*Official* England in West Indies 2022

[wpdavid]

Surely this is the worst England team for over 50 years and I can’t see it improving. Root must surely not be allowed to go on as captain as he really does not know what to do when we are under pressure

I suspect that we're heading for previously unfathomed depths. All the talk during the Ashes was that although the batting was dire, at least we had an attack worthy of the name. Not so now, without Branderson and Robinson. Maybe the early 1920s side that had been decimated by WW1 is England's weakest ever. I couldn't really compare this side to those guys as circumstances are just so different, but it's hard to be remotely positive about the immediate future of our test side.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Still think Sam Cook would have been worth a go.

 

[grecian]

I suspect that we're heading for previously unfathomed depths. All the talk during the Ashes was that although the batting was dire, at least we had an attack worthy of the name. Not so now, without Branderson and Robinson. Maybe the early 1920s side that had been decimated by WW1 is England's weakest ever. I couldn't really compare this side to those guys as circumstances are just so different, but it's hard to be remotely positive about the immediate future of our test side.

The fact is with Branderson we have a decent attack, maybe we should call this the worst picked team ever. Yet the 50 years thing is an odd comment as if we've been any good for 50 years, despite about 2003-15, this team can only be compared in awfulness to 80s and 90s sides.

 

[Xix2565]

Both.

Batting:
Home, 29 matches, 1630 runs @ 39.75
Neutral, 4 matches, 134 runs @ 33.50
Away, 21 matches, 758 runs @ 21.05

Bowling:
Home, 90 wickets @ 21.55
Neutral, 14 wickets @ 18.21
Away, 36 wickets @ 43.72

He's been amazing at home and in neutral tests (small sample size for the latter), but terrible away from home.

Oh I know that he's been bad away, but the original question was why. Mainly just unfamiliar conditions against stronger teams feed into that, while WI in general is decent at bowling when it comes to certain conditions but otherwise poor with ball and bat.

Well it was your query. Btw Gabriel doesn't do as well away from 'comparatively". He's much like the others. I checked a few years ago on their batting and they did a little better away from home suggesting the local wickets for tests do favour seam bowling; but also the batting is generally rubbish while the bowling at least does well at home.

Ah I think you confused me there, I was asking to know how to answer your question (at least, that's what I thought). You've got there anyway though. Sorry if that was confusing.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

The fact is with Branderson we have a decent attack, maybe we should call this the worst picked team ever. Yet the 50 years thing is an odd comment as if we've been any good for 50 years, despite about 2003-15, this team can only be compared in awfulness to 80s and 90s sides.

The 80s and 90s sides had a similar issue with openers, we tried Broad, Robinson, Moxon, Larkins, Curtis, Barnett, Stephenson, Athey and i must have missed a few and only really had Gooch, Atherton and Stewart who were any good and usually split them up so didn't use the one thing we had going for us at the time.

As for bowling, it was ridiculous to stick with Woakes and a huge gamble to trust Robinson and Wood. All have backfired already.

 

[Preed]

If wood is going to break down every test Straus should swallow his pride and beg Broad to fly out to West Indies.Woakes has never been effective away from home and and Overton has no real pace and is no where near international class.One of the replacements is Fisher who took 10 wickets in the championship last year.He shows promise but is only medium pace.Don’t we miss our West Indian import

 

[grecian]

I don't hate woods, but I get so irritated with people talking him up, the Talksport guy yesterday said he dragged us back into it, cricinfo's masturbation about him, in the end he's a "strike" bowler who averages in the 30s and is in his 30s, even when he doesn't break down, is he that good?

Oh I admit I'm very biased but thought Overton bowled well today, not brilliant but okay.

 

[mr_mister]

I don't hate woods, but I get so irritated with people talking him up, the Talksport guy yesterday said he dragged us back into it, cricinfo's masturbation about him, in the end he's a "strike" bowler who averages in the 30s and is in his 30s, even when he doesn't break down, is he that good?

Oh I admit I'm very biased but thought Overton bowled well today, not brilliant but okay.

Aren't strike bowlers averages meant to be less relevant than their strike rates? Like they go for runs but strike often. Not disagreeing with your larger point but I think it's acceptable for strike bowlers to average a bit higher. His strike rate of 57 seems well above average which you didn't mention

Malinga for example is more worth than his averages suggest

 

[grecian]

Aren't strike bowlers averages meant to be less relevant than their strike rates? Like they go for runs but strike often. Not disagreeing with your larger point but I think it's acceptable for strike bowlers to average a bit higher. His strike rate of 57 seems well above average which you didn't mention

Malinga for example is more worth than his averages suggest

His strike-rate is less than Stuart Broads, is 57.1 well above average, if it was I might have mentioned it. I mean surely strike bowlers should average less if anything as they're not controlling the innings through stemming runs, nor bowling long spells.

 

[mr_mister]

His strike-rate is less than Stuart Broads, is 57.1 well above average, if it was I might have mentioned it. I mean surely strike bowlers should average less if anything as they're not controlling the innings through stemming runs, nor bowling long spells.

