Whatsup with the Windies / England!?

[tooextracool]

The "kid" has spent the majority of his career opening the batting or shuffling throughout the order. He's not an opening batsman. I think that much is clear.

and he wasnt given enough chances to bat at 3? he got a good consistent run in that position and yet failed miserably bar a few innings against the likes of zimbabwe.

He bowled poorly in the first innings, albeit with a slight ankle problem. That's no excuse though. It seemed like he cracked under the expectation, because it was no secret that New Zealand was most wary of him heading into the Test series.

In the second innings he bowled well though, and that was in good batting conditions. Surely you can give him that much credit? He's finally showing that he can be consistent. Whether he will or not is the question. Remember, he's still very young and inexperienced.

he was actually more accurate than usual yes, but its a far cry from bowling well i can assure you. and how in the world does one half decent performance prove that he can be consistent? especially when he just got hammered and was going at more than 6 an over at one stage in the same test match.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

and he wasnt given enough chances to bat at 3? he got a good consistent run in that position and yet failed miserably bar a few innings against the likes of zimbabwe.

Is it possible (just barely, maybe, perhaps) that he's not a number 3 batsman either?
Whoa. I know that's a difficult concept to consider, but bear with me...
Maybe (just maybe, perhaps, barely) when I said middle order, I mean in the middle, not the top, of the batting order?

And yes. In this case, the sarcasm was very much required.

how in the world does one half decent performance prove that he can be consistent?

No. One fully decent performance following on several fully decent performances in the previous matches. That's called consistency. He bowled well in 4 ODIs leading into the Test. He bowled poorly in one innings. He came back well in the next.

 

[tooextracool]

Is it possible (just barely, maybe, perhaps) that he's not a number 3 batsman either?
Whoa. I know that's a difficult concept to consider, but bear with me...
Maybe (just maybe, perhaps, barely) when I said middle order, I mean in the middle, not the top, of the batting order?

And yes. In this case, the sarcasm was very much required.

and yet has he not spent the large majority of his domestic career batting in those positions?

No. One fully decent performance following on several fully decent performances in the previous matches. That's called consistency. He bowled well in 4 ODIs leading into the Test. He bowled poorly in one innings. He came back well in the next.

as i said earlier, i didnt get to watch the ODIs, infact i pay little attention to most ODIs these days, and thats not likely to change after the recent SA-Aus farce. but you'd think if he was putting in the accuracy in ODI cricket that it would somehow translate into test match cricket as well, yet in Australia and for most of the first test against NZ hes ended up being completely wayward.

 

[Richard]

Training and practising all day every day?

Yes, that's "Spending time with the family"

All day every day?
I think not, somehow.

 

[Richard]

its 6 games actually, its just ironic that hes bowled well in almost everyone of those games while being quite miserable in county cricket.

How do we know he's bowled well?
It's more likely (not certain, no, but more likely) that he's bowled poorly for both teams and got away with it for England A.

 

[Richard]

a major reason why hes been getting out to pace as opposed to spin in the subcontinent is because by and large hes been dismissed before the spinners even came on. yes he scored 2 centuries against warne, one was on a first day pitch where even warne barely managed to turn the ball and the other at Old Trafford was the easiest innings hes probably played. By and large both the Australian and SA bowlers bowled to his strengths, instead of pitching the ball up to him. he has far too many flaws that i dont know where to even start. he plays with a crooked bat more often than not that usually doesnt come down straight enough, therefore inside edges a lot. Hs is extremely susceptible to the inswinger(or a barrage of deliveries pitched up to him early on in his innings), and the mohammad Sami ball was hardly anything unplayable despite the fact that it was somewhat unexpected for Sami to bowl a ball according to plan that was there to expose his weakness perfectly. Finally his temperament seems to have gotten worse than before and it appears as though he cant bat for even a short period of time without scoring boundaries and quick runs.

