RugbyRebels

WaspInWales wrote:There simply isn't a more fragile batting team in test cricket at the moment and it doesn't seem to matter who we select.

I'm struggling to remember a time when I didn't expect England to collapse every time they play a game.

Prob v Sri Lanka two series ago

No lapse in the collapse it seems - NZ will have the indignity of having to bat twice, but not for very long.
Fortress Edgbaston not living up to name this year.

There is the amusement that Root was talking about the chance of winning 7 tests on the bounce heading into the Ashes. Entirely possible they're already thinking too far ahead as well as having a variety of technical failings, but there is some comedy shame in coming in so far behind the stated ambition

Root just gone.
This has been pitiful.

Lol.

Banquo wrote:

WaspInWales wrote:There simply isn't a more fragile batting team in test cricket at the moment and it doesn't seem to matter who we select.

I'm struggling to remember a time when I didn't expect England to collapse every time they play a game.

Prob v Sri Lanka two series ago

Nah, I still expected a collapse then

Expect a declaration any moment now....

Pants effort.

Even Broad could have tried much harder bat in hand. Bracey was a terrible selection.

Good summary here - https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/eng- ... ty-1266250

"It's the hubris that's most grating with England. The hubris that thinks they can compete - and sell tickets, of course - with one of the best Test teams in the world while resting players having prioritised limited-overs cricket. The hubris that talks of their scouting system as if every eventuality has been considered and then picks a keeper who looks faintly astonished each time he manages to cling on to the ball. The hubris of a coaching system that, these days, allows batters to "work it out for themselves" and has resulted in some of the most technically deficient players to ever bat together in an England team.
There's a touch of hubris about having a coach for every discipline, too. That includes a spin-bowling coach for a side without a spinner and a fielding coach for a side that can hardly catch the bus. Statistics shown by Sky midway through the afternoon session showed that no Test team has a lower percentage of chances taken in the slips over the last three years. Given that England's keeper and fine leg fielder also dropped chances on Saturday and a picture emerges of a side that has been consistently poor in this regard"

fivepointer wrote:Good summary here - https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/eng- ... ty-1266250

"It's the hubris that's most grating with England. The hubris that thinks they can compete - and sell tickets, of course - with one of the best Test teams in the world while resting players having prioritised limited-overs cricket. The hubris that talks of their scouting system as if every eventuality has been considered and then picks a keeper who looks faintly astonished each time he manages to cling on to the ball. The hubris of a coaching system that, these days, allows batters to "work it out for themselves" and has resulted in some of the most technically deficient players to ever bat together in an England team.
There's a touch of hubris about having a coach for every discipline, too. That includes a spin-bowling coach for a side without a spinner and a fielding coach for a side that can hardly catch the bus. Statistics shown by Sky midway through the afternoon session showed that no Test team has a lower percentage of chances taken in the slips over the last three years. Given that England's keeper and fine leg fielder also dropped chances on Saturday and a picture emerges of a side that has been consistently poor in this regard"

Combine that with the weakness of county cricket and you sure have a problem.
It is the worst batting line up we have had in my memory- bar maybe Packer time; Simon Doull was incredulous when the raw comparison was done of the batting averages of the two sides- even without Williamson, NZ were way 'ahead'. Even if you chucked Stokes and Buttler and even Bairstow back in, we'd still look poor, with only one batsman (Root) averaging over 40. All of Burns, Sibley, Crawley and Pope have had plenty of games, too. Bit of a mess in the batting.

As you say though, no excuse for such poor catching- there are some good catchers there, they are just choking imo. We need Root's batting more than his captaincy, and no matter what anyone says, the captaincy has dropped his average by c 5, and that's significant.

tuned in 1 minute too late.jeez

I'm not sure that Cricinfo article is right that England is weak because of its domestic 1st class system and prioritizing of limited overs cricket. The same charges could be levelled at NZ, if not more so.

The County Championship has 18 First Class teams across 2 divisions, playing 14 matches or so apiece in normal times. The English test side plays about 14 times a year.

NZ's Plunket Shield has 6 teams, playing only 8 matches apiece. In the last normal season, played 2 rounds in October, 2 in December, and the rest in February and March. November was taken up by the One Day competition. January (the main summer holiday season when you might have time to go to a 4 day match) was occupied by T20.

Add to the above the fact that NZ plays fewer tests (about 9 a year) than every other test side except Bangladesh, Zimbabwe, Afghanistan and Ireland.

Frankly, it's amazing that NZ can play test cricket at all, let alone to the level of the current crew.

Lizard wrote:I'm not sure that Cricinfo article is right that England is weak because of its domestic 1st class system and prioritizing of limited overs cricket. The same charges could be levelled at NZ, if not more so.

The County Championship has 18 First Class teams across 2 divisions, playing 14 matches or so apiece in normal times. The English test side plays about 14 times a year.

NZ's Plunket Shield has 6 teams, playing only 8 matches apiece. In the last normal season, played 2 rounds in October, 2 in December, and the rest in February and March. November was taken up by the One Day competition. January (the main summer holiday season when you might have time to go to a 4 day match) was occupied by T20.

