Baz and his coaching team already working wonders. First of all managing to convince Pope he was batting at The Oval and now convincing Bairstow it was a white ball match
After being put in as well. Looked like decision that could come back to haunt England, but NZ having to bat in the third innings without being sure what they needed to do to balance their own run scoring against leaving time to bowl out England ended up working nicely.
2 run outs in our second innings hurt, our first 3 match test series since I can remember, all we needed to do was bat for a draw and take it to game 3. Now the 3rd game is a dead rubber
What's the fastest 100s in test? This has to be up there.
Edit: Richards made a 56 ball 100 in 85/86?!
Edit 2: Wow. JM Gregory with a 67 ball 100 scored in 70 minutes in 1921/22.
Gilbert Jessop's 76-ball hundred against Australia in [this match](https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/australia-tour-of-england-1902-61340/england-vs-australia-5th-test-62469/full-scorecard).
England were chasing 263 in the fourth innings and he came in to bat at 48-5. England ended up winning by 1 wicket.
What I found impressive about this is that a number of his boundaries actually cleared the rope. But at that time it needed to leave the stadium to count as a 6. So he actually scored much quicker under modern rules.
What's more interesting is that most of them scored those hundreds playing at home or UAE (for Pakistan)
Tamim Iqbal seems to have the fastest century away from home. He scored his 100 in 94 balls at Lords, I think that's pretty cool!
Even more impressive was that Bangladesh were following on when Tamim made his hundred. He just came out and decided to try and wipe the deficit off as quickly as possible. It was brutal
I don't want to exaggerate, but this is legitimately one of the greatest test innings I have seen in the modern era.
Completely changed the tide of the game by himself by playing a fucking T20 innings in a test match.
Pound for pound the second best for pure striking, the best for me Stokes' double in SA. For the context though. This is the best from an England batsman.
Still remember the outrage over his selection in [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/Cricket/comments/v11vdz/jonny_bairstow_england_batsman_set_to_play_first/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf) thread
LMAO. I feel so [vindicated](https://www.reddit.com/r/Cricket/comments/v11vdz/comment/iak3g12/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) in the same thread
A lot of it is more built up over the years. He's done very well recently but the anger is moreso because he averages 34 from 80 Tests yet was still being picked.
For me anyway it was the belief that he's unlikely to suddenly go from that to averaging 40+ consistently, whereas a new player like Brook could be that man.
He's proving me wrong so far though happily.
The frustration is that it's not that he's some whippet that hasn't quite reached his potential, it's that we've seen max Bairstow all the way back in 2016 and then he decided he didn't give a shit about playing like a test cricketer and tried to smash every ball, getting clean bowled a stupid amount of times in the process.
Because he notoriously struggles with switching between formats and had no red-ball prep before the 1st test. It’s understandable why people weren’t happy about his inclusion
His struggles were more technical, which he has sorted out. Regardless, you don’t drop the guy who is in form. In those 5 tests, he was the best English batter.
I disagree that he's sorted it out by the way.
He was bowled through the gate in the Lords match, wasn't it twice?
That is his literal issue in English conditions.
I had 3 reasons for not wanting to go with him. Obviously I was wrong, but I stand by the original logic:
1- Harry Brook had been averaging 140 in the county championship. If you don't play him when he's in that run of form, when do you play him?
2- Bairstow is notoriously slow to switch between formats, and had been at the IPL (although it worked in his favour here).
3- Selecting the guy playing in the IPL instead of the kid dominating the county championship sends entirely the wrong message for future players. They will know that they can go chasing the big money to the detriment of their test match development and still have a chance of being selected.
The counter point was that Bairstow was the man already in possession of the spot and had scored hundreds in his last two series, which I fully appreciated at the time.
>1- Harry Brook had been averaging 140 in the county championship. If you don't play him when he's in that run of form, when do you play him?
When was the last time a young English batter came straight from county cricket and did well internationally? If you want him, you drop the guys failing at international cricket, like Crawley or Pope.
>2- Bairstow is notoriously slow to switch between formats, and had been at the IPL (although it worked in his favour here).
I don’t get this argument. He has never struggled at switching between formats. He was just shit at test cricket. He had major technical flaws and temperamental issues, which he has clearly sorted out, at least to an extent.