The Sami ball was not unplayable, indeed, but it was a good ball, unlike, for instance, the rubbish he got out to from Pathan in the first-innings at Mohali.
Don't you think it's a bit simplistic to say "they bowled to his strengths"? I find it much more likely that they tried pitching it up to him, he used his judgement, and they were unable to maintain the intensity. I hope, therefore, that this is simply a blip, and that before too long he'll regain the ability to wait for the short stuff. Nor am I especially worried about his temperament - most of the deliveries he's got out to playing attacking strokes have been there for the shot and he's just executed it poorly.
Even in his first summer, there were clear flaws in the Strauss game (the propensity to top-edge the Pull and the tendency to flash at full, wide balls without reaching far enough to middle them). But he still scored runs.
It's up to him and Duncan Fletcher to work round the current problems.

im not particularly bothered about whether the balls that got him out in SA were good balls or not poor shots. good players are expected to keep good balls out. any quality bowler bowls a fair amount of good deliveries. AFAIC Vaughan has failed miserably from the very first test match that he took over the captaincy and has never recovered since.

And as far as I'm concerned he's every bit the same now as he was when he was first pushed up to open at the start of 2002. Since then he's often got out early but has usually played the odd long innings. If he'd not been so outrageously lucky in his 2nd, 3rd and 4th series as an opener his "decline" wouldn't have been anywhere near so steep as it appears to be. As far as I'm concerned the captaincy has little to do with his poor form. And there was no way anyone was ever likely to play many of the deliveries he got in South Africa - there are some deliveries no-one can keep out, however good they are.

 

[Richard]

and yet has he not spent the large majority of his domestic career batting in those positions?

No.
Hinds had IIRR never opened before the SCG match in 2000\01.

 

[marc71178]

All day every day?
I think not, somehow.

Think you'll find so.

He had less than a week to learn from scratch a full dance routine, in addition to the extra TV commitments involved.

Clearly spending so much time with his family wasn't he?

 

[tooextracool]

How do we know he's bowled well?
It's more likely (not certain, no, but more likely) that he's bowled poorly for both teams and got away with it for England A.

more likely? if anything its less likely for someone to go to the subcontinent and take a bucketload of wickets against any opposition while bowling poorly IMO.

 

[tooextracool]

The Sami ball was not unplayable, indeed, but it was a good ball, unlike, for instance, the rubbish he got out to from Pathan in the first-innings at Mohali.
Don't you think it's a bit simplistic to say "they bowled to his strengths"? I find it much more likely that they tried pitching it up to him, he used his judgement, and they were unable to maintain the intensity.

i disagree. pollock and ntini arent exactly known for bowling full lengths, and while im sure pollock tried it occasionally, ntini probably never did. however the best way to get strauss out is to bowl a barrage of full straight(or swinging) deliveries at him, and try to block out his favorite scoring areas square of the wicket. none of that was carried out during that series.

I hope, therefore, that this is simply a blip, and that before too long he'll regain the ability to wait for the short stuff. Nor am I especially worried about his temperament - most of the deliveries he's got out to playing attacking strokes have been there for the shot and he's just executed it poorly.
Even in his first summer, there were clear flaws in the Strauss game (the propensity to top-edge the Pull and the tendency to flash at full, wide balls without reaching far enough to middle them). But he still scored runs.

playing at wide,swinging balls outside the offstump(ones that he could barely even reach) is a temperamental weakness and defeats the purpose of being an opener really. as an opener you want to leave as many balls as possible early on in your innings, not try to smack them. the problem with strauss is that if, as most bowlers have done recently, pitch the ball up to him consistently, he struggles to score freely. Then as soon as you bowl a wide/short/half volley, he throws his bat at it in a desperate attempt to get runs without realising that hes not settled in.

