**Official** Pakistan and England in the UAE 2015/16

[Howe_zat]

England fight back but still have mountain to climb against Pakistan | Sport | The Guardian

Very strange report from Selvey. We are pretty much half way to Pakistan's total for three down, that's not ****.

If someone here posted that I'd call it out as gambhiring.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

I guess Selvey can't see us scoring anything more than 150 batting last so it means we are still a long way off the 100+ lead he thinks we need.

I can understand his view, if Root goes in the opening half hour tomorrow we are in trouble.

One of those tests where the first session is huge again which is nice.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Nah Bell has made a couple of important knocks. Buttler isn't a bat in this team he's a wicketkeeper. If Bairstow could catch the ball he'd probably be wicketkeeper but in the past year he's made a number of mistakes in televised games behind the stumps and Buttler's keeping has improved a lot.

So by your way of thinking if we discount Buttler and Moeen and Stokes are seen as allrounders that means we only play 4 bats in our side and Cook and Root are two of them so he is up against Bell who has played 12 tests in 2015 and averages 25 which is pathetic.

The bloke with the 3rd highest average in 2015 is Ballance so I have no idea who we should pick or drop given he isn't good enough.

 

[Howe_zat]

I guess Selvey can't see us scoring anything more than 150 batting last so it means we are still a long way off the 100+ lead he thinks we need.

I can understand his view, if Root goes in the opening half hour tomorrow we are in trouble.

One of those tests where the first session is huge again which is nice.

The first session today was huge, as was the afternoon session, but then the post tea session was going to be huge. That was fairly inconclusive so now the next morning session will be huge.

It might be! Top test match we have brewing.

 

[Cabinet96]

England fight back but still have mountain to climb against Pakistan | Sport | The Guardian

Very strange report from Selvey. We are pretty much half way to Pakistan's total for three down, that's not ****.

If someone here posted that I'd call it out as gambhiring.

Yeah, it's weird. Opening sentence mentions Pakistan taking control, despite the fact they've clearly had the worse day. The only way you could really consider them in a better position today is if you think the pitch isn't as flat as it was, or as flat as you first thought it was. But that's not really them taking control.

 

[Cabinet96]

Anyway, I'm really looking forward to tomorrow morning now. Feels a bit like it could be heading the way of the 2nd test in the UAE last time, or the 2nd test in India the same year.

 

[Niall]

England fight back but still have mountain to climb against Pakistan | Sport | The Guardian

Very strange report from Selvey. We are pretty much half way to Pakistan's total for three down, that's not ****.

If someone here posted that I'd call it out as gambhiring.

Pakistan have taken control of the second Test. As well as the England bowlers performed on the second day to halt the Pakistan innings in its tracks, Pakistan’s own bowlers were starting to exert pressure of their own in a manner redolent to an extent of England’s last tour here.

WTF?

Yasir was all over for Bairstow for a bit, but it was comfortable enough bar that, they seemed quite content to go off at the end.

 

[Dan]

The thing about the Lyth/Bairstow 'earning' selection through sheer weight of runs is that it really shouldn't matter (at least not on its own).

If you aren't good enough to play Test cricket, or you aren't in the best 6 batsmen in the country, then no amount of FC runs should mean that you have to be picked. England didn't have to pick Mark Ramprakash from 2006-2009 when he was averaging 100 every year, because he was a tried-and-tested failure at Test level and nothing had changed in his game to suggest he'd succeed if he got yet another chance. If you don't do the job at Test level and you keep racking up FC runs at a faster rate than anyone else, you haven't earned a spot.

In the case of England here, it's very much understandable picking on form -- Lyth made sense not just because of his weight of runs, but because there wasn't an established opener. Lyth was no more nor no less likely than any of the other non-Compton opening options to be of international standard in the medium term, so picking the most in-form of those options makes complete sense. Lyth was the most likely of them all to make jammy 30s and maybe the odd attractive 50. Didn't quite work out well, but hey, the selectorial logic was sound enough. Apart from not picking Compton, that is.