I think Broad has an above average strike rate too. For example Walsh's was 57.9, Pollock's 58, Siddles was 62. Lindwall's was 58 and Davidson's was 62 but that was a different time. I think it's more you mentioned he's a strike bowler then only acknowledged his average and not strike rate

Basically I'd guess Wood is in the top 100 test strike rates from 1900 onwards but probably not in the top 500 for averages

And while your point about bowling less is true, when they do bowl they're meant to be looking to bowl more wicket balls so they're taking more risks and bowling with more attacking Fields. Nobody expected maidens from Shoaib Akhtar and Brett Lee, the former who was an awesome strike bowler and the latter a goodish one. Wood could reach Lee level based on raw averages and strike rates. Not enough time to match his wickets

 

[Xix2565]

I don't hate woods, but I get so irritated with people talking him up, the Talksport guy yesterday said he dragged us back into it, cricinfo's masturbation about him, in the end he's a "strike" bowler who averages in the 30s and is in his 30s, even when he doesn't break down, is he that good?

Oh I admit I'm very biased but thought Overton bowled well today, not brilliant but okay.

His strike-rate is less than Stuart Broads, is 57.1 well above average, if it was I might have mentioned it. I mean surely strike bowlers should average less if anything as they're not controlling the innings through stemming runs, nor bowling long spells.

Mark Wood away from home averages 24.92 and strikes at 46.0 compared to Broad's away record of 28.31 at 65.9 since the year of Wood's debut. He's England's best away pace bowler in general of the recent times.

In England in that timeframe Wood's numbers are 40.71 at 70.4 while Broad's are 24.23 at 47.9. Wood's poor record at home overall is what brings his record down.

If anything it shows how much conditions matter for bowling.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

In 17 innings so far in his Test career, Bonner has been in the crease for a while...here are some notable knocks:


86 of 245
90 off 209
38 off 120
113* off 274
37 off 116
68* off 220
44 off 143
123 off 355

 

[Line and Length]

The 80s and 90s sides had a similar issue with openers, we tried Broad, Robinson, Moxon, Larkins, Curtis, Barnett, Stephenson, Athey and i must have missed a few and only really had Gooch, Atherton and Stewart who were any good and usually split them up so didn't use the one thing we had going for us at the time.

A bit harsh on Broad, listing him among those other also-rans. His Test average is a respectable shade under 40 and he scored centuries in 3 consecutive Ashes Tests and, if my memory serves me well, was Man of the Series.
Sadly his fiery temperament let him down and he played his last Test when a relatively young 30 year old.

 

[FBU]

Mark Wood's elbow injury started in the last Ashes Test and he went to the WI with injections. With someone bowling express you would only take him if fully fit.

The bowling coach complained about Robinson's Test match fitness and they also took him. Back spasm in the last Test and again in the warm up game in the WI. Missed the 4th Ashes Test with a shoulder problem.

Selectors and medics need to get their acts together.

 

[Starfighter]

Aren't strike bowlers averages meant to be less relevant than their strike rates? Like they go for runs but strike often.

No, that's absolute bullshit. The more runs you concede, the worse your team does. That's why successful bowling attacks have low averages. Strike rate is significantly batsman dependent and is a massively overrated stat in tests.

 

[mr_mister]

No, that's absolute bull****. The more runs you concede, the worse your team does. That's why successful bowling attacks have low averages. Strike rate is significantly batsman dependent and is a massively overrated stat in tests.

Is it overrated? It's almost never talked about imo

 

[Starfighter]

It's almost never talked about imo

Really? Not sure if my memory is getting fuzzy, but I could swear no shortage of discussions (here and elsewhere) where people want to give it nearly the same weight as average (even though they're not even independent)

 

[Spark]

It's definitely talked about a fair bit here as a way to differentiate bowlers as superior wicket takers even if they go for more runs.

But yeah if you weight it the same as average, then basically by mathematical identity you're basically saying that it literally doesn't matter how many runs you go for, just how often you take wickets. Which, uh, is not quite how it works.

 

[mr_mister]

It doesn't deserve the same weight as average, but an especially good one shouldn't be discounted. Malinga is definitely a more valuable a bowler than his averages would lead someone to believe due to it.

Same with Thommo. For spinners, MacGill. I think at the speeds Wood can reach he can keep being used in a bowling role that might cop more boundaries or leak more wides if it brings a higher rate of wickets

 

[Spark]

It doesn't deserve the same weight as average, but an especially good one shouldn't be discounted. Malinga is definitely a more valuable a bowler than his averages would lead someone to believe due to it.

Same with Thommo. For spinners, MacGill. I think at the speeds Wood can reach he can keep being used in a bowling role that might cop more boundaries or leak more wides if it brings a higher rate of wickets

That would go entirely against the dominant cricketing philosophy of the last five years that pressure is the best way for a team to squeeze out wickets, which requires minimising runs. Not just bowling purely for wickets and accepting high run rates as a cost.

Given how bowling-dominated cricket has been for the last five years, I'd say that they've got the better argument right now. Wood bowled reasonably well in the Ashes, but he did also leak a lot of runs before the last Test which regularly allowed Aus to break the shackles and continue the scoring momentum of their innings.