And as far as I'm concerned he's every bit the same now as he was when he was first pushed up to open at the start of 2002. Since then he's often got out early but has usually played the odd long innings. If he'd not been so outrageously lucky in his 2nd, 3rd and 4th series as an opener his "decline" wouldn't have been anywhere near so steep as it appears to be. As far as I'm concerned the captaincy has little to do with his poor form. And there was no way anyone was ever likely to play many of the deliveries he got in South Africa - there are some deliveries no-one can keep out, however good they are.

whether or not he was lucky in 2002, you cannot change the fact that vaughan ATM is not good enough in any form of the game. if duncan fletcher wants england to be the best in both forms of the game by 2007, then england should not be satisfied with mediocrity. Vaughan has had his fair share of unplayable deliveries, but has he cashed in on other occasions?
throughout the ashes when IMO every batsman bar flintoff should be chided for playing so miserably englands batsmen were lauded because of the fact that their bowlers kept bowling them out of trouble. not surprisingly both in pakistan and india when simon jones wasnt there to bowl them out, they failed miserably. the question i ask is how long will England be satisfied with the mediocrity of Vaughan, Geraint, Strauss and Pietersen?

 

[tooextracool]

No.
Hinds had IIRR never opened before the SCG match in 2000\01.

maybe not, but hes spent the large proportion of his domestic career batting at number 3 and hes been given the chance to do the same in international cricket. looking at his records, it appears as though hes been useless in both.

 

[Richard]

Think you'll find so.

He had less than a week to learn from scratch a full dance routine, in addition to the extra TV commitments involved.

Clearly spending so much time with his family wasn't he?

A week?
How many weeks did this go on for?

 

[Richard]

more likely? if anything its less likely for someone to go to the subcontinent and take a bucketload of wickets against any opposition while bowling poorly IMO.

It's less likely, yes - but do we know what sort of pitches they were? If they were pitches that had some seam in them, the Indians are likely to play it less well than the English domestic players.
It's perfectly possible that Mahmood has bowled better for England A than for Lancs, but even so - it's only 6 matches, he's had 6 good matches for Lancs, too, I'm sure. If he has bowled better, it's likely to just be coincidence - aided by factors such as better recent coaching, practice facilities etc.

 

[Richard]

i disagree. pollock and ntini arent exactly known for bowling full lengths, and while im sure pollock tried it occasionally, ntini probably never did. however the best way to get strauss out is to bowl a barrage of full straight(or swinging) deliveries at him, and try to block out his favorite scoring areas square of the wicket. none of that was carried out during that series.

Of course Steyn never tried either? Inaccurate as he is, he's still a bowler who bowls far more full than short. Of course Langeveldt never tried either? Yes, I'm aware that his best performances came in the matches where both Nel and Langeveldt were absent and of course that's almost certainly not coincidence (can say the same of Trescothick, even though neither of them IIRR got him out).
Even if SA didn't carry the tactic out too well, is it really likely that NZ didn't? Weak as their seam-attack is, they're still pretty much all pitch-it-up bowlers. Equally, did Aus not do so sometimes?
I find it hard to conceive that India's and Pakistan's seam-attack is likely to do something well that Australia's and South Africa's is not.

playing at wide,swinging balls outside the offstump(ones that he could barely even reach) is a temperamental weakness and defeats the purpose of being an opener really. as an opener you want to leave as many balls as possible early on in your innings, not try to smack them. the problem with strauss is that if, as most bowlers have done recently, pitch the ball up to him consistently, he struggles to score freely. Then as soon as you bowl a wide/short/half volley, he throws his bat at it in a desperate attempt to get runs without realising that hes not settled in.

