*Official* England in Australia (2 T20 & 7 ODIs)

[Prince EWS]

PEWS: He does sometimes bowl at the death for England. Not sure how often he's done it, but I do recall him having done it and done it well.

Oh yeah he has, that's how I know he's decent at it. But he doesn't get picked for that role - he hasn't bowled at the death for England in donkeys' years, so it's basically irrelevant.

 

[zaremba]

If you think that a nothing cricketer like that deserves a place in the team then that is your opinion.

The selectors seem to know what they're doing - who knows, they may even have a better-informed opinion than me or even (gasp!) you - and they think he deserves his place. It's striking that everyone that's worked with Wright seems to place faith in him, which may have something to do with the energy and enthusiasm he brings to the team - a matter which statistical analysis can be hard to measure, but which can be extremely important in building a team, particularly a team sans superstars such as this one. He showed last year that he's developing into a decent all-rounder. FC averages of 42 and 24 - the right way round - suggest that he's a little better than a "nothing cricketer".

 

[NUFAN]

I enjoyed the game a fair bit tonight. Watson was superb, the rest of the batsman except I guess Smith were too cautious and that was the difference, oh and fielding too SOKs drop was terrible, a wicket would have lifted Tait IMO.

Well done to Woakes, to bat like how he did on T20 debut was fantastic. I thought Davies was fairly sloppy with the gloves, he dropped a lot of returns.

 

[Uppercut]

Yeah, the only thing Wright's better than Bopara at (aside from fielding, which is a fair enough point I suppose) is death bowling, and he never bowls at the death for England anyway. Bopara's as good or better at every other facet of batting and bowling IMO.

Agreed. But most of the time, whoever you pick there, they won't really have the chance to make any kind of notable contribution. What was that figure on how many deliveries the number seven batsman faces on average in a T20? I think they might just be judging his role as unimportant enough to be worth taking a punt on as a prospect.

You could even go for someone as a specialist fielder. Depending on who's already in the side, picking a world-class backward point might add more to the team than someone who bats or bowls a bit. Not that I'm advocating it but that's the level of worthlessness of a specialist number 6 or 7 batsman. Regardless, the fact that a lot of teams are still only picking four specialist bowlers is pretty dire.

 

[Prince EWS]

Agreed. But most of the time, whoever you pick there, they won't really have the chance to make any kind of notable contribution. What was that figure on how many deliveries the number seven batsman faces on average in a T20?

You could even go for someone as a specialist fielder. Depending on who's already in the side, picking a world-class backward point might add more to the team than someone who bats or bowls a bit. Not that I'm advocating it but that's the level of worthlessness of a specialist number 6 or 7 batsman. Regardless, the fact that a lot of teams are still only picking four specialist bowlers is pretty dire.

Wright batted at six today though. That should definitely be a batsman's position and he isn't a limited overs batsman even at domestic level IMO. Despite his reputation, he's actually closer to being a proper batsman in First Class cricket.

 

[Redbacks]

What's the deal with that, Hussey's such an awesome attacking batsman. His performance makes me more inclined to think it's a misunderstanding of the format throughout the setup than just Clarke's uselessness.

Totally agree. It's so different watching sides from the subcontinent play T20. They still get the rash hoick and out shot during overs 8-15 whereas we seem to be stuck in ODI save yourself mode losing 10-15 runs each time.

Even our local team the redbacks last coach admitted they see the game in 3 periods 0-6, 6-14, 15-20 roughly which seems a systemic view throughout the setup.

 

[Goughy]

The selectors seem to know what they're doing - who knows, they may even have a better-informed opinion than me or even (gasp!) you - and they think he deserves his place. It's striking that everyone that's worked with Wright seems to place faith in him, which may have something to do with the energy and enthusiasm he brings to the team - a matter which statistical analysis can be hard to measure, but which can be extremely important in building a team, particularly a team sans superstars such as this one. He showed last year that he's developing into a decent all-rounder. FC averages of 42 and 24 - the right way round - suggest that he's a little better than a "nothing cricketer".

Energy, enthusiasm and having a face that fits may carry someone so far and is an important and oft ignored facet of the game. You are right that it doesnt show up in stats. It also isn’t a substitute for actual contribution. They are complementary skills, not core skills. Regarding assessing Wright, Ill happily stand by my guns.

As for his FC averages over a season, let’s leave that for a discussion where they are relevant. Currently we are talking about T20 and possibly ODIs. There is a certain irony that Wrights best format is the long form yet he is selected for the others.

He clearly isn’t Test standard but he is a useful FC cricketer. He just isn’t a very good limited overs player and is an ordinary player searching for a role. A player without portfolio.

 

[Prince EWS]

Energy, enthusiasm and having a face that fits may carry someone so far and is an important and oft ignored facet of the game. You are right that it doesnt show up in stats. It also isn’t a substitute for actual contribution. They are complementary skills, not core skills. Regarding assessing Wright, Ill happily stand by my guns.

As for his FC averages over a season, let’s leave that for a discussion where they are relevant. Currently we are talking about T20 and possibly ODIs. There is a certain irony that Wrights best format is the long form yet he is selected for the others.

He clearly isn’t Test standard but he is a useful FC cricketer in the 4 day game. He just isn’t a very good limited overs player and is an ordinary player searching for a role. A player without portfolio.

 

[Uppercut]

Wright batted at six today though. That should definitely be a batsman's position and he isn't a limited overs batsman even at domestic level IMO. Despite his reputation, he's actually closer to being a proper batsman in First Class cricket.

Yeah, but they dropped Yardy a place to accommodate him. How much of a difference will having a specialist batsman instead of Yardy at six make, given the quality of the available options?