The case of Bairstow is a bit more difficult -- he's very much still in that "is he or isn't he Test quality" stage, with selectors balancing whether his dominant FC season was representative of him changing compared to the out-of-his-depth Bairstow from 2 years ago, or of out-of-his-depth Bairstow being too good for FC but not good enough for Tests. Were the runs a result of him fixing his flaws that had him found out at Test level last time, or were they in spite of them? Were his Test failures because he's in that awkward 'in between' spot, or was he just in bad form? And, if you think he has changed and is good enough, how much leeway does he have to settle in -- how much starting credit does he have in the bank?

If Bairstow still doesn't perform to the required standard by the end of this winter, and he starts off the English summer with 1000 by the end of May (i.e. nothing wrong with his form, he's just delivering at FC level but not at Test level), do you keep picking him anyway because he's 'earned it' in the hope this time will be different?

If you go through those questions and come out deciding to pick Bairstow, that's fine. This isn't an easy question to answer, and giving up on a promising talent prematurely is just as bad as showing too much faith in that potential. But let's not pretend that Bairstow is owed that spot by virtue of his FC runscoring. Sure, he's done everything that could possibly be asked of him, but that, in itself, doesn't make him good enough to play for England.

(ftr replace 'Bairstow' with 'Shaun Marsh' for the Australian example; I don't mean to attack Jonny personally -- this is a broader point re. selection)

 

[Howe_zat]

Anyway, I'm really looking forward to tomorrow morning now. Feels a bit like it could be heading the way of the 2nd test in the UAE last time, or the 2nd test in India the same year.

That Test was one of my favourite moments as an England fan. I was in the university library completely failing to get work done when Panesar got Tendulkar out in the second innings with India still behind. I made a loud squeak and had to excuse myself.

 

[theegyptian]

So by your way of thinking if we discount Buttler and Moeen and Stokes are seen as allrounders that means we only play 4 bats in our side and Cook and Root are two of them so he is up against Bell who has played 12 tests in 2015 and averages 25 which is pathetic.

The bloke with the 3rd highest average in 2015 is Ballance so I have no idea who we should pick or drop given he isn't good enough.

You see now you're going and changing the parameters. First it was since Bairstow came back into the team and now it's the start of 2015. Presumably you've refreshed your mind and looked at the matches since Bairstow came back into the team and decided that actually Bell has done a little better in that time than Bairstow - and thus you've decided to change your argument.

And Buttler, Moeen and Stokes are in the team for more reasons than just their batting. Your going to be judged by your overall contribution to the team.

 

[Prince EWS]

So I was trying to decide whether or not I could be bothered making a post about the Bairstow debate. Then..

The thing about the Lyth/Bairstow 'earning' selection through sheer weight of runs is that it really shouldn't matter (at least not on its own).

If you aren't good enough to play Test cricket, or you aren't in the best 6 batsmen in the country, then no amount of FC runs should mean that you have to be picked. England didn't have to pick Mark Ramprakash from 2006-2009 when he was averaging 100 every year, because he was a tried-and-tested failure at Test level and nothing had changed in his game to suggest he'd succeed if he got yet another chance. If you don't do the job at Test level and you keep racking up FC runs at a faster rate than anyone else, you haven't earned a spot.

In the case of England here, it's very much understandable picking on form -- Lyth made sense not just because of his weight of runs, but because there wasn't an established opener. Lyth was no more nor no less likely than any of the other non-Compton opening options to be of international standard in the medium term, so picking the most in-form of those options makes complete sense. Lyth was the most likely of them all to make jammy 30s and maybe the odd attractive 50. Didn't quite work out well, but hey, the selectorial logic was sound enough. Apart from not picking Compton, that is.

The case of Bairstow is a bit more difficult -- he's very much still in that "is he or isn't he Test quality" stage, with selectors balancing whether his dominant FC season was representative of him changing compared to the out-of-his-depth Bairstow from 2 years ago, or of out-of-his-depth Bairstow being too good for FC but not good enough for Tests. Were the runs a result of him fixing his flaws that had him found out at Test level last time, or were they in spite of them? Were his Test failures because he's in that awkward 'in between' spot, or was he just in bad form? And, if you think he has changed and is good enough, how much leeway does he have to settle in -- how much starting credit does he have in the bank?

