Ok - I am no cricket expert by any means . But surely it has got to be easier for bowlers to keep in form than batsmen. If they run up to bowl in the nets they must be looking to hit one place like the top of off stump. Or a point on the pitch ? If the coaches give them different situations to bowl at surely that should be good enough ?
They can bowl 5 or 10 over spells at a time in the nets
Not buying this rusty bit .
I stand to be corrected by the bowlers out there.
I think you can hone your skills and gain an element of fitness in the nets but the actual place to test yourself is in the middle against batsmen in a proper match situation without the restrictions that nets can impose i.e. front foot cheating, no bowling to a field, inability to change your delivery according to the batsman you are bowling to and what scoring areas they have/perceived weaknesses, having to adapt to the prevalent weather and pitch conditions and that element of competitiveness that nets cannot give you. You are also unlikely to be bowling at batsmen in the nets that will test your skills anyway because under the present calendar they are all elsewhere anyway. If they were to become available then you would surely arrange a match as preparation as was the case for South Africa.
Sorry still not buying that.
Those problems may occur at u14 level but at test level with the tech and coaches they have available to them all of those objections with the exception of the batsman should be able to be circumvented.
The issue that was hilighted was bowling some good balls interspersed with rubbish . If you are hitting the top of off each ball that can’t be described as rubbish. Or just outside off stump. That can be practised.
Accepting what you say about the other elements but the absence of a batsman makes it uncompetitive and unrealistic doesn't it? It is what makes a bowler match sharp bowling at a number of them after all and makes him have to think in the middle what he needs to bowl to a certain batsman rather than something being put down and asked to hit the top of off. In fact, wouldn't you say that it is easier for an U14 to practice in the nets hitting a spot and then play a game and take wickets doing that than, say, an international bowler against Test class batsmen who have a much higher level of skill than their age group counter parts?
I'm also not sure that a bowler just wants to be practising hitting top of off because there will be times (and not the way we used it) where you will want to bowl a bouncer to a set field. You can't replicate that in the nets and certainly not without bowling against a proper batsman because there's not just a combination of left and right handers but they also come in different heights so one man's good length for a drive shot and/or head high bouncer will be totally different for two different batsmen - Marco Jansen is 6' 8'' whereas Kyle Verreyne is 5' 9'' for example - and isn't it honing those skills in the middle that can make the difference?
The match situation covers absolutely all bases but, as you've said, the schedule doesn't allow it although it does allow us, ironically, to put a side up against South Africa for that very purpose.
Appreciating your points , but in order to make it completely realistic in your scenario we would need to find a 6ft 8 batsman to bowl against who was good enough to face test bowlers, because if you are a bunny who cant play fast bowling then its completely unrealistic again ?
Like Zak Crawley - I believe he is just over 6' 5''
Fair play to Reece Topley for pulling out of the Hundred to concentrate on getting in the England WC squad. Unlike other England players who have turned their backs on the comp, he isn't centrally contracted which rather highlights how unfair they are. We have had the same situation with other players who are being picked for England players and the folly of them where, for example, Moeen Ali came back into the Test side and wasn't on one - for someone who was. On the flipside, Archer is being paid for not playing in the hope that he might come back one day to the Test side when he may well just concentrate on playing franchise cricket when he is ultimately fit.
So, as I've suggested before, rather than allow a situation where a player like Potts (and ends up playing a lot of games) coming into a side who isn't on a CC and replace one that is, let's have a system that rewards those who want to play for England. If players want to go and play franchise cricket and miss England games because of it (or the fatigue effects of it) currently they still get paid their full CC and that isn't fair on those that aren't on a CC and who might get persuaded to play franchise cricket instead for that very reason.
Currently, CCs pay anything up to £925,000 (Test) and £300,000 (white ball). In addition they receive £14,500 per Test appearance and £4,500 per white ball game. So, why not have a situation where a player is given a one off payment of say £200,000 on their Test debut in that calendar year but then a payment of say £35,000 each time they make a Test squad plus another £15,000 each time they make the starting XI. For white ball say £75,000 on debut and then perhaps £15,000 for making a squad plus another £5,000 each time they start. If a player chooses to take the mickey by making a token appearance and then choosing not to play again for England then they won't get picked the following year. The figures would, clearly, be need to be played with by the ECB to strike the right balance and according to the budget available.
I recognise that the fear is that someone like Buttler or Archer will turn their back on England to play franchise but we also have to be wary that young non centrally contracted player like Harry Brook, Will Smeed or Reece Topley, for example, might equally do the same because the incentive of possibly being called up for England isn't going to be sufficient to persuade them otherwise. As an aside, is Harry Brook actually getting anything for making these Test squads?
We have to stop rewarding, though, those players who choose not to play for England and we can't afford to give CCs to every player that are picked to play for England - there has to be a balance between the two options mainly because the IPL owners will be looking to dominate world cricket with them already owning franchises in three different countries.
Robinson in for Potts is the only change to our side for the 2nd Test
should be last chance saloon for quite a few
I'm not sure that there will or should, perhaps, be wholesale changes.
The likes of Pope, Root, Bairstow and Stokes are untouchable at present and the "rod for their own back" that the selectors have created is, in backing Crawley (will be 50 innings) for so long, it makes it hard to drop Lees (18 innings) first, for example, without accusations of favouritism. I don't, actually, believe that either of them is currently good enough but it is a struggle to find one opener let alone two at the moment.
I doubt that both Anderson and Broad will disappear at once (unless it is of their choice of course) but we will see a situation, especially with the return from injury of other seamers, where they will play less and less and certainly so together.
The only other players that are really under pressure for their positions, in my opinion, are Leach and Foakes. The former has been bowling much better and only recently picked up 10 wickets against India so he has bought more time whereas the latter's place is under scrutiny because of his lack of runs since he returned to the fold - 287 runs in 10 Tests and 19 innings (15 times out) at an average of 19.13. Unless Brook is picked to open, the only option for him to get into the side is for him to replace Foakes with Bairstow taking the gloves.
Robinson in for Potts is the only change to our side for the 2nd Test
should be last chance saloon for quite a few
I'm not sure that there will or should, perhaps, be wholesale changes.
The likes of Pope, Root, Bairstow and Stokes are untouchable at present and the "rod for their own back" that the selectors have created is, in backing Crawley (will be 50 innings) for so long, it makes it hard to drop Lees (18 innings) first, for example, without accusations of favouritism. I don't, actually, believe that either of them is currently good enough but it is a struggle to find one opener let alone two at the moment.
I doubt that both Anderson and Broad will disappear at once (unless it is of their choice of course) but we will see a situation, especially with the return from injury of other seamers, where they will play less and less and certainly so together.
The only other players that are really under pressure for their positions, in my opinion, are Leach and Foakes. The former has been bowling much better and only recently picked up 10 wickets against India so he has bought more time whereas the latter's place is under scrutiny because of his lack of runs since he returned to the fold - 287 runs in 10 Tests and 19 innings (15 times out) at an average of 19.13. Unless Brook is picked to open, the only option for him to get into the side is for him to replace Foakes with Bairstow taking the gloves.
I think Foakes for Brook is a no brainer to be honest. Give Jonny the gloves
Should have been Broad to drop out for Robinson IMO. been below par this summer.
I don't know if it's true or not, someone will probably prove its absolute tosh, but I always get the impression Broad bowls significantly better when he has bowled a lot.
Should have been Broad to drop out for Robinson IMO. been below par this summer.
I don't know if it's true or not, someone will probably prove its absolute tosh, but I always get the impression Broad bowls significantly better when he has bowled a lot.
That might be true in which case he couldn't have bowled less coming into this Test - he didn't bowl in a game for over six weeks between the end of the India Test and the start of the NZ series.
Should have been Broad to drop out for Robinson IMO. been below par this summer.
I think this is broads last summer. A big sky contract is waiting for him.
broad seems to be the one who catches go down off of or decisions overturned on review. I think he has been better than his figures show but the end for him as a test match bowler is nigh
Pitas must be sitting there looking at what he has done as a bowler in comparison to what Crawley and lees have done as batsmen and wonder why they are still getting game time
Pitas must be sitting there looking at what he has done as a bowler in comparison to what Crawley and lees have done as batsmen and wonder why they are still getting game time
Should have been Broad to drop out for Robinson IMO. been below par this summer.
I think this is broads last summer. A big sky contract is waiting for him.
broad seems to be the one who catches go down off of or decisions overturned on review. I think he has been better than his figures show but the end for him as a test match bowler is nigh
I can't quite remember when the stat was from, but Broad had the most drop catches off his bowling of any test bowler since 2006.
Agree he gets unlucky but i saw something earlier in the summer - may have even been from cric viz that all his metrics are significantly down on previous years, pace, consistency, accuracy, balls going on to hit the stumps, balls in the channel, expected wickets etc.
Havent seen updated analysis but if thats the case it certainly signals a tailing off no matter what "luck" he has had.
The Manchester weather looks to be good for the next few days. Looks as though Man. one of the rainiest cities in England will be rain free whilst most other towns and cities are in for a soaking
Amazing. South Africa win the toss and bat. Simon Harmer playing for them and no Marco Jansen and it is the two spinners selected that has dictated the decision to bat. England were going to bowl.
Amazing. South Africa win the toss and bat. Simon Harmer playing for them and no Marco Jansen but two spinners so it is the wicket and team selection that has dictated the decision to bat. England were going to bowl.
Best possible outcome for England I think. Won't get slated for bowling first as we won the toss
Maharaj and Harmer at OT second innings will be close to unplayable for anyone in our side not named Joe Root. I dare say England's challenge is to ensure it doesn't get to a second innings. Which sounds preposterous given how the first Test went
I'm sure that this was a situation where Elgar wished that he could have handed the team sheet in after the toss rather than before it. Win the toss and bowl first with Jansen in the side, lose it and play the two spinners. We'll know pretty much how influential this morning's conditions are but the pitch won't take that much spin if the game finishes on day 3.
Comments
So, as I've suggested before, rather than allow a situation where a player like Potts (and ends up playing a lot of games) coming into a side who isn't on a CC and replace one that is, let's have a system that rewards those who want to play for England. If players want to go and play franchise cricket and miss England games because of it (or the fatigue effects of it) currently they still get paid their full CC and that isn't fair on those that aren't on a CC and who might get persuaded to play franchise cricket instead for that very reason.
Currently, CCs pay anything up to £925,000 (Test) and £300,000 (white ball). In addition they receive £14,500 per Test appearance and £4,500 per white ball game. So, why not have a situation where a player is given a one off payment of say £200,000 on their Test debut in that calendar year but then a payment of say £35,000 each time they make a Test squad plus another £15,000 each time they make the starting XI. For white ball say £75,000 on debut and then perhaps £15,000 for making a squad plus another £5,000 each time they start. If a player chooses to take the mickey by making a token appearance and then choosing not to play again for England then they won't get picked the following year. The figures would, clearly, be need to be played with by the ECB to strike the right balance and according to the budget available.
I recognise that the fear is that someone like Buttler or Archer will turn their back on England to play franchise but we also have to be wary that young non centrally contracted player like Harry Brook, Will Smeed or Reece Topley, for example, might equally do the same because the incentive of possibly being called up for England isn't going to be sufficient to persuade them otherwise. As an aside, is Harry Brook actually getting anything for making these Test squads?
We have to stop rewarding, though, those players who choose not to play for England and we can't afford to give CCs to every player that are picked to play for England - there has to be a balance between the two options mainly because the IPL owners will be looking to dominate world cricket with them already owning franchises in three different countries.
The likes of Pope, Root, Bairstow and Stokes are untouchable at present and the "rod for their own back" that the selectors have created is, in backing Crawley (will be 50 innings) for so long, it makes it hard to drop Lees (18 innings) first, for example, without accusations of favouritism. I don't, actually, believe that either of them is currently good enough but it is a struggle to find one opener let alone two at the moment.
I doubt that both Anderson and Broad will disappear at once (unless it is of their choice of course) but we will see a situation, especially with the return from injury of other seamers, where they will play less and less and certainly so together.
The only other players that are really under pressure for their positions, in my opinion, are Leach and Foakes. The former has been bowling much better and only recently picked up 10 wickets against India so he has bought more time whereas the latter's place is under scrutiny because of his lack of runs since he returned to the fold - 287 runs in 10 Tests and 19 innings (15 times out) at an average of 19.13. Unless Brook is picked to open, the only option for him to get into the side is for him to replace Foakes with Bairstow taking the gloves.
broad seems to be the one who catches go down off of or decisions overturned on review. I think he has been better than his figures show but the end for him as a test match bowler is nigh
Havent seen updated analysis but if thats the case it certainly signals a tailing off no matter what "luck" he has had.