Home

  • Royals’ draft pick

    The Royals had the fifth pick overall in the draft this year and have selected a pitcher, right-handed Kyle Zimmer. I don’t know a lot about him, but he looks very talented and a good choice. His stats at the University of University of San Francisco are excellent, after transferring from being a third baseman. He was our expected pick, partly I think because from an organisational standpoint it looks like a good fit. Whilst it’s hard to say where we will be in five or so years, we have fairly set options at most other places. Good pitching is always important anyway and in our case I think it will still be one of our more pressing needs in the future.

    I am confident about this pick. Apart from anything else, we have done a very good job with the draft picks in the past, most of our first round picks from a few years ago are well established in the major leagues. I have a lot of confidence in our scouting and development programmes and assuming he signs I look forward to seeing Zimmer come through the system.

    —
    Update: Here are some of those stats.

    ,

  • LV=CC week nine roundup

    This was a week of firsts in the Championship as Lancashire recorded their first win in thrilling style and Derbyshire were beaten for the first time this season. Glamorgan had one of their best chances to register their first win of the season as well, but Leicestershire thwarted them in a manner very similar to Middlesex thwarting Lancashire last week. Northamptonshire were also able to hold on for a draw at Headingley despite being 45-5 at one point in their first innings. The results were:

    Lancashire beat Durham by two wickets
    Middlesex beat Sussex by ten wickets
    Worcestershire drew with Somerset
    Glamorgan drew with Leicestershire
    Gloucestershire beat Derbyshire by seven wickets
    Yorkshire drew with Northamptonshire

    Lancashire’s victory has seen them jump to fifth in the table, though with a match in hand against most sides. Durham only got three bonus points (all bowling) from that match, but they bowled their overs so slowly they were deducted four points. Losing a point from the match means they are now 14 points behind eighth placed Worcs. With neither Notts or Warks playing this round, the top of the first division is unchanged with Notts on top by a single point. Warwickshire have only played six matches to Notts’ seven, however.

    In the second division, Yorkshire just barely got enough points from their draw to stay ahead of Kent and in the promotion zone, whilst Derbyshire are still comfortably atop the table (a 28 point lead) despite their defeat. Glamorgan’s failure to defeat Leicestershire keeps them at the foot of the division and the only side yet to record a victory in the second tier.

    Looking ahead to the last round of fixtures before the T20 break: Notts and Warks will both be confident of victory facing Lancs and Durham respectively. Lancashire have now played well two weeks in a row, however, and Durham will be keen to come back from their agonising defeat. Durham’s hopes will be dented by the fact that Onions, the hero of their last match, is unlikely to take part due to being in the England squad for the Third Test. The second division features much of the same, with the top two teams playing the bottom two. Kent will thus likely need a victory against Hampshire to stay near the promotion zone.

    , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

  • KP v the ECB

    In case you have for some reason been cut off from the world all day and have missed the story about KP (and if so, I’m very flattered that you would come here first), he has retired from ODIs and effectively been dropped from T20s.

    I actually think KP ought to be applauded for clearly putting his Test career over ODIs. There is some suggestion (and perhaps not entirely unfounded) that his retirement is from some other conflict with the ECB, but I don’t think there is a need to suggest that. It is clear that there is too much ODI cricket; England have 13 ODIs this summer, seven in India and five in New Zealand over the winter, then ten bilateral ODIs plus the farcical Champions Trophy next summer. KP is one of very few England players who actually play in all three formats and I think it is perfectly reasonable for him to decide that it is not worth the cost to his Test career to play so many ODIs. Hopefully the ICC and national boards take note of this attitude and revise the number of ODIs being played. If even the star players are starting to think it too much of an effort, the format itself may not last much longer.

    I think the ECB handled it very badly. They declared that ODIs and T20s were so closely intertwined that KP had to retire from both or none at all. This is one of the causes of the suggestion that there was some other reason for KPs retirement and it is not unreasonable, even if I don’t think it is necessary. I do not pretend to be privy to the ECB’s planning system, of course, but the notion that a player cannot decide to retire from just ODIs seems ridiculous. The tours and planning may be intertwined, but different squads are named and there are even different captains! I do not see how it could be too difficult for KP to play T20s but not ODIs and yet not too much trouble to have different captains in the two formats.

    I am not ever going to be the president of the KP fan club, but this time (and actually with the Twitter furore as well) I think he is blameless. The ECB don’t seem to particularly like him and whilst they can be forgiven for that, they are being irrational about the situation and I do not think that is forgivable. They are making themselves and English cricket look bad and I think they need to, if not do a U-turn, at least reassess how they handle situations like this for the future.

    , ,

  • Don’t play Narine

    Sunil Narine has been added to the West Indies squad for the final Test in place of the injured Kemar Roach. This has prompted a lot of excitement from some quarters, but I think it is misplaced.

    Narine is, if not outright overrated, at least over-hyped. For all the suggestions that he is a brilliant mystery spinner with whom England will struggle, the reality is that he has only ever played one ODI series and that against a mediocre Australian batting line up on very helpful pitches. He has only played six first class matches and those are all in the West Indies. I don’t want to be unfairly cruel toward their first class system, but I think it is reasonable to suggest that those six matches were not a good approximation of Test matches. He has been picked purely on talent and whilst that is not a bad idea, it is not at all a justification for the hype surrounding him. He has got good turn and bounce when he has played, but again those have been on very helpful pitches. He has literally never played on a pitch that was not conducive to spin! He also has an Ajantha Mendis style ‘carrom ball’. To explain why one should not put too much stock in that, I surely need say no more than ‘Ajantha Mendis’.

    Most of his hype seems to come from the IPL. I cannot count how many people have told me how he has befuddled international players in the IPL. It should go without saying that four overs with a white ball under floodlights on an Indian pitch are not even vaguely comparable to the conditions of a Test match.

    The only decent argument for playing Narine is that Shillingford was very poor at Trent Bridge. He was quite possibly poor enough to be dropped and the West Indies have nothing, or at least little, to lose by trying out a young player. Whilst I can see the logic, it should be remembered that not only did Shillingford stay with his country for the home Tests against Australia, he took a Test ten-fer! Of course, he had the same help of opposition and pitch that Narine did in the ODIs, but surely that suggests that Shillingford is no worse a talent? One does not luck into a Test ten-fer. Shillingford played poorly at Trent Bridge, but he has done well enough in the past that it would be very harsh to drop him. More than anything else though, it sends the wrong message to the rest: Shillingford stayed with the team and did well for them, Narine left them to it in search of personal wealth. To drop the former for the latter would be to set a terrible example.

    , , , ,

  • Five bowlers

    I have said for some time that I think England should play five bowlers. At first glance, it looks a bit ridiculous. England have not consistently played five bowlers since the retirement of Freddie Flintoff. Since then, England have gone from being the fifth ranked Test team in the world to the first and have lost only one series, the recent one in the UAE. So why should we change a winning formula?

    My answer is basically that it is inefficient. We have done very well with four bowlers, but a lot of that has been down to outstanding performances from our main players. Our batsmen have put up huge totals much more often than not and we have seldom been short a bowler. But not all of the batsmen have contributed. Specifically, we have not got a consistent contribution from the batsman at five or six since Collingwood and Bell were both in form against South Africa in 2009/10. This is something on which I touched during the last Test, but there is some important detail. First off is the definition of the ‘sixth batsman’. For a variety of reasons this need not be the person actually at six; the definition I am using is ‘the player most likely to have been dropped if a fifth full time bowler had been played’. I realise this is a subjective definition, but the numbers are actually so strong that the specifics hardly matter. For the avoidance of doubt I have used Morgan in England v Pakistan, Collingwood in the Ashes, Morgan in England v Sri Lanka and the first two England v India Tests, Bopara for the third and fourth England v India Tests, Morgan for Pakistan v England, Patel for Sri Lanka v England and Bairstow for the first two West Indies v England Tests.

    This gives us 23 Tests (omitting those against Bangladesh) in which England have won 14 and lost six. In these Tests, the sixth batsmen have contributed 708 runs at an average of 22.84 and one century in 34 innings. The other ten players combine to average 39.66 with almost a century every ten innings and that is including the bowlers! The contrast is more drastic when one looks at the rest of the top six, plus Prior: they have an average of 43.23 with a century every 9.7 innings. In fact, the contribution of the sixth batsmen has been much more comparable to that of the bowlers. Since mid 2010, England’s seam trio plus Swann have combined to average 17.86 with one century, that of Stuart Broad in 2010. In other words, we have had a win/loss ratio over two despite consistently having a batsman who contributes only half of what his top-order colleagues do and only five runs more than the bowlers!

    England are clearly not gaining anything by playing a sixth batsman and looking at the actual results of matches backs this up. Of the fourteen matches that England have won in the timeframe I am using, the closest was the five wicket victory in the most recent Lord’s Test. None of the run chases have involved the sixth batsman and when England have successfully defended a total it has never been by fewer than 196 runs (the margin of victory at Lord’s last year). The contribution of the sixth batsman has not only been statistically insignificant, the individual performances have not shifted any result into England’s favour.

    The counter argument would point out that England not getting contributions from the sixth batsman in the past does not preclude them from doing so in the future and in any case, the four bowlers have been just as successful. That is all true, but whilst England have not been needing their sixth batsman, there have been times when they have appeared to need another bowling option. The first innings of the most recent Trent Bridge Test was one example: England were on the verge of effectively knocking the West Indies out of the Test, but with the ball going soft they were suddenly without wicket taking options. Bresnan was being hit around the ground, Swann was not getting appreciable turn on a first day pitch and Jimmy and Broad could only bowl short spells as they had to be held back for the new ball. Strauss was reduced to bowling Trott to get the overs in before the new ball was taken. Having a fifth bowler prevents this from happening. Not only are part-timers not needed, but there is variation to suit the conditions. Bresnan bowled very well in the second innings of that Test, but the conditions did not suit him as well in the first innings and England had no alternatives available.

    England have nothing, or at lease very little, to lose by playing a fifth bowler. The main batsmen are capable of putting up a large score without further help and adding another world-class bowler to the attack can only help. The time has come to do so.

    , , , , , , ,

  • England win by nine wickets

    In the end, this was not close. To be fair, it should never have been. The West Indies had some good sessions, usually accompanied by England seeming to switch off a bit, but in the rest of the match England were utterly dominant. In a way, it was another good warmup for England before South Africa (pity about the huge number of ODIs in between, but that is another rant). The West Indies showed in the evening of the first day and the first half or so of the third that England could not really afford to let up, but England seldom bothered to get out of about second gear. The one time they did, on the third evening, the West Indies found themselves 61-6.

    There were some bright spots for the West Indies: Darren Sammy had a very good match with the bat; he finally realised that he could not simply throw the bat at everything and hope it came off. Not only in the first innings, when he scored his maiden Test century, but also in the second as he tried to push the target up to something reasonable he found a much better balance of orthodox attack and sensible defence. It was a far cry from his dismissal at Lord’s to a ball that he did well to even reach. Marlon Samuels did very well in both innings, with a century in the first and an unbeaten 76 in the second. He is another who seems to have worked out the value of patience; in both innings his strike rate was under fifty. Kemar Roach had a massive no-ball problem and apparently still has a slight ankle problem, but he bowled brilliantly with the second new ball.

    England will not go into Edgbaston thinking that there are no problems, but the scoreline is a fair one for the Test as a whole. None of the batsmen really fared poorly, most of the dismissals were to good deliveries. The main exception, Strauss, can be excused on the grounds that he had already made 141. The bowling was very good in the second innings and for parts of the first. Jimmy finally started to get a bit of luck, though his match figures are still less than he deserved. He and Broad blew away the West Indies top order twice and though many of the batsmen were complicit in their own demise, there are few who would say that the opening spells were anything but sharp. They might care to look at the balance of the side and ensure that they are still effective with the old ball.

    Going into Edgbaston, I suspect the West Indies may name an unchanged side. There is not a lot of reserve talent at their disposal, so even Kirk Edwards will probably stay on. Roach and Rampaul bowled well enough, at least in bursts, that there should be no temptation to bring Fidel Edwards back. That will probably become clearer after the match at Leicester, however. Roach also needs to work on his no-balling problem in that match.

    England, despite their comfortable win, may make at least one change. There has been a suggestion that with the series wrapped up they may choose to rest Broad and Anderson. Bresnan would appear to have secured his place for the near future. I do not think that Jimmy will be rested, though Broad might be. Jimmy is a bowler who relies on being in a good rhythm and appears to improve when he has a few overs under his belt. Given that there are also eight or nine ODIs between Edgbaston and Lord’s in which Jimmy is not certain to take part, I would certainly play him at Edgbaston. Broad is a slightly different story. He is a more integral part of the ODI side and can be expected to play in all of them. He also has a lot of past injuries, which Jimmy does not. I think England must give Finn a chance to show himself at Test level and resting Broad would be a good way to do that for a Test.

    Whoever plays, I expect another comfortable win for England. There is simply a massive gulf between the two sides and I don’t think the West Indies can overcome it. There have been positive signs from them at least, perhaps in another four or eight years we will have a proper contest again.

    , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

  • Trent Bridge, day three: WI 61-6

    Today was almost the West Indies’ day. They just needed to get through the final session without collapsing to not only have won the day but to actually have a chance to be on top in the match. That did not happen.

    Yesterday I wrote that the West Indies would have to bowl much better today than they did yesterday to stay in the match and that is exactly what they did. Rampaul got some swing with the old ball to remove KP (not even through a bad shot, just an excellent delivery) and Roach finally found a spell where he stayed behind the line and got both Bell and Baristow with the second new ball. It was a fantastic spell of bowling and it really put England on the back foot, a position from which they never fully recovered.

    Jonny Baristow looked very uncomfortable against the short delivery in his short stay at the crease. Opinion seemed to be divided over whether it constituted a weakness of not, but I am not inclined to think it does. Certainly he looked surprised by it and certainly he did not play it well, but it was part of a vicious new ball burst by Kemar Roach. There are few batsmen who would have played that very well and fewer still in their second Test. I think it is too early to pass a judgement on him.

    I said that Kemar Roach found a spell of keeping his foot behind the line and that is true, but that period passed and we had more instances of the umpires ‘missing’ no-balls. We frequently saw them walk over to the crease to scrape away a bit and we saw on TV that the bowlers were overstepping, but it was only called a few times. This is a situation that should be rectified and could easily be. The on-field umpires have a radio connection to the third umpire; we know that the latter sees the no-balls, why can he not simply alert the former in real time? This would not even add any time to the game. All that has to happen is the third umpire radios down as it happens and the on-field umpire calls and signals such immediately thereafter. No need for analysis, discussion or anything of that sort; it would be just as quick and clear as if the on-field umpire had seen it. It would also free up the on-field umpire to focus on any potential incidents with the delivery.

    I suggested yesterday that Tim Bresnan may have sneaked back into the side by picking up the tail-end wickets. That performance is probably irrelevant now, if he does not play at Edgbaston it will only be because of a rotation policy. He showed that he still can score runs and actually looked like he was trying to grind out an innings. At one point he had scored 20 runs off over 60 deliveries. It worked too; he finished with a very good 39 not out. What sealed it, however, was the three wickets he took during the West Indies collapse. England will certainly be happy to have a fully firing Tim Bresnan back, but I actually still think that Steve Finn ought to get a Test at some point. Bresnan’s runs in the first innings only compensated for some of the ones that he conceded on the first day and there is no reason why Finn could not have taken wickets too. The ball was starting to keep low by the time he took his wickets and it really suited the way he was bowling. That may happen again, but this has not been a typical English wicket and I still strongly feel that England must give Steven Finn a chance to show what he can do at some point. Bresnan was very good today, but we cannot just ignore what happened over the first six days of the series. One swallow does not a summer make.

    My preference is still to play five bowlers. Bresnan scored runs again today and did so conventionally. The above paragraph should not be taken as a slight on him, he is a good cricketer and would easily be in any other side. It’s just that the same is true of Finn and ideally they would both play. This will probably not happen in the near future, but it would solve a lot of our selection problems.

    I’m hesitant to say what might happen tomorrow. The West Indies have swung wildly from being very competitive and showing real talent to the 61-6 we saw in the evening session today. Samuels and Sammy are the two not out batsmen and they really need to put on another 200 partnership or the West Indies have just about had it. Frankly, they may have anyway. The pitch is breaking up, but not so much that one would say that England could not chase almost anything up to 250. The West Indies currently only lead by three. I expect a bit of fight, but I expect them to last to lunch and I would be surprised if they set England more than 100 to win. They’ve been surprising so far, however, they could surprise again.

    , , , , , , ,

  • Trent Bridge, day two: Eng 259-2

    Today was rather better from an English point of view. (It was an incredibly frustrating one from a Lancastrian point of view, but that’s a different post.) The West Indies did better in the morning than I thought they might have, but they still did not look like they had done enough with their 370 all out. To be fair, it was always going to be incredibly difficult to get back into contention after their start, but they really did not help themselves. Sammy and Samuels actually saw off the first burst in the morning and Sammy got (a bit streakily) to a very well played and richly deserved hundred. But then when it looked like England were not going to be able to stop them from getting up to a good total, the West Indies appeared to decide to up the pace a bit. Given that it was only the second morning and they were still not yet in a particularly strong position it is a very questionable decision. Sammy probably just reverted to is usual type after bringing up his ton, but Samuels made little effort to shepherd the tail. Given how patient he had been all series, it was rather surprising to say the least. Tim Bresnan was the main beneficiary and ended up taking four wickets. To say his figures are misleading would be a massive understatement.

    The West Indies really shot themselves in the foot when they were bowling, however. Twice Kemar Roach got Cook caught off a no-ball and seemed to lose it mentally shortly thereafter. He was never able to completely settle and the West Indies were effectively without their main strike bowler for most of the day. Ravi Rampaul did do a decent job in his stead: getting the ball to swing and taking the wickets of both Cook and Trott. But he could only bowl so much and Sammy’s heroics with the bat did not transfer over to the ball. He is a useful fourth seamer and a borderline third seamer, but he is not close to being good enough to be effectively the second seamer. This just left the spinner, Shane Shillingford, who was very poor. KP smashed him for six down the ground and from there he just seemed unsure of what to do. He (and actually all the West Indies bowlers to some extent) dragged the ball far too short and wide to Strauss and anyone even passingly familiar with how the England captain likes to bat can tell you not to give him balls to cut. Sammy and Shillingford both went for over four and a half runs per over and were between them responsible for 15 of Strauss’ 18 fours and seven of KP’s 11 boundaries. It meant that the evening session was quite similar to the one last night with the batsmen scoring almost at will and the bowlers looking like they had no answer. The difference is that England already had a decent platform. Strauss and KP’s unbeaten partnership has already brought England to within a Nelson of the West Indies and with eight wickets in hand.

    The West Indies will have to work hard to come back tomorrow. To be fair they did so at Lord’s so it is far from impossible, but it is a big ask. Strauss has a history of going cheaply in the morning after being not out overnight so they will fancy their chances to remove him. KP tried very hard to give his wicket away at times this evening and may get himself out early tomorrow as well. There is a danger for the West Indies if he gets himself set, however, as he looked in a mood to really take the attack to the bowling. Even if the West Indies do remove the two not out batsmen early tomorrow, they will still have Ian Bell with whom to deal. Bell looked in excellent form at Lord’s and can dominate an attack just as well as KP, but in a more understated way. Bairstow will have a chance to show that he can score runs at Test level, if in relatively easy circumstances, and I think he has the skill to take that chance. After that come Prior, Bresnan, Broad and Swann. All of whom can add quite a few quick runs against an attack that is tiring and the West Indies attack already look tired. None of this is to say that the West Indies cannot or will not keep England close, but to say they will have to put in a much better effort than they did today. They cannot take wickets with no balls and they cannot bowl to batsmen’s strengths! If they cannot improve they will be looking at a huge first innings deficit.

    , , , , , , , , , , , ,

  • Trent Bridge, day one: WI 304-6

    Strictly speaking one would probably say that England overall played better today than they did in the last match. But sat here after watching the last session it is hard to believe.

    England selected an unchanged XI from the last Test and whilst I can understand the logic of not changing a winning side and whilst I know that Bresnan bowled well here last year it was a mistake. Bresnan was poor in the last Test, contributing little with the ball and nothing with the bat. With two perfectly good bowlers waiting in the wings, Strauss and Flower decided to give him another chance. He did bowl better when the ball was relatively new; his pace seemed to be up and he was troubling the batsmen. But the lack of variation in the attack caused by not having Finn showed. Bresnan lost his edge as the ball got old and was entirely ineffective thereafter. This is not to say the West Indies did not bat well, they certainly did. Marlon Samuels was very patient throughout his innings and was not troubled by the loss of Chanderpaul or Ramdin. Darren Sammy finally decided to bat sensibly instead of throwing his bat at everything and was rewarded with his highest ever Test score and still at a good rate. He struck the perfect balance of being positive without being reckless.

    Bresnan, supposed to get wickets at the best of times and contain at the worst could do neither after the ball got old. It is true that the pitch was flat, but he was doing little better than Trott. It was simply all too easy for the West Indies; at tea they were 154-6, by the time the new ball was taken 23 overs later they were 260-6. Not only did England throw away a good position with toothless bowling in that time, they made it difficult for themselves with the new ball as the batsmen were very well set by the time it was taken. Sammy had some luck against Jimmy Anderson, but it was not a case of the West Indies clinging on either.

    It is impossible to say whether this would have been better with Finn, but it is very unlikely that it could have been any worse. Finn was dropped from the Test team in the first place because he was too expensive, but today Bresnan went at almost four an over including the tighter spells he bowled before tea. In any case, Finn has improved his bowling since the last time he was in the side and there is every reason to suspect he might be a bit tighter now. Even if not, however, he has always had a knack for taking wickets and that is what England need. The pitch was flat, but fairly quick. Finn’s height gives him awkward bounce and the West Indians were already having trouble when Anderson or Broad bowled it short. There is no way adding that sort of variation could have made things worse for England than they turned out to be and a very good argument for why it might have been better. This selection error must be rectified at Edgbaston.

    England are not in a poor position by any means. They did enough with the first new ball (helped by some injudicious strokeplay and poor footwork from the West Indies top order) that even their horror show of an evening session has only put the match back to about level terms. The plan will no doubt be to regroup overnight and attack the West Indies with a still fairly new ball tomorrow morning when they have to reset themselves. It may or may not work, but if it does and the West Indies fail to get 350 then England can still be pleased. The pitch has been described as one where 400 is a par score so England need not yet worry about the overall match situation, especially with a 1-0 lead in the series. Strauss and Flower absolutely must heed the lessons of this evening session, however, and England must play better tomorrow to seize an advantage.

    , , , , , , ,

  • Cricket in America

    The ICC’s Twitter feed posed the question this morning of whether cricket could catch on in America and how best to popularise it. This is something about which I rarely think (American Armchair Cricketer tends to have more on it) but I could hardly have failed to make a few observations.

    First off is that the popular perception of the American span being too short for Test cricket is, whilst not entirely baseless, not entirely accurate. There are certainly people, and a lot of them, who would not be interested. But there are a very substantial minority who would. I don’t like using anecdotes; they are not rigourous. But in this case, where there is no overall data at which to look, I think they might be useful. And I can say that I know several people even in my fairly small circle of friends who definitely have the attention span for cricket and have even expressed an interest. It’s actually very similar to football: years ago most Americans regarded it as a dull, foreign sport as well. It has since been shown, however, that they definitely are willing to watch in great numbers. I accept that a thirty hour Test match is different to a two hour football match, but I think the same applies: give them something interesting, make it easily available and see what happens.

    What should not happen is to flood the market with T20. If one tries to ‘Americanise’ cricket to get it into the market one will only attract those who are unlikely to be ever be interested in Test cricket. I expect that there would be a very low conversion rate. Looking at football again, it did not change anything about the basic game in an effort to get into the American market. Cricket must not either, there is no point setting up what amounts to a bait and switch with T20. If one wants to maximise the appeal of cricket in America, one will have to introduce all forms of the game in a way that people can see them and decide whether or not they are appealing.

    The best way would probably be to set up youth leagues. The fact that young children could play football very likely caused its increase in popularity as those children grew up. If children start to play cricket and are given the opportunity to watch it on telly they are more likely to become engaged with the sport.