Ballance - beyond the average

One can always skew stats to favour an argument - so feel free to disagree with what you see below.

The headline figure of 47 per innings or so sounds great.

But scratch beneath the surface and it loses a bit of its lustre.

4 centuries.

156 against India at Southampton when Bell got one (167), Cook almost got one and Buttler got close. So looks like that was batting friendly conditions/attack.

122 against the might of WI bowling (2nd innings – with a lead of over 100 on the board). 1st innings Bell having got 143 and Root and Stokes 80s and 70s respectively. Blackwood got a ton in reply for WI. Usual slow pudding WI pitch.

110 at Lords v India again. This time he was our only guy to make a score of real note. Rahane managed a ton for India in 1st dig and Vijay almost in the 2nd. India won.

104 n.o. 2nd innings v Sri Lanka in a runfest. Root double ton 1st dig, Sanga and Matthews tons in response. Boring score draw.

I can’t recall any of those – ‘cos he’s totally unmemorable to me but looking at the match situations maybe one of those four was a stand-out affair.

His next 6 biggest knocks – all against WI, Sri Lanka and India. You could argue that he’s only as good as the sides he’s played against – but I’d argue that he may just be good against average attacks.

NZ and Aus seem to have his number. Bad run of form or technique seriously wanting. I know where my money lies.

I think he's a good player, generally, but instead of developing his game and ironing out the technical kinks once he stepped up a level, he's regressed badly.

He always hung back in the crease, but it's become so exaggerated in the last few months that he barely looks better than a number eleven - which he quite obviously is.

He's a sitting duck right now, and I don't see how it will benefit him or the team the keep him in the firing line. He's young enough to come back again having had a rethink and time to get his shit together.

Well, he can't have made all those centuries by luck, but he's having major problems at the moment. It's the biggest test of a young player to come back from being "worked out" by opposing sides.

If he's to be retained, just send him to the indoor nets for two weeks to face full pitched bowling from the machine at 90mph.

I agree that he didn't make those centuries by luck - probably more a case of average bowling on soft pitches.

Anyway, I recall there was once an extremely talented leftie from India called Vinod Kambli. He was destined for greatness then people found out he couldn't play fast bowling. And in a stroke his test career was over.

He did find himself stuck behind a bunch of batsmen called Tendulkar, Dravid, Ganguly and Laxman though... would surely have got more chances otherwise, unless he seriously got on the wrong side of someone in power.

England don't quite have a quadrumvirate(?) to rival those right now...

Pretty sure Kambli was well before Dravid, Ganguly and Laxman.

Same age as Ganguly, a year older than Dravid and two years older than Laxman.

Test debut was three years before that others.

Last test was six months before the debut of the others.

Joe Root was a player who could not get on the front foot in the previous series against Australia. Now he's the talk of the town. Maybe Ballance deserves a chance to get back in form. Obviously, his technique isn't great.

Regarding Kambli, he had a weakness against fast bowling (didn't Ganguly?) but was never selected because he was an ill disciplined FIGJAMming twat.

Paul Keating wrote:Test debut was three years before that others.

Last test was six months before the debut of the others.

Exactly, that pretty much proves that they stopped him from ever getting back in!

Ballance's technique is sh*t.
Period.

Until and unless he sorts that across and back in crease routine out, he's going to be nailed every time.

Smiff (the squinty eyed Aus specimen) does the same movement, but
watch the class difference ... his head is over the ball at the point of
impact on the bat ... the difference is Smiff KNOWS what he's doing -
Balance is clueless and stuck in the same gear - reverse and left.

Dump him for the rest of the series - send him back to Yorkshire
(where, by the way, he is also struggling for runs this season!) and iron out his kink.

I think LN2 scoped his centuries well in his post above - not saying they were all flukey ...
but yes, they were scored against poorer oppos ; when others were also piling on the
runs and when the pressure was off.

The only sign of hope was his first dig in Cardiff, where, fair dues to him, he grafted
(in an ugly manner, it has to be said) for his innings/match saving 60 and kept Root flowing at the other end.

That's now history.
He is a walking wicket.
GET.RID.OF.

beamer wrote:

Paul Keating wrote:Test debut was three years before that others.

Last test was six months before the debut of the others.

Exactly, that pretty much proves that they stopped him from ever getting back in!

Lol.

Beams. You implied Kambli had to battle it out for a place in the team with those megastars when it clearly was not the case.

