Cricket thread

[Alex321]

Not disrespect to Archer who’s a decent number 9 but if he’s scoring half centuries why can’t those who are actually paid to bat do it on the same track against the same bowlers?

At least partly because by the time they get to Archer, the bowlers are relatively tired, the ball is worn, and the pitch likely to be just that little bit slower.

 

[Beebo]

The anger has gone. I’m just really disappointed with England now.
Imagine paying thousands and saving up for years to watch this live. We can’t even make a game of it.

 

[Pross]

At least partly because by the time they get to Archer, the bowlers are relatively tired, the ball is worn, and the pitch likely to be just that little bit slower.

Smith only lost his wicket 9 overs earlier and only 54 overs had been bowled when Archer came to the crease. If just one of the top 4 had got a decent score the deficit after the first innings would have been pretty small.

One of the problems is each batsman gets the occasional decent score that means they keep their place but you never seem to get the majority of them scoring. The top 3 in particular are so inconsistent.

 

[tom73]

Smith only lost his wicket 9 overs earlier and only 54 overs had been bowled when Archer came to the crease. If just one of the top 4 had got a decent score the deficit after the first innings would have been pretty small.

One of the problems is each batsman gets the occasional decent score that means they keep their place but you never seem to get the majority of them scoring. The top 3 in particular are so inconsistent.

The biggest issues is they don't have anyone to challenge them for a place in the side and they know it. Until the ECB ends the current closed shop it won't even start to get any better.

 

[Beebo]

The top 5 have been woeful. This is their 5 Ashes innings so far.
They have all had at least one duck. This just pipes so much pressure on to the next batter.
Take away each of their top scores and bottom scores and Root is actually the worst player.

Crawley 0 0 76 44 9
Duckett 21 28 0 15 29
Pope 46 33 0 26 3
Root 0 8 138 15 29
Brook 52 0 31 25 45

 

[tom73]

The top 5 have been woeful. This is their 5 Ashes innings so far.
They have all had at least one duck. This just pipes so much pressure on to the next batter.
Take away each of their top scores and bottom scores and Root is actually the worst player.

Crawley 0 0 76 44 9
Duckett 21 28 0 15 29
Pope 46 33 0 26 3
Root 0 8 138 15 29
Brook 52 0 31 25 45

All adding up to the classic chain reaction down the line. Even if they had the bowlers they never have anything work with.

 

[Dogtrousers]

The top 5 have been woeful. This is their 5 Ashes innings so far.
They have all had at least one duck. This just pipes so much pressure on to the next batter.
Take away each of their top scores and bottom scores and Root is actually the worst player.

Crawley 0 0 76 44 9
Duckett 21 28 0 15 29
Pope 46 33 0 26 3
Root 0 8 138 15 29
Brook 52 0 31 25 45

Interesting figures. Root only just sneaks the coveted title of "worst discounting single highest and lowest" by 1 run from Crawley.

If we ignore Root's ton but keep in all the ducks (why? because we can) the average is 22.3. Keep em all in and it's 26.9 (not factoring in no-outs there, just the average of the numbers)

 

[matticus]

If we ignore Root's ton but keep in all the ducks (why?why?why? because we can) the average is 22.3. Keep em all in and it's 26.9 (not factoring in no-outs there, just the average of the numbers)

FTFY.

Makes no sense at all. That is how runs get scored - sometimes you get a century, sometimes 3. It's not remotely "better" to always get exactly 30, than to average 40 with a few ducks

JFC, this series has been bad enough without cock-eyed analysis like this! Next:
"No Aussie batter has got a duck so far (if we ignore all the ducks)."

 

[Dogtrousers]

FTFY.

Makes no sense at all. That is how runs get scored - sometimes you get a century, sometimes 3. It's not remotely "better" to always get exactly 30, than to average 40 with a few ducks

JFC, this series has been bad enough without cock-eyed analysis like this! Next:
"No Aussie batter has got a duck so far (if we ignore all the ducks)."

Calm down. They're just numbers. Nothing up my sleeve, no obfuscation.

I gave you the average with Root's ton included and with excluded. It shows the extent to which the already unimpressive top five average of 27 is reliant on that one single innings out of 25. I think that's worth noting.

It's also a statistically valid exclusion. Removing outliers is a valid thing to do (as long as you're open about what you're doing) and Root's 138 is the only score that's over 2 standard deviations away from the mean.

"Sometimes you get a century, sometimes you get 3" only applies to Root so far. A more accurate statement would be "sometimes you get 40-odd, sometimes you get 0".

 

[Bonefish Blues]

Aggers surely got to the heart of it this morning when he said we don't have a bowling attack that has the capability to take the 20 wickets necessary to win a Test Match.

 

[Dogtrousers]

I'm not too down about this. Australia tours are very very hard and wins are rare. It would have taken a turnaround in form of Gatting-esque proportions to come away with a win.

I think it's worth giving Aus a bit of credit as well as bashing England.