England Cricket 2023

Cafc43v3r said:

Addick Addict said:

Cafc43v3r said:

Addick Addict said:

Cafc43v3r said:

Addick Addict said:

Fanny Fanackapan said:

Addick Addict said:

Cafc43v3r said:

Addick Addict said:

With scores of 6, 0 & 13 (and looking like he is forcing things) has Bairstow opened the door for Roy assuming the latter is already on the plane? 

And he looked in a totally different class to anyone else in the game before that.  

I think the question is is it better to have a 3rd opener in the squad as opposed to the better, or more in form, batsman?  

We've really brought this upon ourselves though. Or should I say the ECB have. We are trying to make big WC squad and team selections calls based on players batting for two or three innings (or in the case of Roy, no innings) for a competition that is played at a different temp to 100 or 120 balls. And yet we have a ready made competition in the shape of the 50 over format that all our players are prevented from playing in. We have that advantage that very few other teams have because of the timing of the WC and one that we utilised prior to 2019 which we won because of our preparation. Instead the likes of Root have been playing step and hit cricket after they've had a round of golf. That isn't proper preparation. 

Commentator stated that Jason " Aneke" Roy was playing "rugby" on the pitch with his team mates before the start today but wasn't playing in the match. 

Mentioned he was still in the squad to travel to the WC and that maybe he should play in the 1 dayers v Ireland to check his fitness...

But, another commentator explained that he had a very young family and that would mean he'd be away from home for longer than expected ! WTF !!!!!

Unbelievable. A complete & utter farce IMO. 

In the last year Roy has played 54 matches:

9 matches for England
3 matches for Surrey
42 matches for six different franchises in six different countries

He is the definition of a "journeyman" cricketer and his clear order of preference - franchises, England and then Surrey

But he is a journeyman that on his day could beat the world champ.  And has been one himself.

You can't argue with his record for England (in white ball cricket), he is only 33.

I wouldn't pick him but it's not my neck on the line and it takes a brave man to take old yellow behind the shed.

Pre 2015 we would all be praying he was fit because we didn't have the depth we do now.

Did he miss any 50 over cricket while he was playing for franchises?  Because if not you can't have your cake and eat it.

He didn't have a 50 over England contract. He had a white ball contract which he forfeited in July in order to play in the MLC for the Knight Riders (his IPL franchise). It was Roy who wanted his cake and to eat it. One or two months of his incremental contract would have been worth far less to him than the MLC gig let alone the possibility of playing for KKR in all their various forms around the world. He is, as you say, only 33 but almost certainly now won't have a central contract given his attachment to KKR. So his England days are probably numbered in any event given those that will be given the opportunity to open post this WC. 

What 50 over games did he miss for England or Surrey by playing franchise cricket?   

He only played 3 out of 15 Vitality Blast matches for Surrey. He didn't play any 50 over games for them because he was playing for the Oval Invincibles (which is a franchise). We should also remember that, as he was (until he relinquished it) on an incremental contract with England plus a Surrey contract too and that is different from someone who is on a full central contract as those that are so contracted are only notionally attached to a county.  

Roy's three games last November for England were in Australia and three days later he was playing in the Abu Dhabi T10, his three in March were in Bangladesh in the middle of his stint playing in the Pakistan Super League and his other three games were against South Africa when the SA20 was stopped for those matches

This is the actual breakdown of his games in the last 12 months:

England - 9 games (17th-22nd Nov, 27th Jan-1st Feb & 1st-6th March) 
Deccan Gladiators (Dubai) - 4 games (25th Nov-29th Nov)
Paarl Royals (South Africa) - 11 games (10th-24th Jan & 3rd-8th Feb)
Quetta Gladiators (Pakistan) - 7 games (15th Feb-24th Feb & 8th-11th Mar)
Kolkata Knight Riders India - 8 games (20th Apr-20th May)
Surrey CCC (England) - 3 games (2nd-15th July)
Los Angeles Knight Riders (USA) - 3 games (18th-23rd July)
Oval Invincibles (England) - 9 games (2nd-28th August)

That's:

Franchises - 42 games over a total period of 105 days
England - 9 games over a total period of 17 days
Surrey - 3 games over a total period of 14 days

Those statistics plus the fact that he asked to be released from his England contract to play franchise cricket is why I believe that his commitment is to franchise, England and then Surrey in that order. England were not prepared to release him to play in the MCL unless he did just that. He made his choice to do so. 

So he didn't play 50 over cricket because of the hundred, it's as simple as that.

You can't bash the hundred and then claim that he missed any 50 over cricket for other "reasons". 

That's what I meant by you having your cake and eating it.

He wouldn't have played more 50 over cricket (which is the here and now) if he had made different choices.  Would he?

He doesn't have to play in the Hundred does he? He's contracted to Surrey and could elect to play for them in the 50 over comp couldn't he? He chose to play for a franchise rather than Surrey.  He is a white ball player and that encompasses for him 60, 100, 120 and 300 balls per side matches. 