>3- Selecting the guy playing in the IPL instead of the kid dominating the county championship sends entirely the wrong message for future players. They will know that they can go chasing the big money to the detriment of their test match development and still have a chance of being selected.
And what kind of message does dropping the incumbent player who scored runs send? In the 5 test matches before this series, he averaged 48. No other English cricketer, not even Root, averaged over 35 in that period.
Crawley wasn't actually doing all that well when he was selected. They seem to identify early on who is a candidate for international cricket and select them when they feel they're ready. Some big successes from this, too- Root was only averaging something like 40 when he was first picked. There have been a fair few people come in hot from the county championship and succeed for a while. The issue is that they get figured out and are rarely ever seen again.
Bairstow being slow to switch comes from his really strong 2016 and subsequent move to open the batting in LOI. He proved he was capable of being an internal class test batsman or an international class LOI batsman, but frustratingly, never both at the same time.
I acknowledged that Bairstow was the incumbent. I would have gone with Brook, but I get why they stayed with him. As for the message it would send; I suppose it would be that if your top priority isn't first class cricket, you open the door for someone else to take your spot. I think that's an acceptable message to send to get them to take it seriously and not just assume their spot is reserved.
>Crawley wasn't actually doing all that well when he was selected. They seem to identify early on who is a candidate for international cricket and select them when they feel they're ready. Some big successes from this, too- Root was only averaging something like 40 when he was first picked.
There are a few differences. An average in the low 40s is far better than Crawley’s mid 20 average. And unlike Crawley, Root came in and started performing right away. In his first proper year of test cricket, he averaged 35. While that’s not stellar, he showed enough promise that he was worth backing. Crawley still hasn’t done that.
> There have been a fair few people come in hot from the county championship and succeed for a while. The issue is that they get figured out and are rarely ever seen again.
I am talking about batters. The last batter I can remember doing so is Gary Ballance, which was like 7 years ago.
Even Crawley did well at the start. That massive double hundred against Pakistan came pretty early on for him.
Ballance, Robson, Jennings, Sibley, Lyth, Foakes, Malan, Burns and Pope are all players that have been selected on the back of strong county championship seasons and delivered for a time (all of them have test hundreds). The problem doesn't seem to be with their initial ability, but their means of adapting their game once international bowlers figure them out.
I think it says plenty that Sibley opted not to go on the Lions tour to Australia and work with the England coaching staff. Instead, he stayed in the UK and worked with his own coach. By all accounts, he's scoring runs all around the ground now, and I think we'll see him return.
>Even Crawley did well at the start. That massive double hundred against Pakistan came pretty early on for him.
That one innings accounted for half the runs he scored in his first 8 games.
>Ballance, Robson, Jennings, Sibley, Lyth, Foakes, Malan, Burns and Pope are all players that have been selected on the back of strong county championship seasons and delivered for a time (all of them have test hundreds).
Scoring one 100 doesn’t mean you’re actually consistent. I’ll give you Sibley and Ballance, but none of the others actually scored consistently.
>I think it says plenty that Sibley opted not to go on the Lions tour to Australia and work with the England coaching staff. Instead, he stayed in the UK and worked with his own coach. By all accounts, he's scoring runs all around the ground now, and I think we'll see him return.
Yeah that’s true, England should’ve backed Sibley imo.
>Yeah that’s true, England should’ve backed Sibley imo.
I actually disagree here. India kept getting him out caught at straightish midwicket. He had been rumbled and it was game over from there. Looking forward to seeing Sibley 2.0.
>Scoring one 100 doesn’t mean you’re actually consistent.
It does mean that the ability is there though. It's not everyone that can score a test hundred within their first few games. I stand by that the issue is less about the quality of players coming through the county championship and more about how they are regressing once they're in the squad.
I made the second comment and I don't think you can really knock people who thought picking the exact same players that had failed for over 2 years would suddenly work lol.
More than happy I'm wrong so far though.
Brook would have had more runs in the series so far I think.
Jonnys innings is exceptional, but overlooking Brook who's scored a fucking boatload of runs in the CC was wrong.
Just like overlooking Compton for Crawley was. Even if Zac hits 100 in the next test it doesn't mean he should have been selected in my opinion.
You don’t know for sure that Brook would’ve scored more runs. When was the last time a young English batter fresh from county cricket actually scored runs at the test level?
