I assume cricketers choose their numbers for both their counties/franchises and for their country from the ones available, but the numbers themselves mean nothing unlike in football.
With batting against the old ball being SO much easier this summer, England need to modify their tactics a bit. Be cautious for the first 30 overs, and only then get more aggressive. Indeed a boring top 3 would work well, if you have aggressive run scorers from 4 down to 8
I completely agree if you have a top 3 like Strauss, Cook and Trott your 4-7 can score quickly.
If your going to be so aggressive, as England have been, is there an argument to open the batting with the all rounder and/or the keeper?
Your always going to get one that's too good as an opener but if your getting yourself out every third knock as well?
Open with Stokes and bring Brook into the middle order? If your going to change the rules of test cricket you might as well go the whole hog.
Opening simply in Test cricket isn't that simple. The biggest hazard for an opener is the combination of a moving ball and a cordon of slips. In white ball and when a keeper or an aggressive batsman comes in later in red ball, there is, a lot of the time, very little movement plus there are usually no more than a token slip or two.
Trying to hit a moving ball at 90mph and not find the edge is simply not that easy. If it were, then the likes of Gilchrist, Buttler, Bairstow, Roy, Hales, Pant etc etc would either have been given a run at doing so or would have been more successful than they were doing it.
In fact it's quite simple really. If world class openers struggle to keep a new moving ball out then how are those who play "see ball/hit ball" expected to do it for more than a few balls before they are walking back? How many players have ever tried doing that to Jimmy Anderson with a new cherry let alone been successful at doing so?
I agree but I can see the point, if your asking Crawley, Lees or anyone else to come out and be super aggressive it's going to fail far more often than it doesn't, for the reasons you have just said.
It's not fair on players that are going to be purley judged on the weight of runs they score. God knows what state of mind either of them are in right now.
Personally I would go down the Compton or Robson route for the SA series but if your going to try and change the way the game is played go the full hog. England didn't transform the white ball team by sticking with Cook and Bell and ask them to score at 7 or 8 an over.
I just do not believe that you can "go the full hog" and change the way you play in the majority of circumstances to a new red ball delivered by the majority of attacks in the world. Look at Kohli today - came out all aggressive, hit four boundaries but most of the time couldn't impose himself and ended up with 20 off 40.
The greatest batsman at opening and being aggressive at the same time, in the history of the game, is Sehwag who averaged 49.34 at a strike rate of 82.23. But he had a defence too. Look at what happened when we tried two of our best white ball openers and their respective returns:
Roy - average 18.70, S/R 58.80 Hales - average 27.78, S/R 43.84
Equally, Stokes has been suggested but if he can only average 36.24 at 58.05 batting at 5 or 6 so what are the chances of him lasting that long opening when things are so difficult?
The best openers in the world earn the right to be there later on by not getting out to the new ball. We can try as many as we like going hard at the ball from the outset but I absolutely guarantee that any attempt to do so will consistently fail.
Who is our most successful batsman at present - Bairstow. He opens in white ball but anyone want to be brave enough to say to him do that in Test cricket? He was tried at 3 and in 14 innings he averaged 30.77 at a strike rate of 56.66. So he wasn't even opening, wasn't even trying to be aggressive and he barely averaged 30 at slightly more than 3 an over.
Opening is a completely different psyche. Interestingly, I hadn't realised until I was told yesterday that Zak Crawley did not open in the Kent age group system. He only became an opener at the age of 18 when he was asked to do so in the Kent 2s. If you gave him the choice to go back in time I am sure that he would rather have been a number 3 or 4 because he is an aggressive player but doesn't have the technique that will stand up to scrutiny when opening in red ball. And very, very few players do. For every Sehwag or Warner there are hundreds and hundreds that can only do one or the other. And most English openers can't even do either. For all the reasons I've preciously expressed - constant white ball scenario sessions where defence is not a word that is used.
I don't know why you are trying to convince me, I have already said I wouldn't do it......
Apologies. I took the "Open with Stokes and bring Brook into the middle order? If your going to change the rules of test cricket you might as well go the whole hog" as literal and not ironic.
I assume cricketers choose their numbers for both their counties/franchises and for their country from the ones available, but the numbers themselves mean nothing unlike in football.
That is the case. Eoin Morgan chose his 16 after this favourite footballer, Roy Keane. Billings is a Man United supporter and its not difficult to think that he chose 7 because of a certain player on his first coming at the Club.
As I said this morning, the bottom line is you want your opening batsmen to attempt to "see off the new ball". I'd be very happy if we were 40-0 after 20 overs. (Bring back Boycott who was desperate not to give away his wicket, in all seriousness I think Lees is decent).
I assume cricketers choose their numbers for both their counties/franchises and for their country from the ones available, but the numbers themselves mean nothing unlike in football.