This is what Alec Stewart said about the likes of Roy who came back from the IPL, strained a calf (must have been quite a strain) and missed the first 12 matches over a six week period:

“They [the players] go away and play elsewhere and when they come back they want time in the indoor school with the best coaches just to get ready to go off and play in another franchise competition. ‘Oh and by the way I’ve got a little calf injury so can I get treated by the physio, the doctor, the medical staff and can I get rehab as well?’ ”

So Roy had a one year incremental contract with England, enjoyed all the benefits of a county contract for 12 months with Surrey too and turned out a dozen times in total over that period for county and country. And played three and a half times as many games for franchises. 

 

killerandflash said:

To be fair to Roy, whatever I might think about the Hundred, I wouldn't knock any player playing in it, as that's what the ECB WANT them to do. Players playing in it aren't abandoning their counties to play in the Hundred, they're playing in an ECB competition designed to have the top players.

AND it's the ECB which has made the 50 over competition a second class one. I wouldn't expect any player to choose the 50 over cup over the Hundred at the moment, even if we as spectators might have different preferences.

I do agree but the ECB cannot dictate to a player that isn't on a full central contract and Roy will be remunerated accordingly by the Oval Invincibles. However, setting that aside, Roy went to five other franchises, two of which took place in our summer. He is contracted to Surrey and played three games for them - 91 runs was his contribution for 12 months money. He is contracted to England and played 9 games at an average of 35.22.  
 
Surrey have every right to be unhappy about the situation. Let's not forget that Roy was given last year a suspended two-match ban and £2,500 fine after Roy "admitted a charge of conducting himself in a manner which may be prejudicial to the interests of cricket or which may bring the game of cricket, the ECB and himself into disrepute". Roy's reaction was to take two months away from cricket on full pay from both the ECB and Surrey. It's even worse for Surrey they had to pick up the bill for his medical care this year following his IPL stint - and I believe that he still has one year of a three-year contract to go so this might not be the end of it. 

So Roy has been in receipt of 24 months worth of salary to England and Surrey (less two months worth for going to the MLC) for a total of one months (31 days) work (he was at the IPL for longer). All I'm saying is that England and Surrey aren't at the top of his list of priorities. And for that reason he shouldn't be at the top of either England or Surrey's either. Certainly not when he might well not be fit at some point during the WC and with someone more talented, who is centrally contracted and seven years younger having to be left out in the shape of Brook.

I very much doubt that Roy will be picked again for England after this WC and he will join the likes of Narine as full time franchise mercenaries, bar the fact that Roy possibly has one year left of his Surrey contract for what it's worth to them - and talking about Narine let's not forget that he was meant to return for Blast finals day for Surrey from the MLC but never made it. That is what mercenaries do. The MLC and their linked franchises are now worth far more than a stint at Surrey.  

My final word on this subject actually comes from the words of his father. Surrey bought his loyalty. Now they are struggling to do even that. 

Mr Roy said he was “incredibly proud” of his son’s rise from U-11 Surrey cricket level to England superstar 15 years later. But the corporate sales manager, 49, who works in the City, revealed his son almost turned his back on cricket to be a rugby player.

He said: “He had a choice at U-17 level. Harlequins were interested in him signing for them but he was offered a little money by Surrey so he stayed. That’s when it all took off and he really started believing in himself as a cricketer.”

killerandflash said:

Addick Addict said:

Root has requested to be added to England's ODI team for the match against Ireland. Brook is now being rested for that match.

Which is what I've been wanting, as he needs time in the middle. He needs to play an  "old school Root" innings, rather than getting out cheaply to a funky shot. Get to 50, get some fluency back THEN get the ramps and funky stuff out.

Sadly the weather doesn't look good though.

Totally agree - Root hasn't forgotten what made himself a great but has been attempting re-invent himself and people's perception of him. This isn't as a result of Bazball - that was just an example of him trying to change his image of him and had the old Root batted as he can in that second Test, where I was very critical of him and others too as Australia were minus Lyon, we would almost certainly have won it.

This all, actually, stems back I believe to Root's desire to prove himself as a top T20 batsman and specifically with a view to becoming a member of England's T20 side and also to become more involved in the big franchise competitions. He just about secured a contract in this year's IPL but he was only selected in 3 games and scored just 10 runs. The concept of someone being "the glue" in a T20 side appears to be old school now and the combination of an average of 32.92 with a strike rate of 127.26 isn't going to secure him a batting slot (especially with a maximum of four in each side). The internationally accepted formula is to add the two figures together so Root's is around 160 when all of the world's top players are at least175 and some are 190 plus. 

However, 50 over cricket is a totally different animal where someone who can average almost 50 with a strike rate of just under 90 and rotate the strike is perfect for this discipline and specifically to allow the hitters to thrive e.g. the likes of Bairstow, Stokes, Buttler, Brook, Livingstone etc. Which is why, as you and others have suggested, he needs to get back to being the old Joe Root. Nobody plays the rundown to third man better than him and equally very few can find the gaps as he does using authentic cricket shots.