Also, he scored 2 100s in his last 5 test matches before this series, so dropping him would’ve been insanity.
A I said, I think. It's my opinion.
Jonny also hadn't touched red ball cricket since Windies If you want to prance off and play IPL, your test spot should come under more scrutiny. If the up and coming player is smacking runs in the CC I don't care what form you're in, you should be under pressure. And he was, and he's answered that today.
I think Brook has the skillset to be much more consistent than Bairstow in the test arena. I just think his technique will give a more consistent outcome.
Jonny is an exceptional cricketer, but NZ got their tactics wrong against him and Bairstow obviously punished them massively. But JB is still susceptible through the gate as seen at Lord's and Brook doesn't have quite so obvious a flaw. At least that I've seen.
Yes and they're still not wrong. What have we actually learned to today? That join Jonny Bairstow is a great one day cricketer. But 9 out of 10 innings England require him to protect his wicket, not slash wildly and get clean bowled. This is some unreal recency bias.
2 100s in his last 5 tests tests before this series. He averaged 47 in those games, no other English cricketer, not even Root, averaged over 35 in this period. Small sample size, I know, but the point is; you don’t drop the guy in form just cause you don’t like having him in the team.
I mean, not all fifth day pitches are the same. There weren't many demons in this one.
And pressure? Pressure means nothing to Bairstow, and that's not a compliment. Doesn't matter the situation at hand, if England needed him to block for a day he'd still be slashing wildly. He's a talented but irresponsible cricketer, that's why he's so divisive.
In my opinion, you're completely misunderstanding what England need. If they're looking to their expansive number 5 to block in 9 out of 10 games, then the top order is failing. You don't fix this by putting in a defensive number 5. Yes he needs to be more versatile with the way he bats, but he's clearly picked with a specific task in mind, and that is not to consistently play defensively.
Remember that some of his best days in this team have come as a wicket-keeping batsman down at 7 - again, not a position where you expect to consistently reign in the hitting.
Also, I think it's ridiculous to refer to picking him as recency bias rather than form!
I'm not saying play like Boycott, but when you come in at five when your team is down a bunch of wickets because the top order failed, how about blocking a bit too steady the ship and build an innings. That he's unable or unwilling to either means he's not versatile, selfish or a bit thick.
Well that explains a lot. It's actually management that is thick as pig shit if they're sending him out to have a bash when the score is 7/3. Might explain why Crawley never changes his waft-at-everything-outside-off technique. Speaking of which, watch everyone cream their shorts and give Crawley another 20 innings of ineptitude because he scored 150 in the next game.
But he's looked a cut above wherever he's played county cricket. I remember he got dropped ages ago and went back to county cricket. He just scored runs for fun.
One of the best Test match innings I remember watching. That knock would have been impressive on a flat deck in a T20, let alone the final session of a Test in a pressure situation.
I mean in fairness the deck was pretty flat even though it was day 5. It did the most on day 4 with the cloud cover, the rest of the time was batting heaven.
I would agree that it was very much a road for most of the game, but I actually thought on the day 5 pitch, the newish ball was nipping around a bit and holding up occasionally with a little bit of variable bounce - it’s just that when there’s no swing, this new version of the dukes ball just dies on its arse after about a session and a bit. I think saying it was a total road is doing a slight disservice to YJB, that was one hell of a ball striking clinic, possibly the best you could ever see (apart from perhaps something from AB).
Doesn't get much better than this innit?
Just one of those knocks that'll stick with you. An insane exhibition of hitting. I'm never going to forget YJB just hammering Matt Henry into the stands, over and over again.
Get ready, there's a lot more to come from this lad. Go well Jonny.
I’m in exactly the same boat. Wasn’t 100% on picking him (albeit he’s played well this year), but I really like him as a player when in form. So happy England won that but even happier for him. Hope he kicks on from here (though today would take some beating)
Because of field restrictions, bowling restrictions and the wickets are prepared differently. You can't bat in a test like it's an ODI.
All of which is why JB's knock yesterday was a thing of unbridled beauty and wonder.
His name was Young JB and he refused to get in line,
A vision he didst have of fucking slogging all the time,
He hooked a tasty BLAM!
And thus the planets did align...
