Cricket fred

[Digby]

They weren't laughing when Botham or Flintoff played

Indeed. I started watching around... maybe 97ish I think. So it was basically Atherton and Stewart and once they were out, our innings was basically over and the Aussies would bat for the next two days, just seeing off Caddick and Gough to then tuck into the likes of Robert Croft and Mark Ealham.

I took very great satisfaction in some of the Ashes series of this century.

Puja

They were tricky times, but it was a great Aussie tesm

First opposition team I eventually gave up if not exactly hating then thoroughly disliking, and eventually settled into sitting back and admiring what was a remarkable outfit. I still don't know which of the Aussie teams of that period I prefer between the Mark Taylor and Steve Waugh outfits, Taylor's was the more fun side to watch, but Waugh's just backed up so many impressive performances it's hard to say I want the more entertaining outfit, further I don't know which side I'd rate higher Viv's Windies or Waugh's Aussies, Warne might be the deciding factor, but it's still closer to a coin toss than anything I'm likely to make up my mind over

[Puja]

All decent, but if at the top of the pile you'd have the likes of Lara, Tendulkar and now Kohli then I still wouldn't be putting any of them next rung down on the ladder alongside batters like Ponting and Kallis. Also did you mean Mark Ealham? Wasn't he just a really short version of Derick Pringle?

I'm not sure how you wouldn't be putting the 5th high test run scorer if all time (and only one in the top 20 to spend his career as an opener) above the level of merely "decent".

And yes, Ealham was there to see if you were paying attention. The epitome of the Australian quip when I first started watching cricket of, "What do the English call someone who xan't bowl, can't field, and can't bat? A test all-rounder."

Puja

For me Cook was a steady as she goes player who failed to add scoring shots to his repertoire and was reliant on bowlers feeding his strengths and ignoring his weaknesses, and oddly many bowlers were compliant, though Cook's ability to focus on the game he had with such powers of concentration is admirable, it just doesn't for me make him a talent even on a par with someone like Langer. Langer is a useful rule of thumb when discussing Cook imo, as Langer came into the test area similarly unable to get the ball of the square beyond rank bad deliveries but really added to his game, not that that makes Langer an all time great, but it does highlight the lack of development in Cook. In England going back a few years a young Vaughan also struggled to get the ball off the square, but he too showed a willingness and capability to develop his game. Given how much a hard worker Cook is feted to have been I'm sure he tried to add in elements, but just wasn't able to make the progression I'm sure he'd have wanted.

Cook is more akin to someone like Graeme Smith for my money, both fine players, just a bit limited (and though it shouldn't matter both a little ugly to watch)

Yes obviously Cook scored a lot of runs, and that's only a positive, but Broad has more test wickets than Ambrose, and I know which one I think the better bowler

You're entitled to your opinion and obviously quality is subjective, but I think you're likely to be fairly lonely in that position. Firstly, we're not talking "a lot of runs", we're talking 10,000 test runs, which only 13 players have ever reached and no other openers have. Yes, he's not got as wide a repertoire of shots as some other players (although I think you are drastically underselling him and the fact that he developed his pull, hook, and cut over his career), but the point of being a batsman isn't to make runs in as many different ways as possible, but to make runs. Cook was so good at the shots that he liked to play, and so secure elsewhere that he didn't have to chase balls that he didn't want to - he wasn't going to get out, so why go with a shot that wasn't as comfortable when he could punish the next ball instead.

You make it sound like he was a flat track bully who had bowlers "feeding his strengths and ignoring his weaknesses", while ignoring that he had so many strengths and so few weaknesses that he was very hard to target.

Also your comparison of Broad and Ambrose is specious - Ambrose had a shorter career and was part of a ridiculous Windies bowling lineup where he didn't always get the new ball or bowling at the tail. Broad's got more wickets than Ambrose because he's has 60 more innings and has had most of his career as one of the top two bowlers for his country.

Puja

[Big D]

All decent, but if at the top of the pile you'd have the likes of Lara, Tendulkar and now Kohli then I still wouldn't be putting any of them next rung down on the ladder alongside batters like Ponting and Kallis. Also did you mean Mark Ealham? Wasn't he just a really short version of Derick Pringle?

I'm not sure how you wouldn't be putting the 5th high test run scorer if all time (and only one in the top 20 to spend his career as an opener) above the level of merely "decent".

And yes, Ealham was there to see if you were paying attention. The epitome of the Australian quip when I first started watching cricket of, "What do the English call someone who xan't bowl, can't field, and can't bat? A test all-rounder."

Puja

They weren't laughing when Botham or Flintoff played

Just when Flintoff was captain

[Big D]

Just in my cricket watching span and just off the top of my head: Cook, Strauss, Trescothick, Vaughan, Stewart, Ealham, Flintoff in his pomp, Hussain, Thorpe. All of those would have made a World XI in their prime.

Puja

All decent, but if at the top of the pile you'd have the likes of Lara, Tendulkar and now Kohli then I still wouldn't be putting any of them next rung down on the ladder alongside batters like Ponting and Kallis. Also did you mean Mark Ealham? Wasn't he just a really short version of Derick Pringle?

I'm not sure how you wouldn't be putting the 5th high test run scorer if all time (and only one in the top 20 to spend his career as an opener) above the level of merely "decent".

And yes, Ealham was there to see if you were paying attention. The epitome of the Australian quip when I first started watching cricket of, "What do the English call someone who xan't bowl, can't field, and can't bat? A test all-rounder."

Puja

Agree on Cook being a lot more than decent, but openers are difficult to compare in subjective "greats of the game" discussions. Opening in England is more difficult than most places so that would drop his average a bit but he has played plenty games more than any other opener so has had more chances to score.

For example, how can say Hayden be objectively compared to Cook? Hayden has a better average, 8.6k runs in 60 less tests but never had to face that great Aussie bowling attack that others in his time did. Cook never had to play against the England attack that is terrific in England etc.

Ahh Mark Ealham I remember the phrase "he bowls a heavy ball" being used a lot for him in one dayers.

[Big D]

England squad for first Ashes Test 

Joe Root (c)
Moeen Ali
James Anderson
Jofra Archer
Jonny Bairstow (w)
Stuart Broad
Rory Burns
Jos Buttler
Sam Curran
Joe Denly
Jason Roy
Ben Stokes
Olly Stone
Chris Woakes

Woakes & Broad probs.competing for 1 slot.
2 or 3 of other quickies /Curran and/or Ali, Whither Burns, only uncertainties on the day you'd think.

Bit of a cop out tb, though no doubt checking on Anderson and Archer- Anderson has to be a big risk for rust reasons alone. Can't see Burns being dropped. Top 3 huge problem. Ali is very lucky.

The quicks will be rotated throughout I think.

Stokes back as VC too.

[Digby]

You make it sound like he was a flat track bully who had bowlers "feeding his strengths and ignoring his weaknesses", while ignoring that he had so many strengths and so few weaknesses that he was very hard to target.

I would never accuse Cook of being a flat track bully. And bowlers did feed his strengths and ignore his weaknesses. I'm pleased they did as I enjoyed watching him build big scores as an England fan, but it did seem the rugby equivalent of kicking to Jason Robinson and saying just chase him in isolation lads there's no need to hold a line, and he wasn't hard to target as we saw with anyone bowling a consistent line outside off stump, then even if he wasn't getting out he wasn't scoring either

it's a weird one, why bowlers got dragged into the battles they did with him over the years, yes part of it is frustration with him not playing at balls they want him to and then getting too straight or just dropping in a bad ball. And I'd agree Cook made the most of what he he, but he didn't have a lot, and thus doesn't join the higher rated players imo, the best players had to be able to find a way to score even against an attack executing their plans well

[Digby]

All decent, but if at the top of the pile you'd have the likes of Lara, Tendulkar and now Kohli then I still wouldn't be putting any of them next rung down on the ladder alongside batters like Ponting and Kallis. Also did you mean Mark Ealham? Wasn't he just a really short version of Derick Pringle?

I'm not sure how you wouldn't be putting the 5th high test run scorer if all time (and only one in the top 20 to spend his career as an opener) above the level of merely "decent".

And yes, Ealham was there to see if you were paying attention. The epitome of the Australian quip when I first started watching cricket of, "What do the English call someone who xan't bowl, can't field, and can't bat? A test all-rounder."

Puja

Agree on Cook being a lot more than decent, but openers are difficult to compare in subjective "greats of the game" discussions. Opening in England is more difficult than most places so that would drop his average a bit but he has played plenty games more than any other opener so has had more chances to score.

For example, how can say Hayden be objectively compared to Cook? Hayden has a better average, 8.6k runs in 60 less tests but never had to face that great Aussie bowling attack that others in his time did. Cook never had to play against the England attack that is terrific in England etc.

Ahh Mark Ealham I remember the phrase "he bowls a heavy ball" being used a lot for him in one dayers.

I don't think Hayden would be a great of the game either. And was it Ealham who bowled a heavy ball? I remember that being said a lot about Martin McCague

[Puja]

I'm not sure how you wouldn't be putting the 5th high test run scorer if all time (and only one in the top 20 to spend his career as an opener) above the level of merely "decent".

And yes, Ealham was there to see if you were paying attention. The epitome of the Australian quip when I first started watching cricket of, "What do the English call someone who xan't bowl, can't field, and can't bat? A test all-rounder."

Puja

Agree on Cook being a lot more than decent, but openers are difficult to compare in subjective "greats of the game" discussions. Opening in England is more difficult than most places so that would drop his average a bit but he has played plenty games more than any other opener so has had more chances to score.

For example, how can say Hayden be objectively compared to Cook? Hayden has a better average, 8.6k runs in 60 less tests but never had to face that great Aussie bowling attack that others in his time did. Cook never had to play against the England attack that is terrific in England etc.

Ahh Mark Ealham I remember the phrase "he bowls a heavy ball" being used a lot for him in one dayers.

I don't think Hayden would be a great of the game either. And was it Ealham who bowled a heavy ball? I remember that being said a lot about Martin McCague

I think it was a staple of punditry when we were playing that kind of underwhelming all-rounder in the 90s.

Puja

[Puja]

You make it sound like he was a flat track bully who had bowlers "feeding his strengths and ignoring his weaknesses", while ignoring that he had so many strengths and so few weaknesses that he was very hard to target.

I would never accuse Cook of being a flat track bully. And bowlers did feed his strengths and ignore his weaknesses. I'm pleased they did as I enjoyed watching him build big scores as an England fan, but it did seem the rugby equivalent of kicking to Jason Robinson and saying just chase him in isolation lads there's no need to hold a line, and he wasn't hard to target as we saw with anyone bowling a consistent line outside off stump, then even if he wasn't getting out he wasn't scoring either

it's a weird one, why bowlers got dragged into the battles they did with him over the years, yes part of it is frustration with him not playing at balls they want him to and then getting too straight or just dropping in a bad ball. And I'd agree Cook made the most of what he he, but he didn't have a lot, and thus doesn't join the higher rated players imo, the best players had to be able to find a way to score even against an attack executing their plans well

I'd say a more germane comparison would be just "kicking to Jason Robinson". The plan might be not to kick to him at all, but sometimes mistakes happen or the situation demands that it occurs. And the problem is that, even with a full defensive line and a hard chase, he's still good enough to make hay from even the narrowest opportunity.

Puja

[Stom]

You make it sound like he was a flat track bully who had bowlers "feeding his strengths and ignoring his weaknesses", while ignoring that he had so many strengths and so few weaknesses that he was very hard to target.

I would never accuse Cook of being a flat track bully. And bowlers did feed his strengths and ignore his weaknesses. I'm pleased they did as I enjoyed watching him build big scores as an England fan, but it did seem the rugby equivalent of kicking to Jason Robinson and saying just chase him in isolation lads there's no need to hold a line, and he wasn't hard to target as we saw with anyone bowling a consistent line outside off stump, then even if he wasn't getting out he wasn't scoring either

it's a weird one, why bowlers got dragged into the battles they did with him over the years, yes part of it is frustration with him not playing at balls they want him to and then getting too straight or just dropping in a bad ball. And I'd agree Cook made the most of what he he, but he didn't have a lot, and thus doesn't join the higher rated players imo, the best players had to be able to find a way to score even against an attack executing their plans well

Is it not more a case that bowlers tried and tried to get him out and he just left it alone, so they had to try other things. And then he put them away.

I was a latecomer to cricket. Caught the tail end of Athers and Stewart. And so for me, I always thought Cook was superb. Root is a step above, mind. But there aren't many players of that standard. What: Tendulkar, Lara, Sangakara...

[Digby]

Is it not more a case that bowlers tried and tried to get him out and he just left it alone, so they had to try other things. And then he put them away.

I was a latecomer to cricket. Caught the tail end of Athers and Stewart. And so for me, I always thought Cook was superb. Root is a step above, mind. But there aren't many players of that standard. What: Tendulkar, Lara, Sangakara...

There's a huge amount to admire about Cook, and he has one of the great records looking at runs scored. But for me he struggled when sides bowled well at him, and then for whatever reason teams spent hours digging it in back of a length, mind I don't get why people are so cavalier against Ali and continually get out to a bowler they should be able to milk for at least 3 runs an over with minimal risk, though it was easy to laugh at Warner when he said if there was one bowler he was expecting to get him out the most in an Ashes series it wasn't Ali. I also think we were devoid of some strong opening bowlers for test cricket for a good few seasons, Steyn without doubt is class, but we went from a world of Walshe and Ambrose, Pollock and Dondal, Younis and Akram, McGrath and Gillespie to suddenly everyone looking a lot less worrying to bet against, and maybe that speaks to teams not really being able to exploit Cook's lack of foot movement and limited range of scoring

Obviously people struggle more when sides bowl well at them, but the real top talent does adapt, and does find a way to score, or bat time and come back scoring later in the day

One area I was very impressed with Cook though was watching him play spin away from England, that's such a hard thing to do, especially when growing up on our pitches with our bowlers, my concerns are around him not adding to his range of scoring, and his huge struggles with decent bowling on a length and line just outside off, it's not like it took swing and seam to exploit his movement/balance

[Big D]

I'm not sure how you wouldn't be putting the 5th high test run scorer if all time (and only one in the top 20 to spend his career as an opener) above the level of merely "decent".

And yes, Ealham was there to see if you were paying attention. The epitome of the Australian quip when I first started watching cricket of, "What do the English call someone who xan't bowl, can't field, and can't bat? A test all-rounder."

Puja

Agree on Cook being a lot more than decent, but openers are difficult to compare in subjective "greats of the game" discussions. Opening in England is more difficult than most places so that would drop his average a bit but he has played plenty games more than any other opener so has had more chances to score.

For example, how can say Hayden be objectively compared to Cook? Hayden has a better average, 8.6k runs in 60 less tests but never had to face that great Aussie bowling attack that others in his time did. Cook never had to play against the England attack that is terrific in England etc.

Ahh Mark Ealham I remember the phrase "he bowls a heavy ball" being used a lot for him in one dayers.

I don't think Hayden would be a great of the game either. And was it Ealham who bowled a heavy ball? I remember that being said a lot about Martin McCague

As I say I think it is hard to fairly rank openers in this type of discussion and they at times get overlooked. Their job is to score and make it easier for those that follow often during the hardest time to bat. A test opener averaging over 50 for 100 tests, over 50% conversion rate for 50s to 100s (30 100s and 29 50s) is right up there in terms of performance.

I wasn't saying he was one of the greats just I think is tough to rank openers. All the usual guys mentioned in the "greats" normally bat 3-5 and many (not all clearly) of them came in after good openers.

I think "bowls a heavy ball" was a cop out used to describe medium pacers who bowled straight but were not fast at all.

[Digby]

Bowls a heavy ball is a reasonable term so far as I know, Flintoff for instance bowled a heavy ball. Even bowling at a similar pace to Harmison it felt different to the batsmen. Maybe it's used on the wrong players from time to time, but I'd take it as having a specific meaning

[Galfon]

I think "bowls a heavy ball" was a cop out used to describe medium pacers who bowled straight but were not fast at all.

Certainly for Ealham.
Flintoff & McCague could be seriously quick (90 mph+)
from relatively ambling run-ups.This derived from their 6'4", 17st.+ frames that the beer-pie diet can help develop. (Ealham was a smaller version)
Banging it in just short of a length, rising to an uncomfortable height to play was typical.
Maybe the power they could deliver surprised some batsmen.

[Mellsblue]

Agree on Cook being a lot more than decent, but openers are difficult to compare in subjective "greats of the game" discussions. Opening in England is more difficult than most places so that would drop his average a bit but he has played plenty games more than any other opener so has had more chances to score.

For example, how can say Hayden be objectively compared to Cook? Hayden has a better average, 8.6k runs in 60 less tests but never had to face that great Aussie bowling attack that others in his time did. Cook never had to play against the England attack that is terrific in England etc.

Ahh Mark Ealham I remember the phrase "he bowls a heavy ball" being used a lot for him in one dayers.

I don't think Hayden would be a great of the game either. And was it Ealham who bowled a heavy ball? I remember that being said a lot about Martin McCague

As I say I think it is hard to fairly rank openers in this type of discussion and they at times get overlooked. Their job is to score and make it easier for those that follow often during the hardest time to bat. A test opener averaging over 50 for 100 tests, over 50% conversion rate for 50s to 100s (30 100s and 29 50s) is right up there in terms of performance.

I wasn't saying he was one of the greats just I think is tough to rank openers. All the usual guys mentioned in the "greats" normally bat 3-5 and many (not all clearly) of them came in after good openers.

I think "bowls a heavy ball" was a cop out used to describe medium pacers who bowled straight but were not fast at all.

I think ‘bowls a heavy ball’ was a nice, and short, way of saying portly and average English all rounder, ie Ealham and Bresnan.

[Mellsblue]

I am almost certainly (definitely) bias but Cook is top drawer. I love the fact he’s being derided for defending or leaving good balls (should’ve done it more outside off stump) and then putting away the bad ones. That’s pretty much the point of being an opener, and is central to being an opening batsmen. It’s no different to McGrath bowling a monotonous good line and length outside off stump until the batsman does something silly, yet McGrath is classed as an all time great despite not having a standout, highlight reel ball.
I think he averages mid-40’s in test cricket which for an opener is bloody good. I also think there is more to it than averages. The man has almost single handedly won series in the most difficult countries for a English team to play - India and Australia.

[Digby]

That goes to the heart of (part of) my point, when bowling sides put if in the right areas he wasn't good enough to leave it, his lack of footwork to the fore in exposing his limitations. It's not that throughout his career he often left so brilliantly. The other main part is in some respects he mirrors the Shane Warne line about Monty, that he played his first test many games over, he came into the side very accomplished at what he did, with awesomee mental strength to aid him circumvent what he didn't do well, and then never added enough to that. This criticism isn't directed at saying he was a poor test player, nor even he wasn't a very good one, merely he wasn't a great.

[Mellsblue]

Those bowling attacks must’ve put it in the wrong areas an awful lot of the time.

[Digby]

Thus my wondering what on earth they were doing so often. It was weird, even if I was grateful

[Big D]

Looks like Root to 3 and Denly to 4. Stokes mentioned on 5Live he has asked to bat 6.

Vaughan half jokingly suggested playing Woakes and Broad with Burns dropping to allow Anderson, Archer, Broad and Woakes to all play. His argument was that the batting wouldn't be harmed too much.

Seeing as that is unlikely are we looking at:
Roy
Burns
Root
Denly
Bairstow
Stokes
Buttler (although I would swap him and YJB)
Woakes
Ali
Anderson
Archer

I guess the one question is whether Broad comes in for any of the above.

[Puja]

Looks like Root to 3 and Denly to 4. Stokes mentioned on 5Live he has asked to bat 6.

Vaughan half jokingly suggested playing Woakes and Broad with Burns dropping to allow Anderson, Archer, Broad and Woakes to all play. His argument was that the batting wouldn't be harmed too much.

Cheeky, but not exactly wrong...

Archer would be above Anderson in the batting order, no? He's viewed as an all-rounder. Hell of a deep batting order that though. Could be key.

Puja

[Mellsblue]

Hell of a deep batting order that though. Could be key.

Puja

Yep. The winner will be who is the least s**t with that bat. Both sides can leave out players as good as Woakes and Starc from the bowling lineup but, in the batting lineups, have to include the likes of, well, it’s a long list.

[Stom]

Hell of a deep batting order that though. Could be key.

Puja

Yep. The winner will be who is the least s**t with that bat. Both sides can leave out players as good as Woakes and Starc from the bowling lineup but, in the batting lineups, have to include the likes of, well, it’s a long list.

Our tail bats deeper. Their top order is better.

[Big D]

Looks like Root to 3 and Denly to 4. Stokes mentioned on 5Live he has asked to bat 6.

Vaughan half jokingly suggested playing Woakes and Broad with Burns dropping to allow Anderson, Archer, Broad and Woakes to all play. His argument was that the batting wouldn't be harmed too much.

Cheeky, but not exactly wrong...

Archer would be above Anderson in the batting order, no? He's viewed as an all-rounder. Hell of a deep batting order that though. Could be key.

Puja

Yes, Archer will probably bat higher, arguably above Ali given Ali's recent form.

[Stom]

Looks like Root to 3 and Denly to 4. Stokes mentioned on 5Live he has asked to bat 6.

Vaughan half jokingly suggested playing Woakes and Broad with Burns dropping to allow Anderson, Archer, Broad and Woakes to all play. His argument was that the batting wouldn't be harmed too much.

Cheeky, but not exactly wrong...

Archer would be above Anderson in the batting order, no? He's viewed as an all-rounder. Hell of a deep batting order that though. Could be key.

Puja

Yes, Archer will probably bat higher, arguably above Ali given Ali's recent form.

I doubt it. Ali will bat 8. They'll back him.