New Zealand tour of England - May/June 2015

[swacker]

why was this team not sent to WC ?

Before the World Cup, it was said that England had the most talented one day players they had ever had (According to Moores)

His idea of international one day cricket was incredibly dated. I mean bloody hell he was opening with Ali and Bell and leaving Hales on the sidelines.

 

[MUFC1987]

That's a very dangerous perception to have. A lot of this it's a lot harder game for the bowlers is a whole lot of manure. I wouldn't dare call a good modern day batsmen average.

I think, batting has changed more than anything else. I think, a lot of emphasis is now laid on mindsets. I've noticed an unbelievable change in the outlook of the modern day cricketer. He just doesn't believe in the word impossible. It's like the moment you dangle that carrot, a group of young cricketers see that as an opportunity to shine and not worry about failure. If you just see the scoring areas now, it's unreal in the 90's. I just feel the bowler hasn't evolved as much as the batsman has.

Just to sight out a few things I've heard people mourn about, specially commentators-

Pitches are dead dodo's, they are docile and flat. This isn't true. I think, all the pitches mostly keep their true nature. We've had more results in tests than forever. Yes, there's the odd drop in pitch sometimes that's dull, but there were more 'draws' in yesteryear than there are today. I frankly, love ODI cricket now. If you have a weakness in the team, you will be stripped naked. The only issue I have sometimes is that the boundary is in, which was not the case at the world cup so it was fine. The only rule that needs changing is the fielding restrictions. McCullum will still have fielders in. de Villiers will still hit sixes. Starc will still pick wickets. You just allow a bit more captaincy to come in as well as reward the bowler for accuracy.

There's a lot of nostalgia and romance about the past. Why? Because you can't travel in time. Understandably, a lot of cricketers are termed as legends and rightly so. But, we sometimes under estimate how brilliant the present is. One day, this will be the past and people will remember some of these chaps as legends and miss them. eg. When you talk of legendary fast bowlers, we always hear Malcolm Marshall and Wasim Akram. Yet, when you talk of greats in terms of batsmen everyone in the present is said to have these drop in pitches, flat tracks, BIG BATS etc. etc. Well, if batting is so easy in today's day and age compared to yesteryear, every time all time great bowlers are discussed, Steyn and Anderson should be discussed a lot before Hadlee, Marshall etc etc.

ps: Nothing against your post or you. Just wanted to share myths. Very dangerous to compare eras in sport. Each is unique. And so, we will never know who is average in yesteryear or special.

I'm not doubting that some players are just very good players who have adapted well. That's your de Villiers and the like. But there are a lot of bang average batsmen who are looking a lot better now. And for me, this isn't about eras. I'm not talking about 20 years ago, I'm talking about 5 or so years ago. On the pitches, I think there are a lack of pitches that 'do much' for the ball, but that's always been the case in ODIs, so I don't think it's that much of an issue. In the last 5-10 years, I don't think the pitches have changed much, so it's not an issue for me.

Onto the things that have changed:

The ball. It seems to swing a lot less at the start, which might just be perception, rather than reality, so I'll ignore that. But the switch to 2 balls per innings has made a batsman's life easier. The ball hardly ever reverse swings now. You used to get that last 15 overs or so where a good pace bowler could reverse swing it and cause problems. That doesn't happen now. Makes life easier. Also the ball is much harder for the whole innings. Remember when we had one ball and everyone kept on demanding that it was changed after 35 overs or so? That had nothing to do with not being able to see it. That was because it was swinging as above and going soft. A soft ball is much harder to hit cleanly, making life harder for the batsmen. So what happened? We got 2 balls, that don't reverse and don't go soft. Sixes galore. Because batsmen can just swing from the hip.

Field restrictions. There's one less man out. Remember 5 or so years ago, when you always faced that one batsmen who could find the gap on the boundary, and we all felt he was the quality player. Well now, there's two gaps there, much easier to hit the ropes again. And the batting Powerplay. Fair enough it can cause issues, but it also means batsmen can not time the ball as well as before and instead of getting caught, they're flicking it over the fielders in the circle.

Shorter boundaries. Similar to above, mishits go further, to find that short boundary instead of being caught on it.

That's just my theories on why some players look better now than they did 5 years ago.

 

[richowebbo]

Exactly. It's fine when Ali plays but he's not available for selection. He'd definitely be in ahead of Roy for me.

In this series I think Willey is good enough to bat at 7. We don't need Billings. You could bring in somebody like Overton then.

May as well just swap Billings for Overton, as Overton can bat. Not seen anything of Willey with the bat really.

When Ali and Woakes are back, I think it will make our lives a bit easier. Woakes is a genuine swing bowler, which is really important. Can't see him playing this summer for England though.

Finn still a concern for some?

 

[Aislabie]

Don't let either Overton anywhere near the XI if the series is still alive; hand them simultaneous debuts if it's a dead rubber for the sake of the headlines

 

[cricket_icon]

lool at rumours of the overtons making it into the team, neither is international quality...do england realise they have a series to win here?

 

[LiveLoveABD]

I'm not doubting that some players are just very good players who have adapted well. That's your de Villiers and the like. But there are a lot of bang average batsmen who are looking a lot better now. And for me, this isn't about eras. I'm not talking about 20 years ago, I'm talking about 5 or so years ago. On the pitches, I think there are a lack of pitches that 'do much' for the ball, but that's always been the case in ODIs, so I don't think it's that much of an issue. In the last 5-10 years, I don't think the pitches have changed much, so it's not an issue for me.

Onto the things that have changed:

The ball. It seems to swing a lot less at the start, which might just be perception, rather than reality, so I'll ignore that. But the switch to 2 balls per innings has made a batsman's life easier. The ball hardly ever reverse swings now. You used to get that last 15 overs or so where a good pace bowler could reverse swing it and cause problems. That doesn't happen now. Makes life easier. Also the ball is much harder for the whole innings. Remember when we had one ball and everyone kept on demanding that it was changed after 35 overs or so? That had nothing to do with not being able to see it. That was because it was swinging as above and going soft. A soft ball is much harder to hit cleanly, making life harder for the batsmen. So what happened? We got 2 balls, that don't reverse and don't go soft. Sixes galore. Because batsmen can just swing from the hip.

Field restrictions. There's one less man out. Remember 5 or so years ago, when you always faced that one batsmen who could find the gap on the boundary, and we all felt he was the quality player. Well now, there's two gaps there, much easier to hit the ropes again. And the batting Powerplay. Fair enough it can cause issues, but it also means batsmen can not time the ball as well as before and instead of getting caught, they're flicking it over the fielders in the circle.

Shorter boundaries. Similar to above, mishits go further, to find that short boundary instead of being caught on it.

That's just my theories on why some players look better now than they did 5 years ago.

The switch to two balls? It was there in 1992 as well. I agree that the harder ball travels further, but I don't think reverse swing doesn't exist. Reverse swing, is by far the most difficult art to master in cricket and I've seen people like Starc, Boult and Shami do it with effect at the death. It's not bazooka swing like that of Waqar Younis, but not just up and down stuff. It does reverse, when you allow it to scuff up and look after the ball. I grant you, that it doesn't reverse as much, but that's simply because the grounds and outfields are like carpet. To reiterate my point, I simply think that there's a dearth of good quality swing bowlers and that the modern day batsman is far better than the era gone past when it comes to 'hitting.'

Your post about field restriction exactly echo my thoughts, as mentioned in my earlier posts. Shorter boundaries are a concern and one needs to learn from Australia.

But, I still say that the average modern day batsman would be a better batsman in the previous era simply because of the range of strokes as well as a massive self belief in his abilities.

 

[LiveLoveABD]

1. Limited overs games have flat pitches so people score more runs and is more entertaining.
2. Big bats really do make a difference. Chris Gayle is nothing more then a gym bunny that can watch a ball. He would score half the runs if he used a bat from the 1990s.
3. Remember a couple years ago, when scoring 250 was a good total in One Days? That doesnt happen anymore. These days people are scoring 350 and it is being chased down.

My best example of medicore batsmen are the Windies T20 players. None of them have technique or anything to show us good batting. They all can just hit a ball with a 15kg+ bat and now they are world class?

1. All pitches are not 'flat.' The ball still seams in England if you have the ability to make it seam, it decked around quite a lot in Australia at the WC if you were capable (Starc & Boult), it still spins in India whether it's an ODI or test.

2. Big bats definitely make the ball travel further and I agree with you on that. However, it's effect has often been exaggerated. A lot of mishits were not going the distance during the WC simply because the boundaries were what they should be on a cricket field. I find the issue to be boundaries, not so much the bats, but yes, if they get any bigger, it is getting a bit out of hand.
As for Chris Gayle? I think he's one of the most over rated cricketer of this century as well but you have him a bit under rated. If anyone can wallow a 15kg+ bat and watch the ball, well then you don't need anything more. You need a lot of muscle to lift the big bat and not a lot of batsmen have a hawk eye. I think, your issue has more to do with how a cricket bat is 'pressed.' There by, it makes the bat chunkier but is still light to pick up.
A bit more on Gayle- Gayle made his debut in 2000, when bats were 'normal.' He has test centuries in Australia, South Africa, England, NZ, and the sub continent. So, I would say he's more than just a 'gym bunny.'

3. And when 250 was a good total in ODI's people would blame the 'middle overs' and call them 'boring.' I don't mind the score going up to 500 and it being chased. The game always evolves. People get better. It is impossible to please everyone. For me, if the boundaries are long, the game is fast paced, the pitches offer a bit of bounce and there are no restrictions on captains having fielders out, I am fine.
The viewer often wants to see a close contest between the bat and ball and the game played at a high level. The problem with the ICC is that they think they need to use gimmicks to do that. They don't. Good pitches and equal teams mean good cricket matches.

 

[LiveLoveABD]

steyn apart form last year would walk into any team even of the past, he can turn matches head on even in the most lifeless pitches certainly . Anderson is the best one trick pony if wind isnt blowing his way he is as docile as FC trundler so despite wickets he isnt going into any legendary teams apart from the england ones.[DOUBLEPOST=1434359423][/DOUBLEPOST]

Anderson isn't a one trick pony. If you saw him bowl in India when England last toured here. Panesar and Swann got all the wickets, but Anderson's contribution was gold. He took the big wickets and India didn't have a clue with the way he was reversing it. He's not in Steyn's league, but he is one of the top bowlers of this generation and I don't even like him. I think you have him mistaken for Philander.

 

[grkrama]

we were rebuilding none of the top order had any clue to anyone except pujara may be then , ya he is certainly good i would rate him around zaheer's level certainly not in the league of steyn, malcom etc.

 

[richowebbo]

Craig Overton is a decent player, not so sure about Jamie. I don't think its fair to say they are not International quality as they haven't played, but at 21, I assume they are in the squad for experience with the rest of the team.

 

[PokerAce]

I think England have done very well to compete on an even keel with the Kiwis. As tight as the test series was, I felt NZ will blow England out of the water in the ODIs. However to be fair, England have competed, in the ODIs, and have been way better than I expected them to be.

This new found desire in England, setup and fans alike, to be good at ODIs is something I truly welcome. No one is denying that test cricket is the pinnacle of cricket, but ODIs are also an important part of the setup, and the format in which all the major Multi-nation tournaments are played.

England in the past cared for test cricket, but were not even bothered by ODIs. I sense that changing now, and that is welcome. England want to be among the best in ODIs too and that is good.

 

[richowebbo]

This would be my England ODI team:

Hales, Butler, Root, Morgan, Taylor, Stokes, Woakes, Rashid, Plunkett, Broad, Wood

Can I change my mind and take Rashid out?!

 

[richowebbo]

That was better from Roy

 

[MUFC1987]

Roy's technique really is shocking.

 

[MUFC1987]

On the Overton's, I think Jamie was picked because he has his pace back and has bowled some good spells already this season. On Craig, he's bowled really well in the Championship by all accounts, with 20 wickets at 18. If that's not good enough for a chance to get in the squad at International cricket, then we have incredibly high standards, that no one is going to live up to.