weakness and are being constantly exposed against better sides.  We really need to invest some time in thinking about a proper approach for those roles and what we actually want them to do and select suitable options accordingly.

Just feel we are at a bit of a crossroads at the moment and have felt for a while now that the current international schedule just isn't sustainable.  For example, after this series and the white ball games after, that really should be it and the players should be heading home for a break before the county season starts.  6 weeks of that and then into a two test series at the end of May start of June.  Instead, they fly out almost immediately after Australia  to the West Indies and then back home and almost straight into the packed summer schedule over here.

Over the past couple of decades, the ECB have positioned themselves as the ones who fund the game in this country and international cricket is their cash cow (along with the Hundred now).  One of the main problems with governing bodies financing sport (get it with rugby as well) is that the internationals fund the whole structure, but there is only so many of them you can play.  That then leaves the situation where they look to play more and more games at the detriment of the structure as a whole.

Totally off on a tangent but I actually think rugby has quite easily the best international structure of any of the major internationl sports. They have 3 small windows of games which allow for plenty of down time in the summer, if any player goes over a set number of games for the year the RFU pay the club to give them a break. To avoid 'empty' weekends they coincide cup games with these windows as much as poassible but they also have the play offs to negate the 'fine margins' risk of international fixtures playing a major part in the season.To try to add some semblance of balance to the league they have a wage cap but then give clubs a refund on it for international players which stops it becoming a club vs country issue.

I agree with you on the scheduling of cricket being poor though, I also think we don't do anything like enough to get our batsmen (in particular) playing in other conditions, far too often you see English players in australian and indian conditions looking surprised whent he ball doesn't move the same way as it does on English wickets.

Also to Paul E’s point above there’s another weird choice. I might be wrong here but haven’t they sent the Lions home? Therefore not having anyone to call on.

I'd missed that but if so that makes the squad selection even more questionable.

Found it - https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.espncricinfo.com/story/england-lions-in-australia-2021-22-england-opt-against-keeping-squad-members-on-1293341%3fplatform=amp.

Yep really questionable, because you have a squad but essentially the back up batsmen are unselectable and they have literally no cricket to make a case for selection.

That's pathetic, the worst case scenario is that they should've extended the main squad by 3-4 people and given themselves options, backed themselves into a corner over this.

[LeeB]

Given the enormous amount of planning that went into this series, in effect chucking other tests and series along the way to prepare, it takes a special kind of ineptitude to arrive and perform as we have.

They'd have been better off sending everyone home in September, telling them to wind down, drink and smoke till their hearts content and make sure they're at the airport on time to go in November.

[simboy]

I would move Stokes to 7 as i would want him to bowl as the fourth seamer. but would want that to be his primary role. As he is coming back from the break and is clearly not fully fit, i cannot expect him to bat at 5 and bowl me 30 overs. He has to have some rest and coming in when we are 40/3 in the 10th over seems to be a regular feature. If he can bowl 25/30 overs i would protect him a little at 7.

 Bearing in mind we are currently 840/40 i think strengthening the batting line up with Crawley/Lawrence and Bairstow may be an option. Unfortunately Buttler is not a Test keeper or indeed a Test batsman, Pope lacks confidence and perhaps need a couple of seasons to show his true potential.

The A team has gone home, as pointed out, which rather limits the replacements to those in the Big Bash for Covid reasons [which is Vince, Sam Curran, Mahmood and Billings who've played test cricket]. Of those Curran and Vince may hold some interest to the selectors. 


Anyway , let's hope we can show more of the spirit we showed today.

[Martin Carruthers]

Vince's inevitable well crafted 17 will be quite a good knock in context of how some of the other batsmen have performed.

[PaulWinch again]

I just think Stokes is one of the best batsmen and that’s his priority role for me. He will always be the fifth bowler in the attack for me - not to say he’s not important, but I wouldn’t have him as one of four bowlers.

[tomd2103]

Have felt down about this series so far, but listening to the post match discussions actually feel a bit more accepting of the situation now.