Anyway I am nitpicking.

Here's a view from Victor Marks. Who has some experience of cricket and psychology, and generally weighs such difficult matters up intelligently, deeply and fairly (and with a saving urbane wit, too). I like this piece. Though hope the (partial) Bell suggestion at the end, at this stage, is (mostly) tongue-in-cheek ....:

England always seem to have rather more problems with their No3 slot than Australia. There is a reason for that. Australia generally stick their best player at three. England do not.

For Australia it is almost a badge of honour to bat at three. This privilege has to be earned by amassing runs down the order at the start of one’s career. Don Bradman batted at three for 40 of his 52 Tests, Ricky Ponting in 113 out of 168, Ian Chappell 54 out of 75 and Neil Harvey 52 out of 79.

England must change after devastating Ashes defeat by Australia

The precocious Steve Smith has recently graduated to the role. To bat at three was/is the equivalent of topping the bill at the London Palladium, the ultimate goal of aspiring young Australian batsmen.

But the English have taken a cagier, more cautious view over the years. This position has not so much been a badge of honour as a pitfall to avoid. The Australians, playing in bright sunshine, sense the opportunity to dictate from three; the English, conscious of a swinging ball in dank conditions, have often been more concerned with self-preservation.

The best players, whether it has been Kevin Pietersen, Colin Cowdrey or Peter May, have been happier a little further down the order when the ball has lost a little of its shine and hardness and when the sun has finally deigned to appear. For England batting at three has too often been an ordeal to survive rather than a chance to thrive.

So who has occupied this position more often than any other for England? Jonathan Trott in 46 of his 52 Tests. Who is next?

Mark Butcher in 45 out of 71. The greats dipped their toes there – Wally Hammond 37 out of 85, May 28 out of 66, Cowdrey 25 out of 114, Gower 35 out of 117 and Ted Dexter 38 out of 62, who at least gave the impression that he actively wanted this responsibility.

Trott and Butcher, doughty cricketers both, batted at three partly because there were no other volunteers, partly because the hierarchy was keen to protect the more exalted players from exposure to that new ball. They would deal with the muck and bullets.

Gary Ballance, England’s No3, is unusual since he has played all but one of his 15 Tests there. Not for him the gentle introduction to Test cricket at No6 that was accorded Ponting and Bradman. Ballance had never batted at three for Yorkshire, where Joe Root had always been situated above him, but he was willing, flattered even, and he undertook the job.

One could almost sense his puzzlement, which may have stemmed from the fact that he had not been brought up in England, that no one else seemed desperate for the task. He would do his level best to protect the fancy dans down the order.

Statistically Ballance has done an excellent job. Even with his difficulties this summer against Australia and New Zealand he averages 47 in Test cricket. But currently the eyes tell a different story from the figures. He has been exposed to some of the world’s finest new-ball bowlers, Trent Boult, Mitchell Starc, Mitchell Johnson and Josh Hazlewood and, despite his 61 at Cardiff, he has never inspired confidence and he has never suggested anything other than a grim determination to survive. There has been no hint of fluency; the bowlers have retained the initiative. He has not been able to dictate.

His difficulties appear technical rather than temperamental. He rarely looks flustered but back he lurches deep into his crease and he plays just about every ball from there. The timing of those movements may not be perfect at present. Once he is back, there seldom seems time to move again. Of course, Starc and Johnson do not provide much time for that. There will now be some agonising about Ballance’s place.

However, England’s Sunday afternoon in St John’s Wood was so traumatic that the No3 slot becomes only one of many issues to address before the teams reunite in Birmingham. Who is Alastair Cook’s best partner? What of Ian Bell? Can Ben Stokes sharpen up his running between the wickets? Will England now dare to take on Johnson and Starc on a livelier surface?

Out in the shires Jonny Bairstow is the form batsman. He hit another century on Sunday against Worcestershire, though Jack Shantry, for all his cunning, is not quite such a threatening left-armer as Johnson or Starc; he is about 20mph slower. A summons to Bairstow would prompt a reshuffle.

Perhaps Bell might go to three (he has batted there in 22 of his 112 Tests, averaging 39) even though he does not inspire great confidence at the moment. And if England require a fresh partner for Cook, a most demanding job against this Australia attack, well Ballance is the usual fall guy.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/jul/19/england-no3-australia-second-ashes-test

And if that was too many paragraphs, you know what you can do.

Skip the post.

PeterCS wrote:And if that was too many paragraphs, you know what you can do.

Skip the post.

So basically he is saying in a long winded sort of way that Bairstow should be in for Ballance?

Big Dog wrote:

PeterCS wrote:And if that was too many paragraphs, you know what you can do.

Skip the post.

So basically he is saying in a long winded sort of way that Bairstow should be in for Ballance?

Vic Marks was always rather verbose (and boring too - as his TMS snore-fests bear out).

@BD:

Well, if you think the Second Test was saying in a long-winded sort of way that Australia played much the better match, perhaps.

Rationale, and thinking why do this or that, is sort of important too though.

Not least because if a brainless plug-one-in, plug-one-out solution doesn't work, you don't just repeat the process ad infinitum, until it's more broke.

And then there are the steps along the way, the twists and turns, the whole picture to consider. What's a better way to go about it than kneejerk.

Bit like a Test match. Rather than a T20, reduced to 5 overs a side by bad light.

Merlin wrote:

Big Dog wrote:

PeterCS wrote:And if that was too many paragraphs, you know what you can do.

Skip the post.

So basically he is saying in a long winded sort of way that Bairstow should be in for Ballance?

Vic Marks was always rather verbose (and boring too - as his TMS snore-fests bear out).

We're all entitled to our opinion, Merls.

As you were, when you comfortably predicted 4 down for the Aussies at lunch on Day 1.

Big Dog wrote:

PeterCS wrote:And if that was too many paragraphs, you know what you can do.

Skip the post.

So basically he is saying in a long winded sort of way that Bairstow should be in for Ballance?

No clue. I stopped reading.

PeterCS wrote:

Merlin wrote:

Big Dog wrote:

PeterCS wrote:And if that was too many paragraphs, you know what you can do.

Skip the post.

So basically he is saying in a long winded sort of way that Bairstow should be in for Ballance?

Vic Marks was always rather verbose (and boring too - as his TMS snore-fests bear out).

We're all entitled to our opinion, Merls.

As you were, when you comfortably predicted 4 down for the Aussies at lunch on Day 1.

Indeed Petey ... (more in hope than in reality, has to be said!) ...
But Vic Marks .... perleeeese!
Sheesh!
Does he perchance write for the Grauniad or Observer ?

Literacy is a dying art.



Observer. At least the reflective pieces, as opposed to the straight(er) match reports.

Not sure that politics and cricket are a tight fit, though, if that's yer implication.

PeterCS wrote:Literacy is a dying art.



Observer. At least the reflective pieces, as opposed to the straight(er) match reports.

Not sure that politics and cricket are a tight fit, though, if that's yer implication.

No implication at all - just that I don't take either and as such have not read his articles.
Prefer Atherton in the Times and Gideon Haig in the Telegraph.

McGrath in the DT grates ... whilst KP is ever the optimist writing about "the lads" ...!

PS Extremely pleased that Pringle was dumped from the DT - he was dire.

I'd guess Pidge and Kev both have a bit of phantom professional help. The "lads" bit might just be a bit of journo ginger.

PeterCS wrote:Here's a view from Victor Marks. Who has some experience of cricket and psychology, and generally weighs such difficult matters up intelligently, deeply and fairly (and with a saving urbane wit, too). I like this piece. Though hope the (partial) Bell suggestion at the end, at this stage, is (mostly) tongue-in-cheek ....:

England always seem to have rather more problems with their No3 slot than Australia. There is a reason for that. Australia generally stick their best player at three. England do not.

For Australia it is almost a badge of honour to bat at three. This privilege has to be earned by amassing runs down the order at the start of one’s career. Don Bradman batted at three for 40 of his 52 Tests, Ricky Ponting in 113 out of 168, Ian Chappell 54 out of 75 and Neil Harvey 52 out of 79.

England must change after devastating Ashes defeat by Australia

The precocious Steve Smith has recently graduated to the role. To bat at three was/is the equivalent of topping the bill at the London Palladium, the ultimate goal of aspiring young Australian batsmen.

But the English have taken a cagier, more cautious view over the years. This position has not so much been a badge of honour as a pitfall to avoid. The Australians, playing in bright sunshine, sense the opportunity to dictate from three; the English, conscious of a swinging ball in dank conditions, have often been more concerned with self-preservation.

The best players, whether it has been Kevin Pietersen, Colin Cowdrey or Peter May, have been happier a little further down the order when the ball has lost a little of its shine and hardness and when the sun has finally deigned to appear. For England batting at three has too often been an ordeal to survive rather than a chance to thrive.

So who has occupied this position more often than any other for England? Jonathan Trott in 46 of his 52 Tests. Who is next?

Mark Butcher in 45 out of 71. The greats dipped their toes there – Wally Hammond 37 out of 85, May 28 out of 66, Cowdrey 25 out of 114, Gower 35 out of 117 and Ted Dexter 38 out of 62, who at least gave the impression that he actively wanted this responsibility.

Trott and Butcher, doughty cricketers both, batted at three partly because there were no other volunteers, partly because the hierarchy was keen to protect the more exalted players from exposure to that new ball. They would deal with the muck and bullets.

Gary Ballance, England’s No3, is unusual since he has played all but one of his 15 Tests there. Not for him the gentle introduction to Test cricket at No6 that was accorded Ponting and Bradman. Ballance had never batted at three for Yorkshire, where Joe Root had always been situated above him, but he was willing, flattered even, and he undertook the job.

One could almost sense his puzzlement, which may have stemmed from the fact that he had not been brought up in England, that no one else seemed desperate for the task. He would do his level best to protect the fancy dans down the order.

Statistically Ballance has done an excellent job. Even with his difficulties this summer against Australia and New Zealand he averages 47 in Test cricket. But currently the eyes tell a different story from the figures. He has been exposed to some of the world’s finest new-ball bowlers, Trent Boult, Mitchell Starc, Mitchell Johnson and Josh Hazlewood and, despite his 61 at Cardiff, he has never inspired confidence and he has never suggested anything other than a grim determination to survive. There has been no hint of fluency; the bowlers have retained the initiative. He has not been able to dictate.

His difficulties appear technical rather than temperamental. He rarely looks flustered but back he lurches deep into his crease and he plays just about every ball from there. The timing of those movements may not be perfect at present. Once he is back, there seldom seems time to move again. Of course, Starc and Johnson do not provide much time for that. There will now be some agonising about Ballance’s place.

However, England’s Sunday afternoon in St John’s Wood was so traumatic that the No3 slot becomes only one of many issues to address before the teams reunite in Birmingham. Who is Alastair Cook’s best partner? What of Ian Bell? Can Ben Stokes sharpen up his running between the wickets? Will England now dare to take on Johnson and Starc on a livelier surface?

Out in the shires Jonny Bairstow is the form batsman. He hit another century on Sunday against Worcestershire, though Jack Shantry, for all his cunning, is not quite such a threatening left-armer as Johnson or Starc; he is about 20mph slower. A summons to Bairstow would prompt a reshuffle.

Perhaps Bell might go to three (he has batted there in 22 of his 112 Tests, averaging 39) even though he does not inspire great confidence at the moment. And if England require a fresh partner for Cook, a most demanding job against this Australia attack, well Ballance is the usual fall guy.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/jul/19/england-no3-australia-second-ashes-test

I found that pretty interesting - and I think he is probably right about the different psychologies at play. You could probably widen that point to cover the general approach to test cricket between Eng and Aus over the years. One team is conservative and the other aggressive. If we are seriously going to adopt the aggressive 'brand' (yuk) of cricket then that needs to extend into how we approach each position.

No.3 should be the best batsman. That is Root.

Re: slotting Bell in there. It may be the best idea in the short-term (and I know this contrradicts my point above but bear with me) as if he's coming in at 1 down for not many then perhaps he will be a little less tense and stiff than when he's currently coming in at fook all for 2 and all the pressure is firmly on him to stick in there. First test he made a pathetic attempt to show Lyon who was boss by charging him and fluking it over mid-on - then when into his shell. Since then he's just been in shit himself mode. Come in at 1 down for not many Bell and try and take on the pace bowlers. Someone has to have a go at these f*ckers and it may be a chance for him to re-discover his pea-sized testes.

I prefer 3 as a "backup opener" and 4 as your best player. Openers are increasingly becoming sacrificial lambs or glorified nightwatchmen, there's few good ones worldwide and a lot of good new ball bowlers. Most times, teams are one down for not too many, and you need a third new ball-facing specialist. At least one of them should be a counter-attacker and not a block merchant though.