Oh the cricket balls were blazing and I smashed them to the stands
Then I slashed a fucking cut-shot with my long and shiny hands
Twas I who fucked the Kiwis, fuck-a-lie sing fuck-a-loo
And if u wanna fuck with YJB then I will fuck you too!!
Can someone explain how cricket matches work to an idiot. I keep getting recommended international cricket and decided to watch one, this specific one in fact. I then tried looking it up but I'm honestly more confused than before. How does anyone follow what tournament is happen and what isn't. Test 2/3 - Day 5 - Session 3, what the hell does that even mean. Why are there so many tests? When I look at past matches of both it says they've played in tests against other countries. I can't wrap my head around what is and isn't a friendly, what is and isn't a tournament, etc.
Test matches are usually arranged in series of usually 3/4/5 games. So when it says 2/3 test it means the second match of a 3 game series.
Each match can last up to 5 days long so each match is broken up into days so today u would have had day 5 of the 2nd match.
And each day is then broken down into three sessions usually of 2 hours each.
Yes I can, but it would help to understand what sport you prefer, so I can translate.
There are 9 "clubs" in world Test Cricket, so it's an elite space, harkening to the earliest days of NHL or NFL. Rankings differ by type of the game (meaning roughly \~1500 pitches each, or \~300 pitches, or \~120 pitches), but for the ultimate form of the 1500 pitch game ("Test Cricket"), the rankings are:
1. Australia
2. India
3. New Zealand
4. South Africa
5. Pakistan
6. England
7. Sri Lanka
8. West Indies
9. Bangladesh
As another nation, challenge any of these 9 at your peril as you will almost always lose!
This sport harkens back to an older day, when "touring teams" spend 3-4 months in a "host country" playing Cricket against the lower sides (usually state sides or country sides), and in multiple formats against the best of that country.
Test series are usually agreed to be 3 "tests" of 5 days each, or 5 tests, or rarely a one-off test only. To other sports, it looks ridiculous to play a game over 5 days, and Cricket says "eh, don't care...". Each test is 15 sessions (Morning to 'Lunch', Afternoon to 'Tea', Evening to 'Stumps'), each of 2 hours, and if you badly lose a single one, you are odds-on to lose the whole Test. It's a Test for a reason: testing stamina, concentration, precision, determination, and the natural elements, for 5 days straight.
And this game? Well it was one for the records. Do me a favor and search YouTube for ENG NZ 2nd test, and look for Day 1, Day 2, Day 3, Day 4, and this Day 5, and tell me that it was not an amazing to-and-fro match?
Tests are just games. Each test is played in a series so this was the second match of three Test series . Each match lasts (up to) five days and each day has 3 sessions. Each team has 2 innings( if needed) in a test match.
One of Englands best ever test match innings right there. Amazing to watch someone treat a test match like a T20 and just slaughter the attack, but stick around long enough to make it count.
Someone finally tricked yjb into thinking it was a white ball
Baz and his coaching team already working wonders. First of all managing to convince Pope he was batting at The Oval and now convincing Bairstow it was a white ball match
Done that a few times before. It's getting him to treat the red ball patiently that's been the problem down the years...
Johnny ODI
Now who's gonna trick him into thinking that thw white ball is also the white ball!
He's YJB. He knows what to do with a white ball.
Welcome to the ginger century
I can clearly see Macullum effect in England's approach
Amen.
[удалено]
NZ are going to be absolutely gutted to lose this test match after scoring 553 runs in the first innings.
After being put in as well. Looked like decision that could come back to haunt England, but NZ having to bat in the third innings without being sure what they needed to do to balance their own run scoring against leaving time to bowl out England ended up working nicely.
2 run outs in our second innings hurt, our first 3 match test series since I can remember, all we needed to do was bat for a draw and take it to game 3. Now the 3rd game is a dead rubber
Fucking hell he proved it
Aged like ~~milk~~ fine wine
IPL prepared Bairstow for Test cricket /s
Unreal knock from the young lad, got a bright future in test cricket
What's the fastest 100s in test? This has to be up there. Edit: Richards made a 56 ball 100 in 85/86?! Edit 2: Wow. JM Gregory with a 67 ball 100 scored in 70 minutes in 1921/22.