 

[Furball]

Totally agree. It's so different watching sides from the subcontinent play T20. They still get the rash hoick and out shot during overs 8-15 whereas we seem to be stuck in ODI save yourself mode losing 10-15 runs each time.

Even our local team the redbacks last coach admitted they see the game in 3 periods 0-6, 6-14, 15-20 roughly which seems a systemic view throughout the setup.

At the end of the day, England's approach throughout was what saw them over the line - although we were losing wickets regularly, we were never really in danger of falling short of the target. As long as we batted the 20 overs, I was always confident we'd do it.

 

[Redbacks]

6 6 6 2 4 2 what an over from Swanny!!

The third delivery had so much custard on it anyone could have hit it for six. He came back well though in his last 3 overs. Was a real showman for the crowd too. Tipped his hat and gave a bow after people gave him ironic cheers when the 0/40 was announced over the PA. He loved the banter too, told a hero in the crowd you've got to take the good with the bad, good to see some characters in the game.

 

[Prince EWS]

Yeah, but they dropped Yardy a place to accommodate him. How much of a difference will having a specialist batsman instead of Yardy at six make, given the quality of the available options?

It's a fairly inconsequential position, particularly when you have a strong tail or pace your innings like Australia does, but the sixth batsman is certainly a lot more important than the sixth bowler. That picking a prank-player in the role won't be likely hurt them much very often doesn't detract from the fact that it's a **** selection. I doubt the selectors sat around and said "Eh it doesn't matter who we pick so we might as well pick the team pet".

 

[zaremba]

Energy, enthusiasm and having a face that fits may carry someone so far and is an important and oft ignored facet of the game. You are right that it doesnt show up in stats. It also isn’t a substitute for actual contribution.

Of course no-one's suggesting these things are a "substitute for actual contribution", simply that they are factors that need to be weighed in the balance along with the rest.

I'm usually as happy as anyone else to slate the selectors for their utter incompetence, but right now they deserve a fair amount of credit for their decisions in Tests, 50 over and 20 over cricket. They have achieved some pretty extraordinary results. And my point is, it is telling that this is a regime which, like others, has identified Wright as someone who has a great deal to offer. And the team that has been picking him has been achieving good results.

FTR I have some sympathy with your view. I regard Wright's place as being at a fair amount of risk including, until recently, in the Sussex team, and have been waiting for some time for him to deliver on his potential. But I think to write him off as a "nothing player" is somewhat wide of the mark.

 

[Redbacks]

At the end of the day, England's approach throughout was what saw them over the line - although we were losing wickets regularly, we were never really in danger of falling short of the target. As long as we batted the 20 overs, I was always confident we'd do it.

You did seem to have just enough answers in the middle. Colly with a steady hand and Morgan played quite well in middle period, it was dots and then anything short he put away to the boundaries to get the job done.

Shazid looked a decent bowler too, his 3 bumpers in a row did a trick on Dussey and Warner was tied down via a lack of width.

At the beginning classic Bell really, looked a million dollars, played great shots and gave chances every 10 runs

 

[Uppercut]

It's a fairly inconsequential position, particularly when you have a strong tail or pace your innings like Australia does, but the sixth batsman is certainly a lot more important than the sixth bowler. That picking a prank-player in the role won't be likely hurt them much very often doesn't detract from the fact that it's a **** selection. I doubt the selectors sat around and said "Eh it doesn't matter who we pick so we might as well pick the team pet".

Maybe, but when a player's real cricketing ability plays so little role in the game, the crappy factors in selection that I usually facepalm at the mention of become worth something. That's potential, energy/enthusiasm, "bit of something special", "good guy to have around the team", all of that bollocks. As well as a factor that does matter, and even more significantly so in this case- fielding.

Not that I'm even remotely sold on Wright, but picking him is really a pretty insignificant mistake.

 

[Jono]

At the end of the day, England's approach throughout was what saw them over the line - although we were losing wickets regularly, we were never really in danger of falling short of the target. As long as we batted the 20 overs, I was always confident we'd do it.

England have had the right approach to many T20 games in the last 12 months.

But if you think that was the right approach you're kidding yourself. You can't bat to expect full tosses at your tail in the 2nd last over every game.

Could have easily pulled it back with 7 overs to go and cruised to a 5 wicket win. Watson bowled well, but some other wickets were thrown away.

 

[vcs]

England have had the right approach to many T20 games in the last 12 months.

But if you think that was the right approach you're kidding yourself. You can't bat to expect full tosses at your tail in the 2nd last over every game.

Could have easily pulled it back with 7 overs to go and cruised to a 5 wicket win. Watson bowled well, but some other wickets were thrown away.

AWTA. Some real dumb cricket from England's batsmen today, Australia were even dumber apart from Watto.

 

[vic_orthdox]

England have had the right approach to many T20 games in the last 12 months.

But if you think that was the right approach you're kidding yourself. You can't bat to expect full tosses at your tail in the 2nd last over every game.

Could have easily pulled it back with 7 overs to go and cruised to a 5 wicket win. Watson bowled well, but some other wickets were thrown away.

Guess the fact that their tail is very strong probably comes into it, it allows them to back themselves to bat very confidently and aggressively. I mean, you'd back Swann at 10 to be able to take 10 off an over to win the game.

 

[Uppercut]

But if you think that was the right approach you're kidding yourself. You can't bat to expect full tosses at your tail in the 2nd last over every game.

Well, at the same time, you can't expect the opposition batting all-rounder to bowl as well as he did every game. There were definitely a few rash shots though, Morgan's in particular was entirely unnecessary.

 

[vcs]

Pietersen's was terrible.