I'd say Strauss is generally pretty adept at hitting bad balls at whatever stage of his innings. Not like he hasn't got himself set several times this winter, either.
The "purpose" of being an opener has, though, kind of changed in the last 4 years. Not something which is to the credit of opening batsmen or coaches, but undeniably something that is perceived. Name a single (succesful) opening batsman in Test cricket today aside from Atapattu (who's inexplicably not opening ATM) who can be broadly classified as not a strokeplayer? Langer, Hayden; Smith, de Villiers; Trescothick, Strauss; Sehwag, whoever; Jayasuriya; Gayle, whoever. Neither New Zealand nor Pakistan have 1, never mind 2, settled openers.

whether or not he was lucky in 2002, you cannot change the fact that vaughan ATM is not good enough in any form of the game. if duncan fletcher wants england to be the best in both forms of the game by 2007, then england should not be satisfied with mediocrity. Vaughan has had his fair share of unplayable deliveries, but has he cashed in on other occasions?

I'm not trying to suggest Vaughan ATM isn't good enough in Test-cricket - he played terribly in The Ashes (only big innings needed 2 let-offs in 2 balls, and played some embarrasing shots such as missing straight, nothing balls from Brett Lee - TWICE - and top-edging the woefully out-of-touch Gillespie) and terribly in his 1 Test in Pakistan.
I'm still prepared to give him some more time (if his knees don't end his career now), but another bad season in 2006 and we've got to ask serious questions.

throughout the ashes when IMO every batsman bar flintoff should be chided for playing so miserably englands batsmen were lauded because of the fact that their bowlers kept bowling them out of trouble. not surprisingly both in pakistan and india when simon jones wasnt there to bowl them out, they failed miserably. the question i ask is how long will England be satisfied with the mediocrity of Vaughan, Geraint, Strauss and Pietersen?

Judging by how long they've been satisfied with the mediocrity of Harmison (and how long they were satisfied with the mediocrity of Flinotff before he became good), probably quite a long time. How long they will it be before they pay for being satisfied? Only a question we'll be able to answer when it happens. It cost quite a bit in Pakistan, certainly, though I'd have backed India to beat us whatever. In Pakistan it can be written-off as "a blip" as it has by ITB and others. The same will not be true if either we lose at home to Pakistan next summer or we get hammered in Australia. I, for one, though, was frustrated beyond belief by the loss in Pakistan, because the series was there for the taking, and I fail to see how we can be called the best side in The World next year even if we do beat Australia having lost that series.

 

[Richard]

maybe not, but hes spent the large proportion of his domestic career batting at number 3 and hes been given the chance to do the same in international cricket. looking at his records, it appears as though hes been useless in both.

Batting at three in West Indies domestic cricket is not the same as batting at three in Tests all around The World.
Someone well utilised as a number-three in Carib cricket is quite possibly better used as a middle-order player in Tests. Especially one with Hinds' weakness against the inswinger.

 

[marc71178]

A week?
How many weeks did this go on for?

Approximately 2 months.

So really spending time with the family there then (!)

 

[tooextracool]

It's less likely, yes - but do we know what sort of pitches they were? If they were pitches that had some seam in them, the Indians are likely to play it less well than the English domestic players..

you'd need to watch the games to know that which neither of us have done

It's perfectly possible that Mahmood has bowled better for England A than for Lancs, but even so - it's only 6 matches, he's had 6 good matches for Lancs, too, I'm sure. If he has bowled better, it's likely to just be coincidence - aided by factors such as better recent coaching, practice facilities etc.

and 6 out of 30 odd games is a completely different story from 6 out of 6 A games.

 

[tooextracool]

Batting at three in West Indies domestic cricket is not the same as batting at three in Tests all around The World.
Someone well utilised as a number-three in Carib cricket is quite possibly better used as a middle-order player in Tests. Especially one with Hinds' weakness against the inswinger.

firstly we were referring to ODIs, so thats not valid.
secondly there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that hinds would be a better middle order player is there? its not like he showed any success with it in the few chances that he got.
why is it impossible to believe that he is rubbish? when someone else usually fails you dont try him out in every other position to see if he might be successful in any one of those. if hes a better middle order player then let him succeed with that in list A or FC cricket first, then maybe he deserves another chance.

