He's 21 but he's played 91 first class innings and averages under 30. Maybe he'll get better but I don't think there's much reason to believe he could currently be a test batsman.
English cricket thread
- Thread starter Samid
- Start date
Being good at First Class cricket probably helps than not being good at First Class cricket. Limited overs cricket is important as this World Cup is shown, they are also far less wearing than a whole test match as well. So don't think cutting a ODI series from 5 to 3 will have as much of an impact as cutting 1 whole test match.
The biggest problem England has is not too much test cricket or too much limited overs cricket for that matter. It's that we seem to want to play the same players (for the most part) in both formats. That in itself is extremely wearing and as we have seen playing in one format often breeds bad habits for playing in the other.
It is definitely an issue that England have a number of players playing both formats and seem hesitant to tell someone like Buttler to just focus on ODIs. But really only he and Roy are the ones in the side currently that could just focus on the shorter format. The rest are pretty much there because of merit or at least aren't there because they are great at ODI's.
So I don't think it is as bad as you think and arguably the only way to cut back on the amount of cricket played is to actually cut back on the amount of cricket England play. Given they already have more Tests lined up than any other country, that is the obvious place to look at.
England didn't really win the last match is what I mean. If they'd had a review left, Australia would have won but they wasted it.
Then we are saying the same thing!
England did win the last match because that’s the rules. However that’s doesn’t mean they played the better cricket. And that’s the whole point of a 5 match series; flukes and miracles are accounted for and get ironed out in the final assessment.
Australia have won so many more sessions than England over 4 tests, and I expect that to carry on to the 5th, with Australia winning 3-1, which is probably a fair and accurate assessment of the two teams right now.
Last edited:
It's much more impressive to do it in a team of average bats, when he has to save each innings and essentially do it all himself, then it is to do it in a dominant team. If he even plays half as good - which would have been great still - we'd have lost the Ashes.
Agree with all this. He's coming in against the new ball pretty much every innings and still doing it every bloody time, despite very rarely finding a partner capable of sticking with him for long.
Today proved that England lost this series more on ability rather than any other stuff like application, fatigue or focus etc. Just not good enough technique wise
Agreed. I don't remember a batting performance as dominant as his. Put him in englands side and they win the ashes. He has inspired the others on occasion but he has been an absolute rock. Ridiculous series from him.
Exactly, it's been a one man batting line-up essentially. If you look at all of our scores he's made the significant portion our runs each innings.
82 of 186 = 44.1% (next highest is 34 from Wade)
211 of 497 = 42.5% (next highest is 67 from Labuchagne)
92 of 250 = 36.8% (next highest is 36 from Khawaja)
142 of 487 = 29.2% (next highest is 110 from Wade)
144 of 284 = 50.1% (next highest is 44 from Siddle)
He was the top scorer in each Australian innings.
He scored 671 of 1704 runs in the Innings he batted in, which is 39.4% of the total. This includes coming back in one innings after getting hit by Joffra, and a selfless innings in the last test, trying to make runs quick and give us something to bowl at and enough time to bowl at it.
He was constantly coming in to face the new ball, each innings, despite batting two-down. He came out to a chorus of boos and the pressure was all on him.
This series was truly one of the greatest ever from a batsman, let alone being in foreign territory.
Last edited:
Uhmm...
Maybe I am not getting my point across right. The fact that he has been in a weaker team has helped him. I know, it’s harder and impressive to do it and credits to him. But how often do you think he would have had to show such class and performance coming after Hayden, langer and pointing. He sure as well would have done then as well, but the chances would have been far and few between.
You're not getting your point across because it's ridiculous and makes no sense.
Ah thanks. Out of interest what was the issue with it. Not accurate enough for really fine nicks?
I thought Harris was that person and Stuart Clark was fantastic as well. Not surprising Hazlewood and McGrath grew up around 300km (a small distance for Australian Standards) from each other in regional NSW. I'd imagine that he (Hazlewood) modelled his bowling off McGrath.
There were certain loopholes, think you could use use vaseline and silicone tape and get away with thin nicks.
Oi feck you!
We are
just me going a step further to say they won not because of rules, but a failure of them.He looks better standing out in a average/poor line-up than he would among Hayden and Ponting but that doesn't make him a better or worse player. Those knocks are special and the lad is obviously the real deal no matter who his teammates are.