Add to the above the fact that NZ plays fewer tests (about 9 a year) than every other test side except Bangladesh, Zimbabwe, Afghanistan and Ireland.

Frankly, it's amazing that NZ can play test cricket at all, let alone to the level of the current crew.

It’s a top team, and they have done well at maximising often late developing talent, see Conway and Blundell for example.

Our domestic cricket which should be a strength is a weakness though, we produce results pitches for seamers, and batting techniques have been allowed to be odi dominated. I’m worried about the quality of player being churned out. Dibbly dobbly bowlers and batting technique focused on quick run scoring/quick fixes. It’s poor quality, as can be seen by how easy it is for overseas players to come and ply their trade without breaking sweat; in days gone by, they stayed for many seasons and raised the game of those around them. Not so much now.

Anyway, well played NZ, much better at everything.

The quantity of cricket in England isnt the problem. We actually play a lot, but the balance is too ODI skewed and the quality in the Championship just isnt high enough. Right now, you would want all the players to go an play some tough Championship cricket but we have the wretched Blast going on!
I think our bowling's mostly OK. Broad and Anderson are proven performers, Archer is a handful (though i do worry about his handling), the back up seamers are pretty good, Stokes often takes important wickets and Leach is a serviceable spinner. Give them some runs to work with and we'd be holding our own.
Its the batting that is really problematic with only one current player averaging over 40.
The stats for the others are just terrible. You can forgive young players making errors while finding their feet to a degree but Pope and Crawley have gone backwards and the openers mix the odd score with far too many failures.
A final note of sympathy for Bracey. This lad isnt good enough with bat or with the gloves and was a spectacularly bad pick. Not his fault, those selecting him made a dreadful error.

Yeah, Root aside there aren’t many contenders here for the “Played Tests With Broad & Anderson” 1st XV.

Truly a golden age for NZ, driven a fair bit by a move since 2008 to prepare more seam friendly wickets rather than ones that suited the dibbly dobblers and Vettori.

fivepointer wrote:The quantity of cricket in England isnt the problem. We actually play a lot, but the balance is too ODI skewed and the quality in the Championship just isnt high enough. Right now, you would want all the players to go an play some tough Championship cricket but we have the wretched Blast going on!
I think our bowling's mostly OK. Broad and Anderson are proven performers, Archer is a handful (though i do worry about his handling), the back up seamers are pretty good, Stokes often takes important wickets and Leach is a serviceable spinner. Give them some runs to work with and we'd be holding our own.
Its the batting that is really problematic with only one current player averaging over 40.
The stats for the others are just terrible. You can forgive young players making errors while finding their feet to a degree but Pope and Crawley have gone backwards and the openers mix the odd score with far too many failures.
A final note of sympathy for Bracey. This lad isnt good enough with bat or with the gloves and was a spectacularly bad pick. Not his fault, those selecting him made a dreadful error.

Its a similar problem to rugby, though much worse and the long game competes for focus in a way that 15 a side never will have to.

Lizard wrote:Yeah, Root aside there aren’t many contenders here for the “Played Tests With Broad & Anderson” 1st XV.

Truly a golden age for NZ, driven a fair bit by a move since 2008 to prepare more seam friendly wickets rather than ones that suited the dibbly dobblers and Vettori.

yep was listening to Doull talking about this- he's an excellent pundit, as are all the kiwis I've heard.

fivepointer wrote:Stokes often takes important wickets and Leach is a serviceable spinner. Give them some runs to work with and we'd be holding our own.

Looking at injuries and workload there's a fair amount of chat Stokes plays more as aa batsman going forward. It might not be a plan Stokes likes because he wants to be involved. But he could have another 5-6 seasons if not asked to bowl 10+ overs a day, sometimes 15+

He hasn't perhaps got the batting average to quite justify that, but if he took away some practice time from the bowling his technique is now very good

I just feel like our problems aren't going to be solved by any personnel changes, they need to be solved by large scale changes to the game in England...

We focus way too much on competitions that don't make sense for test match cricket. I get why: they want to make more money. But the balance is just wrong.

Then the coaching in the national team has been iffy for years. The players are turning up with suspect technique and no mental aptitude to playing the kids of innings we need on a regular basis.

And the coaching team do nothing about it...

OK, positives...

I have no problem with our openers scoring slowly. If they can see off the dangerous ball early on, it gives our 3,4,5 and 6 a chance to score. But then our 3,4,5 and 6 come in and try to whack the bloody thing.

Stom wrote:I just feel like our problems aren't going to be solved by any personnel changes, they need to be solved by large scale changes to the game in England...

We focus way too much on competitions that don't make sense for test match cricket. I get why: they want to make more money. But the balance is just wrong.

Then the coaching in the national team has been iffy for years. The players are turning up with suspect technique and no mental aptitude to playing the kids of innings we need on a regular basis.

And the coaching team do nothing about it...

OK, positives...