If Bairstow still doesn't perform to the required standard by the end of this winter, and he starts off the English summer with 1000 by the end of May (i.e. nothing wrong with his form, he's just delivering at FC level but not at Test level), do you keep picking him anyway because he's 'earned it' in the hope this time will be different?

If you go through those questions and come out deciding to pick Bairstow, that's fine. This isn't an easy question to answer, and giving up on a promising talent prematurely is just as bad as showing too much faith in that potential. But let's not pretend that Bairstow is owed that spot by virtue of his FC runscoring. Sure, he's done everything that could possibly be asked of him, but that, in itself, doesn't make him good enough to play for England.

(ftr replace 'Bairstow' with 'Shaun Marsh' for the Australian example; I don't mean to attack Jonny personally -- this is a broader point re. selection)

.. Dan made my post for me. Gun.

 

[Howe_zat]

In the case of England here, it's very much understandable picking on form -- Lyth made sense not just because of his weight of runs, but because there wasn't an established opener. Lyth was no more nor no less likely than any of the other non-Compton opening options to be of international standard in the medium term, so picking the most in-form of those options makes complete sense. Lyth was the most likely of them all to make jammy 30s and maybe the odd attractive 50. Didn't quite work out well, but hey, the selectorial logic was sound enough. Apart from not picking Compton, that is.

The case of Bairstow is a bit more difficult -- he's very much still in that "is he or isn't he Test quality" stage, with selectors balancing whether his dominant FC season was representative of him changing compared to the out-of-his-depth Bairstow from 2 years ago, or of out-of-his-depth Bairstow being too good for FC but not good enough for Tests. Were the runs a result of him fixing his flaws that had him found out at Test level last time, or were they in spite of them? Were his Test failures because he's in that awkward 'in between' spot, or was he just in bad form? And, if you think he has changed and is good enough, how much leeway does he have to settle in -- how much starting credit does he have in the bank?

If Bairstow still doesn't perform to the required standard by the end of this winter, and he starts off the English summer with 1000 by the end of May (i.e. nothing wrong with his form, he's just delivering at FC level but not at Test level), do you keep picking him anyway because he's 'earned it' in the hope this time will be different?

If you go through those questions and come out deciding to pick Bairstow, that's fine. This isn't an easy question to answer, and giving up on a promising talent prematurely is just as bad as showing too much faith in that potential. But let's not pretend that Bairstow is owed that spot by virtue of his FC runscoring. Sure, he's done everything that could possibly be asked of him, but that, in itself, doesn't make him good enough to play for England.

I understand this. What pisses me off is that someone is always the collective victim of the week and when Bairstow started his innings it was him.

If Bairstow can get dropped and then go and score 1000 runs in 11 innings or whatever it was and still not be, in their argument, good enough for test cricket, then it must be because they consider Championship runs to be no indicator at all to what makes a Test player.

But no one thinks that, and the same people who were all over him here are the same people insisting Ballance needed dropping, and before him Lyth absolutely must be picked over Hales or Robson based on his 2014, and so on. And the chorus makes it sound like all these moves are completely obvious just because it's not what the selectors have done. It winds me up.

 

[Dan]

I understand this. What pisses me off is that someone is always the collective victim of the week and when Bairstow started his innings it was him.

If Bairstow can get dropped and then go and score 1000 runs in 11 innings or whatever it was and still not be, in their argument, good enough for test cricket, then it must be because they consider Championship runs to be no indicator at all to what makes a Test player.

But no one thinks that, and the same people who were all over him here are the same people insisting Ballance needed dropping, and before him Lyth absolutely must be picked over Hales or Robson based on his 2014, and so on. And the chorus makes it sound like all these moves are completely obvious just because it's not what the selectors have done. It winds me up.

I disagree with this; Championship runs are an indicator, but they need to be considered in context -- things like technique and international history.

I don't think Bairstow is a Test player, and I don't think he ever will be. But I'm almost certain that he'll score mountains of Championship runs for the next decade at a very good average. I reckon the weaknesses that he has get consistently exposed at Test level, but are highly unlikely to be consistently exposed in Championship cricket. In short, I think that, even with 1000 runs in 11 FC innings, 2015 Bairstow is pretty much the same batsman as the 2012 Bairstow who plainly wasn't up to Test cricket.

Much in the same way that Mark Ramprakash in 2005/06, making thousands of runs at whatever ridiculous average, was pretty much the same batsman as the one who had been tried repeatedly in Test cricket and was never good enough.

I 100% agree on the "makes it sound like all these moves are completely obvious just because it's not what the selectors have done" point though. That's absolutely spot-on; the selectors are always wrong, even when they're right. Its as if they're meant to be omniscient beings who know exactly when someone's run of averaging 50 in Tests will begin and when it will end. And even if they knew that, we wouldn't, so we'd complain they got picked too late and dropped too early.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

You see now you're going and changing the parameters. First it was since Bairstow came back into the team and now it's the start of 2015. Presumably you've refreshed your mind and looked at the matches since Bairstow came back into the team and decided that actually Bell has done a little better in that time than Bairstow - and thus you've decided to change your argument.

And Buttler, Moeen and Stokes are in the team for more reasons than just their batting. Your going to be judged by your overall contribution to the team.

No I am not you are just being a pedantic **** now.

Was using the entire 2015 because other than Cook and Root nobody has done much at all so the **** Bairstow is getting is a bit unfair.

 

[Prince EWS]

If Bairstow can get dropped and then go and score 1000 runs in 11 innings or whatever it was and still not be, in their argument, good enough for test cricket, then it must be because they consider Championship runs to be no indicator at all to what makes a Test player.

I don't really understand why people say this. It's entirely possible for someone to do really under one criterion but still come up short overall without that criterion actually being worth zero. All it shows is that the criterion is worth less than 100%.

When Rampakash didn't get recalled after consecutive seasons averaging 80+ it wasn't because the selectors thought it was no indicator at all, but because they thought the other indicators outweighed it to the point of him being less likely to score Test runs than a few other players.

I'm actually a pretty strong advocate of using domestic performance as a big part of a selection process, but I do take a bit more of a long-term view of things to the point of not really getting all that excited if someone has one awesome season. I also think that if you drop someone, something should have to change for them to be recalled. Either their replacements have to be fail to make you re-evaluate whether they're the most likely to perform, or they have to improve in some way. Averaging 80 instead of 50 in domestic cricket for one season doesn't really indicate a really significant change to me unless it also comes with actual technical or temperamental changes. If there's evidence that Bairstow made some sort of change that worked then great, but from what I've read/seen think it was just a case of him going out there, doing what he's always done and it working a bit better for a season at a level he's always been pretty good at. Welcome to form and variance.

I actually wouldn't have dropped Ballance and I think you know that so I'm probably not really the target of your ire, but I don't really believe Bairstow is better than a couple of blokes who have been left out.

 

[theegyptian]

No I am not you are just being a pedantic **** now.

Was using the entire 2015 because other than Cook and Root nobody has done much at all so the **** Bairstow is getting is a bit unfair.

No-one has really said anything controversial about Bairstow as far as I can see.

You talked about agendas earlier but It just seems to be me like a couple of yorkshire fans have gone into a full-on defense of Bairstow because of some perceived slight.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

No-one has really said anything controversial about Bairstow as far as I can see.

You talked about agendas earlier but It just seems to be me like a couple of yorkshire fans have gone into a full-on defense of Bairstow because of some perceived slight.

Bairstow has had **** from the moment he was reselected so don't hide behind the nobody has said anything bad argument as it is bullcrap.

 

[Black_Warrior]

The thing about the Lyth/Bairstow 'earning' selection through sheer weight of runs is that it really shouldn't matter (at least not on its own).

If you aren't good enough to play Test cricket, or you aren't in the best 6 batsmen in the country, then no amount of FC runs should mean that you have to be picked. England didn't have to pick Mark Ramprakash from 2006-2009 when he was averaging 100 every year, because he was a tried-and-tested failure at Test level and nothing had changed in his game to suggest he'd succeed if he got yet another chance. If you don't do the job at Test level and you keep racking up FC runs at a faster rate than anyone else, you haven't earned a spot.

In the case of England here, it's very much understandable picking on form -- Lyth made sense not just because of his weight of runs, but because there wasn't an established opener. Lyth was no more nor no less likely than any of the other non-Compton opening options to be of international standard in the medium term, so picking the most in-form of those options makes complete sense. Lyth was the most likely of them all to make jammy 30s and maybe the odd attractive 50. Didn't quite work out well, but hey, the selectorial logic was sound enough. Apart from not picking Compton, that is.

The case of Bairstow is a bit more difficult -- he's very much still in that "is he or isn't he Test quality" stage, with selectors balancing whether his dominant FC season was representative of him changing compared to the out-of-his-depth Bairstow from 2 years ago, or of out-of-his-depth Bairstow being too good for FC but not good enough for Tests. Were the runs a result of him fixing his flaws that had him found out at Test level last time, or were they in spite of them? Were his Test failures because he's in that awkward 'in between' spot, or was he just in bad form? And, if you think he has changed and is good enough, how much leeway does he have to settle in -- how much starting credit does he have in the bank?

If Bairstow still doesn't perform to the required standard by the end of this winter, and he starts off the English summer with 1000 by the end of May (i.e. nothing wrong with his form, he's just delivering at FC level but not at Test level), do you keep picking him anyway because he's 'earned it' in the hope this time will be different?

If you go through those questions and come out deciding to pick Bairstow, that's fine. This isn't an easy question to answer, and giving up on a promising talent prematurely is just as bad as showing too much faith in that potential. But let's not pretend that Bairstow is owed that spot by virtue of his FC runscoring. Sure, he's done everything that could possibly be asked of him, but that, in itself, doesn't make him good enough to play for England.

(ftr replace 'Bairstow' with 'Shaun Marsh' for the Australian example; I don't mean to attack Jonny personally -- this is a broader point re. selection)

Very good reasoning. I don't disagree with much at all. My point however is, there is a difference between 'earning a test call' and 'making it your own by being a test standard player' or being 'good enough to play for England' as you put it.

A great FC record and FC average does not necessarily make you a test quality player. Absolutely agree. But does a great FC record earn you a spot when England are looking for a middle order batsman with Trott, KP gone, Ballance dropped, and Bell sent to 3? What I was trying to say was, Bairstow might not ultimately prove to be a test standard batsman. But did he earn his spot at the time of getting picked? Yes. How else do you earn a spot if not FC?
Will he keep his spot? Maybe not. Being a Prophet isn't one of my specialties, so I'll reserve judgement on that.

 

[Cabinet96]

Cook batting in his first innings after a massive score are always my favourite to watch. A cover drive and two big shots over the leg side before even tea!

 

[Black_Warrior]

I'm actually a pretty strong advocate of using domestic performance as a big part of a selection process], but I do take a bit more of a long-term view of things to the point of not really getting all that excited if someone has one awesome season . I also think that if you drop someone, something should have to change for them to be recalled. Either their replacements have to be fail to make you re-evaluate whether they're the most likely to perform, or they have to improve in some way. Averaging 80 instead of 50 in domestic cricket for one season doesn't really indicate a really significant change to me unless it also comes with actual technical or temperamental changes. If there's evidence that Bairstow made some sort of change that worked then great, but from what I've read/seen think it was just a case of him going out there, doing what he's always done and it working a bit better for a season at a level he's always been pretty good at. Welcome to form and variance.

Haha I remember our conversations about Fawad Alam a couple of years back, or even Misbah in 2010 when he was recalled after being dropped for a poor Australia series in 2009-10. Interesting how your position has evolved a little bit, and I have gone in a slightly opposite direction. I take FC records a bit more seriously than I did a few years ago.