I was looking up KP on wiki yesterday & saw that he wore the number 24 for every team he played for - starting in SA at aged 17, for Notts, Hants & Surrey in county cricket, as well as for England & for the different franchises he has played for.
Can anyone tell me why cricketers have high numbers on their backs ! Stokes 55 when Billings is 7 etc.
Also what are the 3 figure numbers below the 3 lions on the shirts and jumpers. ? Broad 638 for example.
Dont quote me on this but I remember reading that squad numbers do not, or have not until recently been retired. Graeme Swann retired 9 around 9 years ago but his shirt no may not have been reallocated. If true, stupid!!!
With batting against the old ball being SO much easier this summer, England need to modify their tactics a bit. Be cautious for the first 30 overs, and only then get more aggressive. Indeed a boring top 3 would work well, if you have aggressive run scorers from 4 down to 8
I completely agree if you have a top 3 like Strauss, Cook and Trott your 4-7 can score quickly.
If your going to be so aggressive, as England have been, is there an argument to open the batting with the all rounder and/or the keeper?
Your always going to get one that's too good as an opener but if your getting yourself out every third knock as well?
Open with Stokes and bring Brook into the middle order? If your going to change the rules of test cricket you might as well go the whole hog.
Opening simply in Test cricket isn't that simple. The biggest hazard for an opener is the combination of a moving ball and a cordon of slips. In white ball and when a keeper or an aggressive batsman comes in later in red ball, there is, a lot of the time, very little movement plus there are usually no more than a token slip or two.
Trying to hit a moving ball at 90mph and not find the edge is simply not that easy. If it were, then the likes of Gilchrist, Buttler, Bairstow, Roy, Hales, Pant etc etc would either have been given a run at doing so or would have been more successful than they were doing it.
In fact it's quite simple really. If world class openers struggle to keep a new moving ball out then how are those who play "see ball/hit ball" expected to do it for more than a few balls before they are walking back? How many players have ever tried doing that to Jimmy Anderson with a new cherry let alone been successful at doing so?
I agree but I can see the point, if your asking Crawley, Lees or anyone else to come out and be super aggressive it's going to fail far more often than it doesn't, for the reasons you have just said.
It's not fair on players that are going to be purley judged on the weight of runs they score. God knows what state of mind either of them are in right now.
Personally I would go down the Compton or Robson route for the SA series but if your going to try and change the way the game is played go the full hog. England didn't transform the white ball team by sticking with Cook and Bell and ask them to score at 7 or 8 an over.
I just do not believe that you can "go the full hog" and change the way you play in the majority of circumstances to a new red ball delivered by the majority of attacks in the world. Look at Kohli today - came out all aggressive, hit four boundaries but most of the time couldn't impose himself and ended up with 20 off 40.
The greatest batsman at opening and being aggressive at the same time, in the history of the game, is Sehwag who averaged 49.34 at a strike rate of 82.23. But he had a defence too. Look at what happened when we tried two of our best white ball openers and their respective returns:
Roy - average 18.70, S/R 58.80 Hales - average 27.78, S/R 43.84
Equally, Stokes has been suggested but if he can only average 36.24 at 58.05 batting at 5 or 6 so what are the chances of him lasting that long opening when things are so difficult?
The best openers in the world earn the right to be there later on by not getting out to the new ball. We can try as many as we like going hard at the ball from the outset but I absolutely guarantee that any attempt to do so will consistently fail.
Who is our most successful batsman at present - Bairstow. He opens in white ball but anyone want to be brave enough to say to him do that in Test cricket? He was tried at 3 and in 14 innings he averaged 30.77 at a strike rate of 56.66. So he wasn't even opening, wasn't even trying to be aggressive and he barely averaged 30 at slightly more than 3 an over.
Opening is a completely different psyche. Interestingly, I hadn't realised until I was told yesterday that Zak Crawley did not open in the Kent age group system. He only became an opener at the age of 18 when he was asked to do so in the Kent 2s. If you gave him the choice to go back in time I am sure that he would rather have been a number 3 or 4 because he is an aggressive player but doesn't have the technique that will stand up to scrutiny when opening in red ball. And very, very few players do. For every Sehwag or Warner there are hundreds and hundreds that can only do one or the other. And most English openers can't even do either. For all the reasons I've preciously expressed - constant white ball scenario sessions where defence is not a word that is used.
I don't know why you are trying to convince me, I have already said I wouldn't do it......
Apologies. I took the "Open with Stokes and bring Brook into the middle order? If your going to change the rules of test cricket you might as well go the whole hog" as literal and not ironic.
No problem but the fact I said I wanted a top 3 like Strauss, Cook and Trott and would go down the Compton or Robson route gave it away.....
I assume cricketers choose their numbers for both their counties/franchises and for their country from the ones available, but the numbers themselves mean nothing unlike in football.
I was looking up KP on wiki yesterday & saw that he wore the number 24 for every team he played for - starting in SA at aged 17, for Notts, Hants & Surrey in county cricket, as well as for England & for the different franchises he has played for.
If a player like that joined a team where a big name already had 24, then presumably he'd have to pick a new one. A major advantage of picking an obscure number, I can't imagine many players around the world having 62 or 78 for example!
As I said this morning, the bottom line is you want your opening batsmen to attempt to "see off the new ball". I'd be very happy if we were 40-0 after 20 overs. (Bring back Boycott who was desperate not to give away his wicket, in all seriousness I think Lees is decent).
Indeed that is what Pujara has done. In a situation where there is plenty of time, India have 35 overs tomorrow to smash the old ball around.
Can anyone tell me why cricketers have high numbers on their backs ! Stokes 55 when Billings is 7 etc.
Also what are the 3 figure numbers below the 3 lions on the shirts and jumpers. ? Broad 638 for example.
Dont quote me on this but I remember reading that squad numbers do not, or have not until recently been retired. Graeme Swann retired 9 around 9 years ago but his shirt no may not have been reallocated. If true, stupid!!!
The squad numbers now last the cycle of the test championship. Its a joke because the lowest numbers, for England are Crawley 6 and Billings 7.
I think we're more likely to be all out for 200, but there's no doubt England will have a go at chasing whatever India set, which makes the game very interesting
I assume cricketers choose their numbers for both their counties/franchises and for their country from the ones available, but the numbers themselves mean nothing unlike in football.
I was looking up KP on wiki yesterday & saw that he wore the number 24 for every team he played for - starting in SA at aged 17, for Notts, Hants & Surrey in county cricket, as well as for England & for the different franchises he has played for.
If a player like that joined a team where a big name already had 24, then presumably he'd have to pick a new one. A major advantage of picking an obscure number, I can't imagine many players around the world having 62 or 78 for example!
If you have been watching international cricket for the past 20 years or so, you will notice that each player has a number on the front of their shirt as well! It is usually printed quite small in size, and placed just below to the country’s cricket badge or emblem.
The numbers on the front of the cricketer’s shirt represent the player’s position in the chronological list of players to appear for their country in the respective format of the game.
This means, if a player has a number 200 embossed on the front of their shirt, he or she is the player number 200 to represent his country in that particular format of the game.
For the numbers on the back of their shirts, ICC nowadays permits players to choose their own numbers
However, some international cricket boards may have a particular number off limits to players. Sachin Tendulkar famously wore the No.10 jersey – which has unofficially been retired by the BCCI in tribute to the great batsman. Rohit Sharma, who wanted the no. 10 jersey after Sachin’s retirement, was denied by the BCCI.
It looked very "reviewable", especially given India are 8 down and England still have three reviews.
But Stoke's captaincy continues to impress. Even though it was the wrong choice, he's never shy of making the decision, after getting input from the keeper, bowler and anyone who is sideways on.
Poor decision, but - even though this is counter-intuitive - it's better to make a bad decision clearly, than to lead a team purely on gut feel.
Comments
I'd be very happy if we were 40-0 after 20 overs.
(Bring back Boycott who was desperate not to give away his wicket, in all seriousness I think Lees is decent).
https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=start;orderbyad=reverse;qualmin2=100;qualmin3=99;qualmin4=1000;qualval2=wickets;qualval3=dismissals;qualval4=runs;size=200;template=results;type=allround
Bowl full and straight and target the stumps.
If you have been watching international cricket for the past 20 years or so, you will notice that each player has a number on the front of their shirt as well! It is usually printed quite small in size, and placed just below to the country’s cricket badge or emblem.
The numbers on the front of the cricketer’s shirt represent the player’s position in the chronological list of players to appear for their country in the respective format of the game.
This means, if a player has a number 200 embossed on the front of their shirt, he or she is the player number 200 to represent his country in that particular format of the game.
For the numbers on the back of their shirts, ICC nowadays permits players to choose their own numbers
However, some international cricket boards may have a particular number off limits to players. Sachin Tendulkar famously wore the No.10 jersey – which has unofficially been retired by the BCCI in tribute to the great batsman. Rohit Sharma, who wanted the no. 10 jersey after Sachin’s retirement, was denied by the BCCI.
https://cricketmastery.com/why-do-cricketers-have-numbers-on-their-shirt/
But Stoke's captaincy continues to impress. Even though it was the wrong choice, he's never shy of making the decision, after getting input from the keeper, bowler and anyone who is sideways on.
Poor decision, but - even though this is counter-intuitive - it's better to make a bad decision clearly, than to lead a team purely on gut feel.