We aren't a top side at the moment and I think we have to accept that now.  The last year hasn't been great at all, but we have played the three best sides in the world at the moment, with three very strong bowling attacks.  Looking at the positives, we have two top class middle order batsmen, some options at wicket keeper and still have some decent enough seam options.   Malan has scored some runs at three and looks like he could be an option there for the immediate future. 

Where I think we really need some planning and thought are the situations with the openers and spinners.  Both are areas of real weakness and are being constantly exposed against better sides.  We really need to invest some time in thinking about a proper approach for those roles and what we actually want them to do and select suitable options accordingly.

Just feel we are at a bit of a crossroads at the moment and have felt for a while now that the current international schedule just isn't sustainable.  For example, after this series and the white ball games after, that really should be it and the players should be heading home for a break before the county season starts.  6 weeks of that and then into a two test series at the end of May start of June.  Instead, they fly out almost immediately after Australia  to the West Indies and then back home and almost straight into the packed summer schedule over here.

Over the past couple of decades, the ECB have positioned themselves as the ones who fund the game in this country and international cricket is their cash cow (along with the Hundred now).  One of the main problems with governing bodies financing sport (get it with rugby as well) is that the internationals fund the whole structure, but there is only so many of them you can play.  That then leaves the situation where they look to play more and more games at the detriment of the structure as a whole.

Totally off on a tangent but I actually think rugby has quite easily the best international structure of any of the major internationl sports. They have 3 small windows of games which allow for plenty of down time in the summer, if any player goes over a set number of games for the year the RFU pay the club to give them a break. To avoid 'empty' weekends they coincide cup games with these windows as much as poassible but they also have the play offs to negate the 'fine margins' risk of international fixtures playing a major part in the season.To try to add some semblance of balance to the league they have a wage cap but then give clubs a refund on it for international players which stops it becoming a club vs country issue.

I agree with you on the scheduling of cricket being poor though, I also think we don't do anything like enough to get our batsmen (in particular) playing in other conditions, far too often you see English players in australian and indian conditions looking surprised whent he ball doesn't move the same way as it does on English wickets.

Also to Paul E’s point above there’s another weird choice. I might be wrong here but haven’t they sent the Lions home? Therefore not having anyone to call on.

I'd missed that but if so that makes the squad selection even more questionable.

Found it - https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.espncricinfo.com/story/england-lions-in-australia-2021-22-england-opt-against-keeping-squad-members-on-1293341%3fplatform=amp.

Yep really questionable, because you have a squad but essentially the back up batsmen are unselectable and they have literally no cricket to make a case for selection.

That's pathetic, the worst case scenario is that they should've extended the main squad by 3-4 people and given themselves options, backed themselves into a corner over this.

The English rugby model does work well Paul, but there are some pretty serious financial problems for the countries where the Unions run the game and the domestic teams (ie. Ireland, New Zealand etc.). International games are the big money earners and support the whole structure in those countries.

[PaulWinch again]

One bowler I find it very odd they left out is Saqib Mahmood. I think he’d be good in Aus.

[paul_e]

Have felt down about this series so far, but listening to the post match discussions actually feel a bit more accepting of the situation now.

We aren't a top side at the moment and I think we have to accept that now.  The last year hasn't been great at all, but we have played the three best sides in the world at the moment, with three very strong bowling attacks.  Looking at the positives, we have two top class middle order batsmen, some options at wicket keeper and still have some decent enough seam options.   Malan has scored some runs at three and looks like he could be an option there for the immediate future. 

Where I think we really need some planning and thought are the situations with the openers and spinners.  Both are areas of real weakness and are being constantly exposed against better sides.  We really need to invest some time in thinking about a proper approach for those roles and what we actually want them to do and select suitable options accordingly.

Just feel we are at a bit of a crossroads at the moment and have felt for a while now that the current international schedule just isn't sustainable.  For example, after this series and the white ball games after, that really should be it and the players should be heading home for a break before the county season starts.  6 weeks of that and then into a two test series at the end of May start of June.  Instead, they fly out almost immediately after Australia  to the West Indies and then back home and almost straight into the packed summer schedule over here.

