England test cricket

[Spinynorman]

Other than Cooke and Root and not including the all rounders the batting does look rather dodgy.

[liquidfootball2]

Other than Cooke and Root and not including the all rounders the batting does look rather dodgy.

I suppose your classing Bairstow as an all rounder too, but that's harsh as in effect that means your saying "apart from six players England's batting does look rather dodgy" - so Cook and Root not counting Woakes, Stokes, Bairstow and Ali - even if you say Ali too is dodgy it's still virtually half the side, and the dodgy bit includes the tail which is nonsense.

Vince and Balance are under pressure, Ali bats at eight or nine and has made runs relatively recently, Hales had an excellent series against Sri Lanka.

[forestfan]

It's great to have the all-rounders, we'd be pretty lost without them, but we need to find a settled top five of genuine quality, you don't beat the likes of Australia away from home with two specialist batsmen (well, maybe we can if Cook reproduces his 2010/11 form...)

[liquidfootball2]

It's great to have the all-rounders, we'd be pretty lost without them, but we need to find a settled top five of genuine quality, you don't beat the likes of Australia away from home with two specialist batsmen (well, maybe we can if Cook reproduces his 2010/11 form...)

Agreed Forest, it would be much better.

My marks would be

Vince:-

He just doesn't look to have any sort of middle game, it's either four or block and he tries to belt the ball going across and away from him. He was also poor against an older ball here and even struggled against an ordinary looking Sri Lanka

So maybe 0.5/10 is fair

Balance:-

Admittedly hasn't given it away like Vince but as we said will always be found out by quality seamers, it was a risk and i thought rather poor selection to bring him back. He's determined enough but looks to be feeling for the ball and not in control against the higher quality pace. His foot movement is still suspect and seems to not follow the ball onto the bat with his eyes. I would give him the series but rather reluctantly.

A slightly better 3/10

Hales:-

Did well against Sri Lanka but South Africa and Pakistan are a step up in class. He has eradicated the fishing outside offstump which proved his undoing so many times in Africa and so does learn lessons. He was impressive against the average Sri Lankans but Pakistan are finding him out again. His footwork is suspect and his head isn't getting into line, he was facing a moving ball and quality bowling but needs to adjust quickly to survive. Still living on what he did v Sri Lanka but problems elsewhere mean he's not a priority for me.

6/10 - but that mark is falling

I think Bell, one of the classiest players we've had was badly found out towards the end of his test career, he had a long run to regain his confidence at test level but could only be given so long as there really were no signs only a long sequence of failures.

County level as we so often find is a few steps down and Bell still can impress here however his capabilities at the higher level are clearly on the wane and I think it would be a retrograde step to restore him even if he would possibly be better then what we have. He's older and will only get worse the older he gets when the contrast to how he used to be will be even starker.

[liquidfootball2]

362-4

Root 152*, Woakes 37*

[liquidfootball2]

400-4, Woakes has his fifty

Woakes 51*, Root 171*

[liquidfootball2]

One hundred partnership

412-4

Gone woaksey

428-5

Woakes c & b Yasir 58

[Maldini]

They alluded to it last night that it was a great chance for Woakes to get a big score on this pitch.

Pretty sure Bairstow/Stokes wouldn't have minded going in and probably had that decision taken away from them.

Anyway, well played Woakes and let's have a really big score from Rooty.

[forestfan]

Well, 254 will do nicely - third England batsman to make a 250+ score in the last 12 months! (There have been only 16 such innings in England's Test history...)

[liquidfootball2]

Have to feel sorry for Ben Stokes badly cut off today by the same 'nearly new' umpire who was so poor on the field in the first test.

Joel Wilson, this time as a third umpire saw the mark on the glove may have already been there as the ball approached, as he even asked the question while adjudicating, and then amazingly gives it out citing that same mark.

(The mark was just the different coloured lining as you could see two strips at the wrist on his left hand glove)

A staggeringly incompetent decision.

[foxinthebox2001]

Controversial decision not to enforce the follow on, although England should still win this fairly easily, either tomorrow or Tuesday, unless Manchester has a 48 hour deluge.
Its the scratching around at 3 an over I dont get, maybe they should have pushed Vince up to opener and Ballance at 3, give them a (last) chance to shine and let them get on with it.
Hales footwork needs a lot of improvement, he should be relaxed in this situation, just play the shots.

[liquidfootball2]

When there was a rest day after the third day of the match, enforcing the follow on was a no brainer. I think when a captain enforces it on a pitch as good as this then he's potentially condemning his bowlers to a consecutive three days in the field.

Very few modern captains enforce in this era of back to back tests. Cook may well have thought "surely Pakistan can't bat as badly again". An incredibly rational explanation when the forecast for the next two days is so good.

Making them bat last on this wicket and give the bowlers a rest until tomorrow was always likely.

The purpose of batting again is really not making the bowlers go straight back out, even if they're physically not tired, there is a mentality of a rest and going fresh at them with plenty of time left and the last innings. Batting on here was more about that than runs.

I think they should declare overnight as they now have the rest and always had enough runs anyway.

[foxinthebox2001]

I would say the correct choice would have been about 80/20 in favour of getting Pakistan back in, even then the 20 only if there were doubts over any bowlers fitness.
Only 60 overs bowled, and today only Stokes bowled more than 10 overs, not exactly a boiling hot day, the rest excuse is a bit lame.
The way its panned out, obviously the weather is tough to predict, a high pressure 11/12 overs may well have yielded a Pakistan wicket or 2.

[liquidfootball2]

Yes, it's just become the fashion not to enforce these days if there's no necessity for it. I would imagine captains are more comfortable trying to win matches in the fashion they're used to.

Enforcing does have a lot going for it but it's an option that's not being taken very often nowadays. Captains do have all the stats available and the pros and cons must have been weighed up by many modern captains. I suppose all you can say is there is a real difference of opinion between past players (and now commentators) and the modern way.

Hard to say whether all the stats they have now have caused such a change but I'm sure with so much time left they haven't chosen a more difficult route just to be perverse.

I am playing devil's advocate a little but think the commentators, most of whom played in the eighties (Warne excepted), do paint it just a little too much black and white, with how we used to do it being very white.

[liquidfootball2]

World number one ranked bowler Yasir Shah match figures 1-266

Not so good on an unhelpful wicket

[Maldini]

Yet I'll bet my bottom dollar that the southern venues will continue to prepare wickets that suit the away teams.

Gate receipts much more important than aiding our bowlers.

[liquidfootball2]

I'm in for the last session

Well this may not last too long and all that controversy over not following on will all seem to be pretty pointless and a fuss over nothing with a day to spare.

[liquidfootball2]

Sri Lanka on the verge of going one up v the Aussies - on Eurosport2 now

Done it having only made 113 in the first inns too.

[forestfan]

The second innings 176 from Mendis decided it, nobody else made more than 55 in either innings.

154 balls without a run in the Aussie tail's rearguard action though... that's longer than an entire T20 innings! Could be a change at the top of the rankings coming though.

[liquidfootball2]

The second innings 176 from Mendis decided it, nobody else made more than 55 in either innings.

154 balls without a run in the Aussie tail's rearguard action though... that's longer than an entire T20 innings! Could be a change at the top of the rankings coming though.

The rankings are like their football equivalents, usually not worth paying too much attention to. India although they're very good at home on massively turning wickets with nothing for seamers, have lost to England heavily in their last three series (even including a rare home defeat) but playing most of their tests at home will always put them at an unfair advantage in these rankings.

[forestfan]

The second innings 176 from Mendis decided it, nobody else made more than 55 in either innings.

154 balls without a run in the Aussie tail's rearguard action though... that's longer than an entire T20 innings! Could be a change at the top of the rankings coming though.

The rankings are like their football equivalents, usually not worth paying too much attention to. India although they're very good at home on massively turning wickets with nothing for seamers, have lost to England heavily in their last three series (even including a rare home defeat) but playing most of their tests at home will always put them at an unfair advantage in these rankings.

Every Test and series is competitive though, whereas the football ones are based largely on friendlies and turkey-shoot qualifiers.

If there's an outstanding team, the rankings will recognise that... but there isn't one at the moment. All the top 6 or 7 teams are strong at home but struggle in less familiar conditions, a couple of away series wins can be enough to put you up there. South Africa went from 1st to 6th pretty quickly which shows how closely matched the teams are, if you take home advantage out of the equation.

[liquidfootball2]

The second innings 176 from Mendis decided it, nobody else made more than 55 in either innings.

154 balls without a run in the Aussie tail's rearguard action though... that's longer than an entire T20 innings! Could be a change at the top of the rankings coming though.

The rankings are like their football equivalents, usually not worth paying too much attention to. India although they're very good at home on massively turning wickets with nothing for seamers, have lost to England heavily in their last three series (even including a rare home defeat) but playing most of their tests at home will always put them at an unfair advantage in these rankings.

Every Test and series is competitive though, whereas the football ones are based largely on friendlies and turkey-shoot qualifiers.

If there's an outstanding team, the rankings will recognise that... but there isn't one at the moment. All the top 6 or 7 teams are strong at home but struggle in less familiar conditions, a couple of away series wins can be enough to put you up there. South Africa went from 1st to 6th pretty quickly which shows how closely matched the teams are, if you take home advantage out of the equation.

There's also the wide disparity in the amount of test cricket each plays, India Pakistan and South Africa play infrequently and mostly at home, Australia and especially England play a massive amount including frequent away tours.

[forestfan]

I don't know exactly how the formula works, but it must take volume of matches, venue and opposition into account, you couldn't just play Zimbabwe at home 10 times a year to guarantee top spot.

There's never an ideal system but with the continuing failure to establish a World Test Championship, the current rankings are the best thing we've got.

[liquidfootball2]

I don't know exactly how the formula works, but it must take volume of matches, venue and opposition into account, you couldn't just play Zimbabwe at home 10 times a year to guarantee top spot.

There's never an ideal system but with the continuing failure to establish a World Test Championship, the current rankings are the best thing we've got.

It's just tests over a set time period (I think four years but could be wrong on that), so each time they're recalculated test series results are removed. The period is long enough for them to be a historic indicator in that they don't necessarily reflect current strength.

They do some adjustments so it's percentage win rate etc, but as the fixtures usually include at least some series reflecting the power brokers in cricket, this makes it very unlikely you would want so many money losing series against weaker sides.

In India, Pakistan (UAE) and South Africa (as well as NZ too), the one-day game is where the money is made and these are played extremely frequently. Tests are not really there for them to make money, virtually whoever the opposition is, which is why they're far less frequent. But yes, playing weaker opposition at home or even away will propel you up the rankings especially if you limit the amount of tests too.

Actually there is some recognition of strength of the opposition but even so if you play weaker teams your ranking points will only improve and so avoiding the possibility of losing often still works.

Here is a layman's explanation taken from cricinfo:-


How do the ICC Test ratings work?
The rating system is based on assigning points to teams for every Test match played, and then averaging it out over all Tests played by the team during the period under consideration. The final rating is thus an average score for the team during that period.

The points awarded to a team depends on the strength of the opposition. A win against a stronger opposition counts for more than a win against a weak opposition. The strength of the opposition is determined by their rating points at the start of the series, and updates happen only at the end of a series, not after each Test.

Is there a bonus for winning a series?
Yes, a series win counts as an extra Test match won. So, if a team wins a series 2-1, when assigning points it will count as a 3-1 win.

Does an away win count for more than a home win?
No, there is no extra weightage given to an away win; only the opposition strength is taken into account.

Does a team's rating get affected if it sends a second-string team for a series?
No, the only number that is taken into account is the team's rating points at the start of the series. If the opposition beats a team which is weakened by a few withdrawals, it will still get the same points as it would have beating the full-strength team.

How does the calculation work in a series?
Each team gets one point for a Test win, 0.5 points for a draw, and an extra point for a series win. Thus, if Australia win a five-Test Ashes series 2-1, they will get 4 points, while England will get 2.

The method for calculating the rating points in a series depends on the relative strengths of the two teams playing that series. If the difference in rating points between the two teams at the start of the series is less than 40, then each team gets:

The team's series points (4 for Australia in the above example) multiplied by 50 points more than the opposition's rating points, plus
The opposition's series points (2 in the above example) multiplied by 50 points less than the opposition's rating points.

If the difference in rating points between the two teams at the start of the series is 40 or more points, then the stronger team gets:

The team's series points multiplied by 10 points more than the team's own rating, plus
The opposition's series points multiplied by 90 points less than the team's own rating.

The weaker team gets:

The team's series points multiplied by 90 points more than the team's own rating, plus
The opposition's series points multiplied by 10 points less than the team's own rating

This series score is added to the team's previous total ratings points, and divided by total number of matches plus series played to arrive at an average score for the team, which is their rating points.

What is the time period considered?
A minimum of 36 months, and a maximum of 48 months. Every May, the results from months 37 to 48 drop off. For example, in May 2015, the time period considered is May 2012 onwards, with results from May 2011 to April 2012 dropping off. Till April 2016, this is the time period considered; in May 2016 all results between May 2012 and April 2013 will be knocked off.

How are the older results weighted compared to the more recent ones?
The first two years get 50% weightage, while the last 12 to 24 months gets 100% weightage. For example, in May 2015, all matches from May 2012 to April 2014 gets 50% weightage, while matches after May 2014 gets 100% weightage.


Note:- crucially it pays to play the majority of matches at home, sides who undertake test tours against strong opposition will be at a real disadvantage especially, as is so often the case nowadays, the home side wins.

Extremely imperfect system only works if one side is clearly much better than the other top sides as with West Indies thirty years ago or Australia for most of the time after that. Below that top dominant side it's next to useless, as is the case now and completely meaningless.

[forestfan]

So who would you rate as the current number one side? I think all of them are seriously flawed right now, I'd have said probably Australia before this week's result but losing to a pretty weak Sri Lanka even away from home is far from what you'd expect of a number one team.

India need to prove they can win away from the subcontinent, which they've rarely managed over the years. Pakistan are as predictably unpredictable as they've always been, South Africa still have a few superstars but are generally in decline, New Zealand punch above their weight but that's as much as they can ever hope to do. And England, a few world class stars but a few big holes as well, in the top order and the spin department in particular. Not far off being the best of an ordinary bunch though.

[liquidfootball2]

Australia IMO - they've lost a test and generally do struggle in the sub-continent, but in Nathan Lyon have a spinner who gives them a chance.
I would expect them to be very competitive in the rest of this series and expect a reaction.

The real point is the rankings aren't any real guide at all. I would expect everyone of the top four to win a home series against anyone with the possible exception of Pakistan.

In the UAE the toss makes such a difference on spinning wickets and winning all three at home to England really told. Of course the toss anywhere is crucial as Cook ruefully said when winning a good toss "it's the first out of the last five against Pakistan" (three of which were away in the UAE).

[Mav3rick]

What do you think about doing away with the toss completely and giving the choice to the away side in every test?

[liquidfootball2]

That's something i've wanted for some time, it would mean a far more even contest and give more of a chance to the away side.

[Mav3rick]

It's a struggle really isn't it, to just maintain enough interest in the game outside of white ball cricket, and even in England having to use things like super series or day/night tests to try to make the tests seem modern and relevant.

One sided tests dont help the spectacle of the game though, so anything that can even out some home advantage would be useful I think.

[forestfan]

An alternative method for determining the number one side is the "linear" method, works just like a boxing belt, a team gains the title by beating the "holders" in a series.

Pakistan are the current holders, so that one's at stake in the current series...

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cricket ... ons-2.html