 

[tooextracool]

Of course Steyn never tried either? Inaccurate as he is, he's still a bowler who bowls far more full than short.

and if hes inaccurate hes probably far more likely to stray down legside. i cant believe anyone would expect dale steyn to expose any sort of weakness with any sort of consistency.

Of course Langeveldt never tried either? Yes, I'm aware that his best performances came in the matches where both Nel and Langeveldt were absent and of course that's almost certainly not coincidence (can say the same of Trescothick, even though neither of them IIRR got him out).

Nel dismissed him at Supersport Park. and i think you've just answered your own question.

Even if SA didn't carry the tactic out too well, is it really likely that NZ didn't? Weak as their seam-attack is, they're still pretty much all pitch-it-up bowlers. Equally, did Aus not do so sometimes?
I find it hard to conceive that India's and Pakistan's seam-attack is likely to do something well that Australia's and South Africa's is not.

once again you fail to look at cause and effect strategy. i personally doubt that any of those teams managed to bowl ball after ball in the right slots, probably because they had no idea that it was his weakness.

I'd say Strauss is generally pretty adept at hitting bad balls at whatever stage of his innings. Not like he hasn't got himself set several times this winter, either.
The "purpose" of being an opener has, though, kind of changed in the last 4 years. Not something which is to the credit of opening batsmen or coaches, but undeniably something that is perceived. Name a single (succesful) opening batsman in Test cricket today aside from Atapattu (who's inexplicably not opening ATM) who can be broadly classified as not a strokeplayer? Langer, Hayden; Smith, de Villiers; Trescothick, Strauss; Sehwag, whoever; Jayasuriya; Gayle, whoever. Neither New Zealand nor Pakistan have 1, never mind 2, settled openers.

Do you honestly think that strauss has the eye, power or technique to manage to play stroke after stroke and get away with it? if you are then you're incredibly deluded. What made gary Kirsten the player he was despite having clear technical flaws, a not so special eye or any sort of power was that he was prepared to block and block and block and wait for the players to bowl to his strengths. SImilarly just because Gayle(who is useless in tests anyways), Sehwag, Langer, Hayden etc all either have solid techniques enough to carry it out, or in sehwags case they have an incredible eye.

I'm not trying to suggest Vaughan ATM isn't good enough in Test-cricket - he played terribly in The Ashes (only big innings needed 2 let-offs in 2 balls, and played some embarrasing shots such as missing straight, nothing balls from Brett Lee - TWICE - and top-edging the woefully out-of-touch Gillespie) and terribly in his 1 Test in Pakistan.
I'm still prepared to give him some more time (if his knees don't end his career now), but another bad season in 2006 and we've got to ask serious questions.

how much more time? the poor form has carried on from the summer of 2003. hes had only a few good games in 3 years. its all fine and good to be failing when you're team is winning(like hussain was for a period), but its definetly not tolerable if you keep doing for years and years and when the side is losing as a result.

Judging by how long they've been satisfied with the mediocrity of Harmison (and how long they were satisfied with the mediocrity of Flinotff before he became good), probably quite a long time. How long they will it be before they pay for being satisfied? Only a question we'll be able to answer when it happens. It cost quite a bit in Pakistan, certainly, though I'd have backed India to beat us whatever. In Pakistan it can be written-off as "a blip" as it has by ITB and others. The same will not be true if either we lose at home to Pakistan next summer or we get hammered in Australia. I, for one, though, was frustrated beyond belief by the loss in Pakistan, because the series was there for the taking, and I fail to see how we can be called the best side in The World next year even if we do beat Australia having lost that series.

Harmison and Flintoff have always to some extent justified their selection in the side. Both may have been extremely inconsistent, but they were still logical selections. Vaughan is clearly in the side only because of his captaincy.

 

[Richard]

Approximately 2 months.

So really spending time with the family there then (!)

So he was working every day, every week for 2 months?
I find that difficult to believe.