I have no problem with our openers scoring slowly. If they can see off the dangerous ball early on, it gives our 3,4,5 and 6 a chance to score. But then our 3,4,5 and 6 come in and try to whack the bloody thing.

Not sure how the national team coaches are supposed to turn that around- they get them with years of bad techniques ingrained (see the England Rugby Team)- I'm pretty sure they will try and improve them, though I'd agree the attitude of 'we need to sort the mental side out' is missing the technical issues the likes of Sibley and Burns have. I agree its a root and branch set of changes needed- including pitch preparation.

Follow up from Dobell

https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/engl ... ak-1266370

Banquo wrote:

Stom wrote:I just feel like our problems aren't going to be solved by any personnel changes, they need to be solved by large scale changes to the game in England...

We focus way too much on competitions that don't make sense for test match cricket. I get why: they want to make more money. But the balance is just wrong.

Then the coaching in the national team has been iffy for years. The players are turning up with suspect technique and no mental aptitude to playing the kids of innings we need on a regular basis.

And the coaching team do nothing about it...

OK, positives...

I have no problem with our openers scoring slowly. If they can see off the dangerous ball early on, it gives our 3,4,5 and 6 a chance to score. But then our 3,4,5 and 6 come in and try to whack the bloody thing.

Not sure how the national team coaches are supposed to turn that around- they get them with years of bad techniques ingrained (see the England Rugby Team)- I'm pretty sure they will try and improve them, though I'd agree the attitude of 'we need to sort the mental side out' is missing the technical issues the likes of Sibley and Burns have. I agree its a root and branch set of changes needed- including pitch preparation.

Well, that's what I said next: The coaching team do nothing about it.

If the players don't have the technique or mental aptitude to play test cricket, don't select them and pick a bunch of 38 year olds to do their job, telling them all that they don't get a shot at England until they can hold a bat properly.

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Stom wrote:I just feel like our problems aren't going to be solved by any personnel changes, they need to be solved by large scale changes to the game in England...

We focus way too much on competitions that don't make sense for test match cricket. I get why: they want to make more money. But the balance is just wrong.

Then the coaching in the national team has been iffy for years. The players are turning up with suspect technique and no mental aptitude to playing the kids of innings we need on a regular basis.

And the coaching team do nothing about it...

OK, positives...

I have no problem with our openers scoring slowly. If they can see off the dangerous ball early on, it gives our 3,4,5 and 6 a chance to score. But then our 3,4,5 and 6 come in and try to whack the bloody thing.

Not sure how the national team coaches are supposed to turn that around- they get them with years of bad techniques ingrained (see the England Rugby Team)- I'm pretty sure they will try and improve them, though I'd agree the attitude of 'we need to sort the mental side out' is missing the technical issues the likes of Sibley and Burns have. I agree its a root and branch set of changes needed- including pitch preparation.

Well, that's what I said next: The coaching team do nothing about it.

If the players don't have the technique or mental aptitude to play test cricket, don't select them and pick a bunch of 38 year olds to do their job, telling them all that they don't get a shot at England until they can hold a bat properly.

...and I'm saying a- not sure they 'do nothing' about it and b- there's not a whole lot they can do with players with such bad habits without a lot of access- its radical change. What they definitely can be doing is gettting the catching much better though.

Who are these 38 year olds of which you speak?

Banquo wrote:

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote: Not sure how the national team coaches are supposed to turn that around- they get them with years of bad techniques ingrained (see the England Rugby Team)- I'm pretty sure they will try and improve them, though I'd agree the attitude of 'we need to sort the mental side out' is missing the technical issues the likes of Sibley and Burns have. I agree its a root and branch set of changes needed- including pitch preparation.

Well, that's what I said next: The coaching team do nothing about it.

If the players don't have the technique or mental aptitude to play test cricket, don't select them and pick a bunch of 38 year olds to do their job, telling them all that they don't get a shot at England until they can hold a bat properly.

...and I'm saying a- not sure they 'do nothing' about it and b- there's not a whole lot they can do with players with such bad habits without a lot of access- its radical change. What they definitely can be doing is gettting the catching much better though.

Who are these 38 year olds of which you speak?

Daryl Stevens? Though he's pushing 50 by now!

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Stom wrote:
Well, that's what I said next: The coaching team do nothing about it.

If the players don't have the technique or mental aptitude to play test cricket, don't select them and pick a bunch of 38 year olds to do their job, telling them all that they don't get a shot at England until they can hold a bat properly.

...and I'm saying a- not sure they 'do nothing' about it and b- there's not a whole lot they can do with players with such bad habits without a lot of access- its radical change. What they definitely can be doing is gettting the catching much better though.

Who are these 38 year olds of which you speak?

Daryl Stevens? Though he's pushing 50 by now!

Darren, and he's 46. You need to find 4 more .

But on a serious note, they've cycled through most of the guys who have shown form in county cricket. We just don't have any real quality options, which is why we are bu55ered. Anderson, Broad, Stokes and occasionally Root have been covering over cracks for three or four years now.