Over the past couple of decades, the ECB have positioned themselves as the ones who fund the game in this country and international cricket is their cash cow (along with the Hundred now).  One of the main problems with governing bodies financing sport (get it with rugby as well) is that the internationals fund the whole structure, but there is only so many of them you can play.  That then leaves the situation where they look to play more and more games at the detriment of the structure as a whole.

Totally off on a tangent but I actually think rugby has quite easily the best international structure of any of the major internationl sports. They have 3 small windows of games which allow for plenty of down time in the summer, if any player goes over a set number of games for the year the RFU pay the club to give them a break. To avoid 'empty' weekends they coincide cup games with these windows as much as poassible but they also have the play offs to negate the 'fine margins' risk of international fixtures playing a major part in the season.To try to add some semblance of balance to the league they have a wage cap but then give clubs a refund on it for international players which stops it becoming a club vs country issue.

I agree with you on the scheduling of cricket being poor though, I also think we don't do anything like enough to get our batsmen (in particular) playing in other conditions, far too often you see English players in australian and indian conditions looking surprised whent he ball doesn't move the same way as it does on English wickets.

Also to Paul E’s point above there’s another weird choice. I might be wrong here but haven’t they sent the Lions home? Therefore not having anyone to call on.

I'd missed that but if so that makes the squad selection even more questionable.

Found it - https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.espncricinfo.com/story/england-lions-in-australia-2021-22-england-opt-against-keeping-squad-members-on-1293341%3fplatform=amp.

Yep really questionable, because you have a squad but essentially the back up batsmen are unselectable and they have literally no cricket to make a case for selection.

That's pathetic, the worst case scenario is that they should've extended the main squad by 3-4 people and given themselves options, backed themselves into a corner over this.

The English rugby model does work well Paul, but there are some pretty serious financial problems for the countries where the Unions run the game and the domestic teams (ie. Ireland, New Zealand etc.). International games are the big money earners and support the whole structure in those countries.

Indeed, I made a bad assumption that you were talking specifically about England, I agree that in other countries it's not so great (Wales is probably the worst right now).

[PaulWinch again]

I still can’t get over the squad selection decision. In terms of batting you selected Crawley, Bairstow, and Lawrence as your back ups. All who have horrible recent records, and in Bairstow’s case an extended horrible record. So on this tour what scenario could ever have resulted in them playing? There were only two warm up games so short of something remarkable in those they were never starting the series. But importantly there are no games between Tests, so there’s no good way of them making a case for selection. If you pick one you’re just rolling a dice.
Had you kept the Lions out there or kept a few Lions players with the squad you could have brought in some players with some cricket, or sent those back up players to get some cricket.
If you’d had Foakes in the squad you could easily swap Foakes for Pope (he needs to have his mentality worked on) and played Buttler as your number 6. Immediately it would look a stronger side. But we basically have no viable options. Combine that with the fact they keep selecting the wrong bowling attack and it’s a bloody mess.

[tomd2103]

One bowler I find it very odd they left out is Saqib Mahmood. I think he’d be good in Aus.

Inexplicable for me that he wasn't given an opportunity over the summer, with a view on taking him to Australia. 

[tomd2103]

I just think Stokes is one of the best batsmen and that’s his priority role for me. He will always be the fifth bowler in the attack for me - not to say he’s not important, but I wouldn’t have him as one of four bowlers.

I would bat him at six rather than five though.  Think it would free him up a bit more.

[UK Redsox]

Quite enjoying “The Cricket’s On”, hosted by Miles Jupp from his house just the other side of the Forest from me and this week featuring the national treasure that is Mark Steel.

[Risso]

I just think Stokes is one of the best batsmen and that’s his priority role for me. He will always be the fifth bowler in the attack for me - not to say he’s not important, but I wouldn’t have him as one of four bowlers.

I would bat him at six rather than five though.  Think it would free him up a bit more.

These are the sorts of conversations to be having when the team as a whole is vaguely competent though. At the moment it's just rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic.