Jason Roy
- Thread starter Voice of fair play
- Start date
Comeback_Kenwyne
Winger
Aye, but who here hasn't fallen for that too. I've lurched between wanting this strategy and thinking we can win a different way, to going back to a more orthdox 'round peg, round hole' strategy.
As have loads on here - back and forth it goes.
There is a simple reason for this: nobody, apart from Burns - and that's short-lived - has come forward and looked good enough to nail down a top four place for about three f***ing years. The traditional batsman aren't there. So aye, it's easy to take potshots at the selectors, but we're a mess. We've got six world class number sixes probably and nothing up front.
Sibley got a quacker today on pretty much the only decent deck, looking at the scores.
Last edited:
Voice of fair play
Striker
Exactly absolutely spot on, it’s soo easy to say what shouldn’t be happening but a lot harder to say what should happen with the players available.
Comeback_Kenwyne
Winger
Myself I'm now starting from what balance for the team do I want.
And it's one all-rounder; three seamers (one who can hold a bat, like Woakes, is a bonus), a spinner, and five batsman, with one of those five allowed to be a maverick white-baller; and a counter-punching wicket-keeper batsman who bats at seven.
So I don't want to go into test cricket with both Buttler and Roy, frankly (unless Buttler replaces Bairstow as the wickie). So even if I'd bring Foakes in - and I might because statistically (and from what I've seen of him) he looks like one of the best five batsman, then I'd still keep Bairstow with the gloves.
So at the moment, you'd have to say Buttler is ahead of Roy for me - and the others I want to be cricketers who have done it the hard way by proving themselves in first class cricket against the red ball.
And, sadly, for poor Sam Curran - I'm not f***ing about playing him in a weird position - he either replaces Stokes or proves himself as one of the best three seamers in the country (which will never happen), or one of the best five batsmen. He's a young'un, he'll replace Stokes one day when Big Ben calls it a day - but we can't just crowbar people in anymore.
So that strategy ends up for the next test with this:
Burns
Sibley
Root
Foakes
Stokes
Buttler
Bairstow *
Woakes
Archer
Broad
Leach
We've a tough decision if and when Jimmy comes back but for me, it'll be Woakes out following that strategy because I think Broad is a better bowler.
Mackem DJ
Striker
Just the four wicket keepers in
Comeback_Kenwyne
Winger
Whose the fourth? Is Sibley a wickie too?
Doesn't matter much if they're the best batters - which I think they might be. No idea about Sibley mind, a punt.
smoker
Striker
Averages 59 for the season opening the batting.
Clearly a bloke who rarely plays first cricket, bats six when he does and can't leave the ball is the better option.
Comeback_Kenwyne
Winger
I'm not that interested in season average. The moneyball stats data on players who successfully step up is that you need a first class average of 40 to really make the grade (or at least to have a good shout).
It's absolutely no surprise that Denly at 36 and Vince - who was at about 36 when they first tried him, but has got up to 38 now - are not test players. Rory Burns is at a very good 42+ - so I was always more confident that he would find a way and remain so. Dawid Malan 37 - it's too low.
Sibley is at 39, which isn't bad for a 23 year old having his breakthrough season. Foakes has been over 40 for most of his career and has a test average over 40, though him and Northeast are now about the same at 39 for the middle order gig. Crawley at 33s is utter madness - he'll fail.
The real tragedy is Ballance, who averages 49 first class and 37 at tests, but is basically just a Graeme Hick for our times. He's racking the tonns up again I notice, but surely if he's still stubbornly batting inside his crease he'd be a rabbit to Cummings.
I think it's fine to have a punt on Roy, like - and at the top of the order too. But it's not working, clearly. And what I don't like his punting on a red ball player when you've still got Buttler in the team, who is still an unproven punt for me. He's still only got one ton.
Foakes bats number four for Surrey and has a test average of over 40. He has to play ahead of Denly for me, even if they give Roy another twirl. Difficult to see what he's done wrong - if he weren't a wicketkeeper, I've no doubt he'd already be in the team. But that's a silly way of looking at it. I know it's wildly different conditions, but his century in Galle is one of the best innings I've seen by an English player for many a year.
Last edited:
smoker
Striker
If it's all about career averages, why did you think his score in a single innings was pertinent to his selection chances?
I can't think of any first class opener in better form, so it should be a no brainer....unless you're Trev Bayliss of course, and obsessed with having a Sehwag/Warner opener.
Comeback_Kenwyne
Winger
He's in my team above, isn't he?
I think the quacker is pertinent because I think it shows that there is nobody making an absolutely bulletproof case for selection in the manner Burns was a year ago. His average may be nearer the lower 50s after that quacker. I'd pick him for Old Trafford still, but it's not a 'no brainer'.
Last edited:
rentaghost
Striker
Some good stuff there but I don’t agree with your fixation on averages. Some players start there career terribly and then improve enormously but there average is always hindered by that start (Stoneman for example) Batting at The Oval and Taunton has also helped many batsmen with there career statistics for example. Vaughan and Trescothick (despite playing at Taunton) would never have been selected on their average when they were and Zak Crawley is by many judges a really talented player. I’m more interested in whether they have the game and I think him and Pope have the game to succeed irrespective of average. I haven’t seen much of Sibley but I don’t like the idea of picking him if it’s just on the back of his stats this year.
Last edited:
Comeback_Kenwyne
Winger
The fixation comes from what the moneyball geeks have crunched in terms of cricket. Crawley may well be a talented player - but the big data analysis still suggests he should be given time to run up his average a bit in county cricket. Which makes perfect sense, obviously. You can throw a player in there too early.
The point about Sibley is - it's not just his average this year. He's young and has his average on a upward trajectory, to the point where he'd probably be next cab off rank on career and season average. This is what we'd hope for from Crawley over next couple of years. Progression.
Also, to be fair to Sibley he got decentish scores against the Australians too.
Pope could be ready. There's a case for throwing him in instead of Denly but I'd prefer Foakes myself. For now. Lad's only just coming back from a serious injury, I think.
Last edited:
rentaghost
Striker
Nah i'm sorry but averages only give an indication and you can take career averages too literally. If a player has averaged 25 in their first few years as a cricketer learning the game but then had averages of 40 plus over a 4 or 5 year period they may have a moderate average of 34 or so but they have developed into seriously good cricketers better than their average would suggest. Choosing players to play against Australia your county average is secondary. Its no good having the ability to score big against 80mph seamers if you are facing 90mph bowlers that are bowling short, aggressive and persistently accurate stuff if you haven't got a great back foot game, if you aren't great against the short ball (reasons why Vaughan and Tres got picked ahead of players with better stats at the time)
Regarding Sibley a year ago he was written off and discarded by Surrey, he wasn't good enough. Hes went away, got stuck into county cricket and made the most of his second chance and come up with good figures, he deserves full credit. You cant just take the view IMO that hes got the numbers this year lets stick him in and see how it goes. Its Mark Lathwell stuff. We know Sibley is patient but whats his backfoot game like against 90mph bowling? Does he have a weakness against the short ball? I'm not against the selection of Sibley as such but I am against people saying he should be selected because hes suddenly got runs in county cricket (in a short window) so must be the next cab on the rank. I apologise if you know Sibleys game, his strengths and weaknessess etc and are basing your judgement on that rather that just his stats in one season.
Surely Ballance has used up all his chances at Test level - he made no effort to work on his flaws and came back in worse shape than he left the team.
Voice of fair play
Striker
Or yes can see that point, not a big fan of him either tbh, but it comes down to picking who we have, and think he is a less worse option than others.
Comeback_Kenwyne
Winger
You're missing my point.
You can go with gut and get it right sometimes. But the moneyball approach - successful in baseball and now football - suggests best thing to look for is a career average of over 40. That's what the data says.
My point isn't: the data will always be right or the gut will always be wrong. My point is the data will be right more frequently than the gut.
And given I haven't really seen Sibley or Crawley bat, I can only really go with that. I think it's definitely too soon for the latter.
As for the 'late developer' scenario you sketch, the data does seem to suggest that real test players are more likely to look statistically more like Pope - they come in and even at an early age they start piling it up. The problem is that this is also what Graeme Hick or Gary Ballance look like. So, I'm not saying technique and gut don't matter - but you get my point now I hope.
To some extent I'm going on gut with Foakes - he has a decent average, but the data would suggest Pope is a surer bet long-term. I think Foakes has something though - grit.
I also think that batting in England we should accept that openers are going to have lower averages than middle order players, so it's not a hard rule on that even then. I'm just trying to be more educated given I haven't seen the two openers in question.
The only thing I know about them is that SIbley got good scores for Warwickshire versus the Aussies.
Last edited:
The Breen Machine
Striker
I'd give him this test and if he scores less than 30 runs combined across the 2 innings then the experiment should end for now at least. I disagree with those saying he saying he should drop down to 5 - we are already heavy with lower-middle order batsmen and I'm not sure it's Roy's technique against the new ball that is the main problem, it's his shot selection. Whilst things get easier against an old ball, he's still facing the same high quality bowlers and if he can't work out not to swing like rusty gate all the time against them, he could bat 11 and still struggle.
rentaghost
Striker
I don't think you get my point either. I don't think you ever go just with gut and data is clearly a really important guideline. It has to be a combination of consistent performance but good judges / coaches knowing the strengths and weaknesses of players, do they get hard runs under pressure? For example from a bowling perspective nobody got more wickets at a better average that Martin Bicknell but it was felt, probably rightly that his 80mph bowling wouldn't cut it against test quality batsmen. Simon Jones averages way over 30 in first class cricket (not a patch on Bicknell) but they recognised that his pace and ability to reverse it would get could quality players out. He ended up with a test match average better than his first class.
The runs and average that a batsman makes clearly matters and as people who aren't in a position to see players regularly (you and I) its understandable that we would use that as our main benchmark on the quality of batsmen on the county circuit. There are too many variables for them to be more than a strong indicator though - does batsman A play half of his games on a featherbed? do they have any obvious flaws that dont get exposed much against 80mph seam bowling but are likely to against higher quality quicker bowling? How do they play spin on turning surfaces? Have they played enough games for their average to be a true sample? Pope mind looks a good example of someone who has a great average and just looks technically great but there will be reasons why the likes of Hildreth with excellent FC averages havent been given the opportunity.
Good debate tho
Last edited:
