Re: Gooch & Hoggard on Pattinson

by Gary 111 Sat 19 Jul 2008, 22:12

Well bearing in mind that we've effectively gone into this match with 4 bowlers - half a bowler in Broad and half a bowler in Pattinson, as well as Monty not even being needed much in seaming conditions - I think the selectors will be tempted to replace Broad and Pattinson with their Notts teammate Sidebottom and pick an extra batsman. They will probably like to keep Ambrose, but could ensure the Notts quota is upheld by bringing in Chris Read too.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but I can't help but think if they wanted a full of a length swing bowler to do a horses for courses job at Headingley (as well as the obvious one in Hoggard) they could have done much worse than Tim Bresnan. His batting, which is about Broad's standard could have helped to avert the collapse on Day One also.

by Basil Sat 19 Jul 2008, 22:19

I doubt if he's a much better bowler than Broad.

*cough* Kabir Ali *cough*

by beamer Sat 19 Jul 2008, 23:10

Basil wrote:If Broad goes, then Ambrose definitely has to be replaced - probably by Prior - otherwise, a six, seven, eight of Ambrose, Flintoff and Hoggard/Tremlett/Jones/Harmison is too awful a prospect to countenance.

Thinking about it - that probably guarantees Broad's continued selection.

It's all down to the age-old problem of how to get the right balance to your side, which every team that doesn't have several world-class all-rounders constantly has.

In terms of the depth of batting I think it's largely psychological. For example, replace a specialist batsman who averages 40 with a "bowler who bats" averaging 25. On paper it costs you 15 runs per innings - small change. But it seems to have a big impact for whatever reason, the sight of a long tail fires up the opposition and puts extra pressure on the top five to perform. You could say if the top five are good enough then they should be making the vast majority of the runs anyway, and anything the rest get is a bonus. Trouble is our top five isn't particularly reliable so we have to consider the batting ability of our keepers and bowlers more than we ideally should.

by Big_Bad_Bob Sat 19 Jul 2008, 23:47

Basil wrote:
Big_Bad_Bob wrote:
Basil wrote:If Broad goes, then Ambrose definitely has to be replaced - probably by Prior - otherwise, a six, seven, eight of Ambrose, Flintoff and Hoggard/Tremlett/Jones/Harmison is too awful a prospect to countenance.

Thinking about it - that probably guarantees Broad's continued selection.

No, no, no, no, no!

Anything but that twat coming back into the side.

I'll give up for good, seek Moores out and punch him on the nose if it happens.

Who then?

As I say, Anything but that twat.

But more specifically, and in order: -

Foster
Read

. . . big gap . . .

Batty
Sutton

. . . another big gap . . .

Davies
Drag the gaffer out of retirement

. . . a further big gap . . .

Anyone else in County cricket

. . . yet another big gap . . .

Our Club's 2nd XI keeper
Our Club's 1st XI keeper

. . . a huge chasm . . .

Matt Sussex.

by JKLever Sat 19 Jul 2008, 23:48

It'll be Matt Sussex...

by PearlJ Sat 19 Jul 2008, 23:49

Prior is a better batsmen than any of England's other keepers.

by Big_Bad_Bob Sun 20 Jul 2008, 00:11

JKLever wrote:It'll be Matt Sussex...

Per a Wisden Cricketer article this month, the net worth of the respective England keepers to their side over the last 7 years: -

Credit Crunch - Tests since 2001-02

Tests Byes Conceded Runs cost in missed chances Avge runs cost per Test Batting average Net figure

Alec Stewart 18 142 115 14.28 41.41 27.13
Chris Read 12 29 10 3.25 21.46 18.21
Tim Ambrose 6 43 48 15.17 30.44 15.27
Geraint Jones 34 278 296 16.88 23.91 7.03
James Foster 7 47 84 18.71 25.11 6.4
Matt Prior 10 142 485 62.7 40.14 -22.56

Takes into account batting average, byes conceded, runs cost in missed chances.

Utterly damning for Prior.

Moores, Miller et al want shooting if this turkey comes anywhere near the gauntlets for his country again.

by PearlJ Sun 20 Jul 2008, 00:13

Better than Chris 'Rabbit' Read.

by Big_Bad_Bob Sun 20 Jul 2008, 00:17

The above taking into account objective facts suggests not.

by beamer Sun 20 Jul 2008, 00:22

In terms of the runs cost in missed chances, I suspect a couple of them are skewed by one or two mistakes where the batsman just happened to go on and make a huge score. It's not within the keeper's control whether that player he dropped gets one more run or 200. Perhaps 30 runs per missed chance would be a fairer "credit" to give them.

We'll keep going round in circles until we find the complete all-round package of course, which might take 5, 10 or 20 years - but it's easier to turn a batsman into a keeper than a keeper into a batsman, as Stewart proved. And a wicketkeeper's just a fielder with gloves when it comes down to it, you wouldn't pick a specialist short leg who couldn't bat!

by JKLever Sun 20 Jul 2008, 00:25

Big_Bad_Bob wrote:The above taking into account objective facts suggests not.

Do they take into account runs conceded when the keeper fails to go for chances between him and 1st slip Wink

by Big_Bad_Bob Sun 20 Jul 2008, 00:37

beamer wrote:In terms of the runs cost in missed chances, I suspect a couple of them are skewed by one or two mistakes where the batsman just happened to go on and make a huge score. It's not within the keeper's control whether that player he dropped gets one more run or 200. Perhaps 30 runs per missed chance would be a fairer "credit" to give them.

We'll keep going round in circles until we find the complete all-round package of course, which might take 5, 10 or 20 years - but it's easier to turn a batsman into a keeper than a keeper into a batsman, as Stewart proved. And a wicketkeeper's just a fielder with gloves when it comes down to it, you wouldn't pick a specialist short leg who couldn't bat!

So because Stewart did it, that proves it for everyone else regardless does it?!

FFS, Beamer - I'd expect better of you, chap!

by Big_Bad_Bob Sun 20 Jul 2008, 00:41

JKLever wrote:
Big_Bad_Bob wrote:The above taking into account objective facts suggests not.

Do they take into account runs conceded when the keeper fails to go for chances between him and 1st slip

I have no idea, you'd have to ask the journo.

However, the incident I recall was in Read's first Test after recall against the Paksters.

Read has always been someone who has left balls which go at catchable height to first slip as he should be in a better position to catch it.

That Tres was not in a position to do so in this case was either: -

a) A simple case of the new partnership not having worked out their angles yet, or
b) The pig-headed Fletcher telling Tres to stand wide to this apparently wonder keeper who he'd had thrust on him against his will by his employers.

by JKLever Sun 20 Jul 2008, 01:09

And at the Oval a couple of times too...

by Lara Lara Laughs Sun 20 Jul 2008, 01:17

All this Read can't catch between himself and first slip shite has to end. No top class 'keeper would get away with it if it were true. The whole thing is founded upon two instances (once in a Test and once in an ODI IIRC) where he left an edge for Trescothick at first slip. I'd put it down as misunderstandings, rather than incompetent keeping because we all know that the wicketkeeping God gave birth to a child, and that child was Chris Read.

Trev banging on about it like a loon to discredit Read's keeping is insanity.

by Big_Bad_Bob Sun 20 Jul 2008, 01:25

JKLever wrote:And at the Oval a couple of times too...

See B) in that case.

I've never seen it happen once in all the years I've watched him at Trent Bridge.

by Henry Sun 20 Jul 2008, 01:27

Prior was unfairly dropped, imo. Finally England had found a keeper batsman who was averaging close to 40, but they dropped him because of his keeping, despite him being no worse than Geraint Jones in this regard.

I think the media had a bit to do with Prior's axing. They were on his back for the whole of last season in regards to sledging etc. It was one of the more vicious attacks on an England cricketer in recent times.

by Lara Lara Laughs Sun 20 Jul 2008, 01:32

Yeah, poor old Prior. It was all the media. The fact that he couldn't catch a cricket ball if he was spider man and someone had just spunked extra sticky love-juice onto his hand didn't have anything to do with it.

by Big_Bad_Bob Sun 20 Jul 2008, 01:42

Henry wrote:Prior was unfairly dropped, imo. Finally England had found a keeper batsman who was averaging close to 40, but they dropped him because of his keeping, despite him being no worse than Geraint Jones in this regard.

I think the media had a bit to do with Prior's axing. They were on his back for the whole of last season in regards to sledging etc. It was one of the more vicious attacks on an England cricketer in recent times.

Quite right too.

He's an unpleasant gob-shite. I'd rather not have someone peddling his brand of inane vitriol in my country's name thanks very much.

Obnoxious shoite keeper, and an over-rated batsman.

by Henry Sun 20 Jul 2008, 01:45

Being an unpleasant gob-shite is better than being a timid little rabbit in the headlights when it comes to playing good cricket.

by Zat Sun 20 Jul 2008, 01:50

I agree with Henry on that.

Oh my god, what am I saying???

by Big_Bad_Bob Sun 20 Jul 2008, 01:51

Henry wrote:Being an unpleasant gob-shite is better than being a timid little rabbit in the headlights when it comes to playing good cricket.

Big_Bad_Bob wrote:

Per a Wisden Cricketer article this month, the net worth of the respective England keepers to their side over the last 7 years: -

Credit Crunch - Tests since 2001-02

Tests Byes Conceded Runs cost in missed chances Avge runs cost per Test Batting average Net figure

Alec Stewart 18 142 115 14.28 41.41 27.13
Chris Read 12 29 10 3.25 21.46 18.21
Tim Ambrose 6 43 48 15.17 30.44 15.27
Geraint Jones 34 278 296 16.88 23.91 7.03
James Foster 7 47 84 18.71 25.11 6.4
Matt Prior 10 142 485 62.7 40.14 -22.56

Takes into account batting average, byes conceded, runs cost in missed chances.

Utterly damning for Prior.

Moores, Miller et al want shooting if this turkey comes anywhere near the gauntlets for his country again.

by Lara Lara Laughs Sun 20 Jul 2008, 01:52

Big_Bad_Bob wrote:
Henry wrote:Prior was unfairly dropped, imo. Finally England had found a keeper batsman who was averaging close to 40, but they dropped him because of his keeping, despite him being no worse than Geraint Jones in this regard.

I think the media had a bit to do with Prior's axing. They were on his back for the whole of last season in regards to sledging etc. It was one of the more vicious attacks on an England cricketer in recent times.

He's an unpleasant gob-shite. I'd rather not have someone peddling his brand of inane vitriol in my country's name thanks very much.

Another one of Bob's magic rules? Not much hope for Hayden and Ponting is there? Razz

by Big_Bad_Bob Sun 20 Jul 2008, 02:07

Even Hayden and Ponting can muster something a bit more meaningful than the outright, dullard abuse Prior was trotting out from behind the stumps last summer.

The bloke was an embarrassment.

He's too stupid to muster anything akin to a genuine sledge.

by Zat Sun 20 Jul 2008, 02:12

OK, who's taken the forum and planted it in bizarroland? There's no way some of you guys ever say anything remotely positive about haydos and punter. What's going on?

by Sponsored content