Selecting players for Tests based on limited-overs batting is something we've done before. Mark Butcher only got back in the side in 2001 after hitting a really good 80-odd for Surrey in the C&G. Trescothick got in off the back of limited-overs form
Selecting players for Tests based on limited-overs batting is something we've done before. Mark Butcher only got back in the side in 2001 after hitting a really good 80-odd for Surrey in the C&G. Trescothick got in off the back of limited-overs form
The difference is that Trescothick and Butcher both batted in the top three and consistently scored runs doing so in first class cricket against some of the best bowling around.
Neither Hales or Roy are trusted by their counties to bat higher than 5 simply because against a moving ball with four slips and a gully, even with the standard of bowling as poor as it is in county cricket nowadays, their technique and desire to hit the ball is found out. In Hales' case it already has. Those thick edges that ordinarily fly down to third man in ODIs and T20s are taken in Tests.
As exciting as one day can be compared to tests, I just can't bring myself to care as much. If I could chose between winning a test series or some day series, it would be test on every occasion.
One of the biggest problems with the current English management is the strict labeling of players as white or red ball players. Plunkett and Rashid who should have both been in the Test squad are not even considered for real cricket by Bayliss and co. Of course sometimes this works in our favour eg Morgan.
One of the biggest problems with the current English management is the strict labeling of players as white or red ball players. Plunkett and Rashid who should have both been in the Test squad are not even considered for real cricket by Bayliss and co. Of course sometimes this works in our favour eg Morgan.
As Rashid proved today he will always go for a few. But he has so many variations that batsmen will and do take liberties. Wickets stops runs and getting Smith and Marsh out did just that - especially Smith who went in the 11th over.
One of the biggest problems with the current English management is the strict labeling of players as white or red ball players. Plunkett and Rashid who should have both been in the Test squad are not even considered for real cricket by Bayliss and co. Of course sometimes this works in our favour eg Morgan.
Agree to an extent but the exact opposite was our problem before. I shudder thinking about the days when we had Cook and Trott opening the batting in 50 over matches.
Selecting players for Tests based on limited-overs batting is something we've done before. Mark Butcher only got back in the side in 2001 after hitting a really good 80-odd for Surrey in the C&G. Trescothick got in off the back of limited-overs form
Butcher's ODI record is probably the most surprising of anyone who has played cricket for England.
One of the biggest problems with the current English management is the strict labeling of players as white or red ball players. Plunkett and Rashid who should have both been in the Test squad are not even considered for real cricket by Bayliss and co. Of course sometimes this works in our favour eg Morgan.
Agree to an extent but the exact opposite was our problem before. I shudder thinking about the days when we had Cook and Trott opening the batting in 50 over matches.
Yes, we have identified the correct players to play limited overs cricket and Bayliss must given some credit for this and the way we have changed our approach to this type of cricket. I doubt any of the team today, players and staff, were too fazed by chasing 300. Two years ago we would have failed 8\10 in chasing such a total.
Selecting players for Tests based on limited-overs batting is something we've done before. Mark Butcher only got back in the side in 2001 after hitting a really good 80-odd for Surrey in the C&G. Trescothick got in off the back of limited-overs form
Butcher's ODI record is probably the most surprising of anyone who has played cricket for England.
As far as I'm aware he doesn't have one! A good Pub Quiz question.
Selecting players for Tests based on limited-overs batting is something we've done before. Mark Butcher only got back in the side in 2001 after hitting a really good 80-odd for Surrey in the C&G. Trescothick got in off the back of limited-overs form
Neither Hales or Roy are trusted by their counties to bat higher than 5 simply because against a moving ball with four slips and a gully, even with the standard of bowling as poor as it is in county cricket nowadays, their technique and desire to hit the ball is found out. In Hales' case it already has. Those thick edges that ordinarily fly down to third man in ODIs and T20s are taken in Tests.
But then in the Ashes series, and indeed in the sub continent, you're not facing a Dukes ball seaming off a green pitch. Roy and Hales might struggle on an English seamer, but I can't see them doing any worse than Stoneman or Vince in Australian conditions, when there is little lateral movement from the seamers
Selecting players for Tests based on limited-overs batting is something we've done before. Mark Butcher only got back in the side in 2001 after hitting a really good 80-odd for Surrey in the C&G. Trescothick got in off the back of limited-overs form
Neither Hales or Roy are trusted by their counties to bat higher than 5 simply because against a moving ball with four slips and a gully, even with the standard of bowling as poor as it is in county cricket nowadays, their technique and desire to hit the ball is found out. In Hales' case it already has. Those thick edges that ordinarily fly down to third man in ODIs and T20s are taken in Tests.
But then in the Ashes series, and indeed in the sub continent, you're not facing a Dukes ball seaming off a green pitch. Roy and Hales might struggle on an English seamer, but I can't see them doing any worse than Stoneman or Vince in Australian conditions, when there is little lateral movement from the seamers
There is, indeed, an argument for playing different batsmen in different conditions.
However, Hales opened the batting eight times in South Africa and scored just 136 in total at an average of 17. In two home series he scored 292 runs from five innings at an average of 58 in against a very poor Sri Lanka attack and scored 145 runs, again in eight innings, at an average of 18 against Pakistan. I just don't think he is good enough and as I say, the fact that Notts don't want him opening is enough to convince me that he hasn't a future in international red ball.
Roy is another one not considered technically sound enough to open for his county. He has a lifetime first class average of less than 38 but there is one stat that stands out for me - his strike rate is over 82. Compare that to say Joe Root who has a first class average of over 51 but a strike rate of 56 or Cook who has an average of 48 and an SR of 50. Smith's average is 58 and has an SR of 57.
The point that I am, in a long winded way, trying to make is that the great Test batsmen know how to occupy the crease - and that they do no different in first class cricket either. Yes Roy can and has on the odd occasion (as has Hales) in ODIs for 40-50 overs but that is not what is required in four/five day cricket. Roy goes at the ball too much and hasn't proven that he can adapt his style - as evidenced by the fact that I am struggling to think of any top batsman who has an SR anywhere near as high as his.
Comments
good win.
Then again, they said the same thing about Warner.
Neither Hales or Roy are trusted by their counties to bat higher than 5 simply because against a moving ball with four slips and a gully, even with the standard of bowling as poor as it is in county cricket nowadays, their technique and desire to hit the ball is found out. In Hales' case it already has. Those thick edges that ordinarily fly down to third man in ODIs and T20s are taken in Tests.
Part 2 (5 mins) https://streamable.com/un0l1
@The_President
However, Hales opened the batting eight times in South Africa and scored just 136 in total at an average of 17. In two home series he scored 292 runs from five innings at an average of 58 in against a very poor Sri Lanka attack and scored 145 runs, again in eight innings, at an average of 18 against Pakistan. I just don't think he is good enough and as I say, the fact that Notts don't want him opening is enough to convince me that he hasn't a future in international red ball.
Roy is another one not considered technically sound enough to open for his county. He has a lifetime first class average of less than 38 but there is one stat that stands out for me - his strike rate is over 82. Compare that to say Joe Root who has a first class average of over 51 but a strike rate of 56 or Cook who has an average of 48 and an SR of 50. Smith's average is 58 and has an SR of 57.
The point that I am, in a long winded way, trying to make is that the great Test batsmen know how to occupy the crease - and that they do no different in first class cricket either. Yes Roy can and has on the odd occasion (as has Hales) in ODIs for 40-50 overs but that is not what is required in four/five day cricket. Roy goes at the ball too much and hasn't proven that he can adapt his style - as evidenced by the fact that I am struggling to think of any top batsman who has an SR anywhere near as high as his.