He'll have played most of those innings as an extremely young player though won't he. And his innings against India surely show that he has the potential to make it at test level. He's certainly shown as much ability as Roy, Denly, Pope and Buttler.
Guess you could look at his youth in one of two ways. Either:
He's young, so let's give him time and space to find his natural role away from the pressure of international cricket.
Or:
He's young, so let's take him out of the rubbish county system and mould him into the player we want him to be, before he gets stuck.
Last edited:
He's been great, for sure. Can't imagine any batsman has been as dominant since Bradman.
If Warner can find his form and the Aussie selectors can find someone to bat no.5, they'll have a serious team.
Unchanged side ffs 
Really? Well I guess they feel there's no point. The two tests in NZ will basically be glorified friendlies so maybe that's when we'll see changes. Also the fact that we haven't played any red-ball domestic matches since July hardly helps does it.Unchanged side ffs
You've basically randomly picked up names. The last 2 years have seen the emergence of some quality bowlers again with Archer, Bumrah, Cummins and with Starc and Boult being able to avoid injuries. But for the most part of the ongoing decade, bowling quality was largely sub par and dependent on home teams tailoring crappy pitches for them to shine (negating any impressive averages by Ashvin and Jadeja, else even Herath is world class).
All you need to do is look at the squads of 2011 and 2015 world cups to know that the world didnt have great bowlers. Boult and Starc were young and inconsistent. But barringnthem Steyn and an aging Murali, there are few who would go down as best players playing at their peaks.
What are you talking about? This is a debate about Steven Smith's test batting average.
Whole post reads like you're confused - Starc is not very good in tests - why are you talking about him?
Muralitharan retired in 2010.
Are Anderson, Broad, Morkel, Philander, Rabada random names in test cricket?
Still gutted today.
Root and Stokes could/should easily have eaten up 30 overs between them... same with Burns really. They were our 3 most reliable batsman this series (which says something in itself)... and a great performance from one of them, or simply a good performance from 2 of them would have been enough.
I mean even Roy managed to face 110 balls.
Root and Stokes could/should easily have eaten up 30 overs between them... same with Burns really. They were our 3 most reliable batsman this series (which says something in itself)... and a great performance from one of them, or simply a good performance from 2 of them would have been enough.
I mean even Roy managed to face 110 balls.
Being a success in First Class cricket does not necessarily mean you'll make it as a test player, however it is still probably the best indication we have as to whether a player should be given a shot in the test arena or not. When all is said and done the only true measure is to actually play test cricket but our selectors for whatever reason seem to want to regurgitate the same tired old names. If we continue to do this, we'll never be any good.
Last edited:
Don't know a great deal about Cricket but have really enjoyed this summer and the Ashes especially. The World Cup was exciting but the Ashes feels like the pinnacle.
How good is Pat Cummins btw? Seems to have it all, even the looks of a Hollywood star from the 50's.
How good is Pat Cummins btw? Seems to have it all, even the looks of a Hollywood star from the 50's.
Geoff Boycott knighted for services to sport, not in recognition of his services to wife beating:
https://news.sky.com/story/geoff-boycott-knighthood-criticised-by-domestic-abuse-charities-11805954
If you ever do anything wrong in your life you do not deserve anything at all, whatever you do after the bad thing?
A bit like the stick Giggs gets. His entire, illustrious career wiped out in some people's minds, because he did something that thousands of other people have also done.
I am not excusing what either of them have done, but it has no bearing on their careers in sport and the 2 should not be confused.
https://news.sky.com/story/geoff-boycott-knighthood-criticised-by-domestic-abuse-charities-11805954
If you ever do anything wrong in your life you do not deserve anything at all, whatever you do after the bad thing?
A bit like the stick Giggs gets. His entire, illustrious career wiped out in some people's minds, because he did something that thousands of other people have also done.
I am not excusing what either of them have done, but it has no bearing on their careers in sport and the 2 should not be confused.
And he didn't even need to black up for it either...
We know Boycott is an outspoken idiot at times, but you can not fault him for his services to sport.
Boycott’s a cretin.
Is this satire?
"The first thing you've got to say is 'who else is going to come in?' That's one point.
Oh look, a final parting blow to County Cricket from that moron Bayliss.
Oh look, a final parting blow to County Cricket from that moron Bayliss.
Boycott Boycott