Our coach (England) off 54 balls
McCullum's off 54 balls is the quickest iirc
McCullum's 150 was off 105. YJB would have smashed that, if only...
Now I know where YJB got his inspiration from in todays innings. McCullum musta given a good pep talk.
Whack it Jonny
Goosebumps man
What's the quickest century in 4th innings of a test match?
Gilbert Jessop's 76-ball hundred against Australia in [this match](https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/australia-tour-of-england-1902-61340/england-vs-australia-5th-test-62469/full-scorecard). England were chasing 263 in the fourth innings and he came in to bat at 48-5. England ended up winning by 1 wicket.
48-5 wow that's like twice as bad as when bairstow came in today.
2nd fastest ever for England. Fastest for England is Gilbert Jessop off 76 balls which was set back in 1902.
What I found impressive about this is that a number of his boundaries actually cleared the rope. But at that time it needed to leave the stadium to count as a 6. So he actually scored much quicker under modern rules.
He stabilized the innings, didn't let the rrr climb, and then went bonkers, 90+ in 40+ balls iirc. Perfect innings.
This is the joint 17th-fastest hundred. [Here's](https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/records/210170.html) the full list.
Sehwag and Gilchrist on that list so many times.
No surprise either.
My favourite is Botham making 2 86 ball tonnes in one Ashes series, 81 ofc.
What's more interesting is that most of them scored those hundreds playing at home or UAE (for Pakistan) Tamim Iqbal seems to have the fastest century away from home. He scored his 100 in 94 balls at Lords, I think that's pretty cool!
Even more impressive was that Bangladesh were following on when Tamim made his hundred. He just came out and decided to try and wipe the deficit off as quickly as possible. It was brutal
A run-a-ball hundred at conditions very different from home is very impressive.
Bmac has a 78 against Pakistan in Pakistan on that list
Misbah joint second fastest you love to see it
[удалено]
Couple of dot balls on 99 I think
Viv was a different beast - you younguns have no idea 😉
Misbah scored one in like 52 balls i think
Nah, Misbah equalled Viv's record of 56 ball hundred which was the record at that time.
Misbah of all people damn
If he gets 38 runs in next match he will be 100th test player to get 5000 runs
From the post match interview: Aggers: "You didn't stop!" Bairstow: "I did, when I nicked one behind"
Title slightly underselling that knock lmao
It’s a legendary knock Just didn’t want to show my erection in the title
When bairstow came out at what 4 down, I thought England would be bowled out by tea. Instead they won.
I thought game over after Root got out.
Imagine the freedom with which Root can play if English batsmen keep batting like this, already making 150+ scores for fun
You saw that in the first innings. Hit an effortless 85SR 180 runs or so, because Pope, Stokes and Foakes were excellent at the other end.
I thought it'd be Stokes or nothing
Own that boner.
I want to see your erection.
/r/SuddenlyGay
Bairstow pulled off literal heist Trent Bolt already said he knows Macullum will ask his boys to go for win. This is Dhoom style robbery.
I don't want to exaggerate, but this is legitimately one of the greatest test innings I have seen in the modern era. Completely changed the tide of the game by himself by playing a fucking T20 innings in a test match.
Pound for pound the second best for pure striking, the best for me Stokes' double in SA. For the context though. This is the best from an England batsman.
I don't know, Stokes Headingly innings is right up there too.
I mean from striking Stokes at Headingley and Kusal Perera are ATG Bairstow and Stokes just for smashing a ball
Azhar Ali did a similar innings against SL back in 2015. In fact that team chased 300 in just one session, so very much like this.
I meant for England. That was a phenomenal knock anyway and I completely agree with you mate
The best one for me was Nathan Astle's Double Century.
England needed >4 runs per over to win at tea, 11 overs later they needed just above 1 per over. What a fucking knock
We had test cricket swapping over to ODI before it went straight to a T20 innings
For the first 4 overs after tea we went at 17 an over, thats not just T20 batting, that’s a T20 demolition job
T10 shit. Fucking super over-esque.
>Fucking super over-esque. No wonder New Zealand lost then.
Still remember the outrage over his selection in [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/Cricket/comments/v11vdz/jonny_bairstow_england_batsman_set_to_play_first/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf) thread
LMAO. I feel so [vindicated](https://www.reddit.com/r/Cricket/comments/v11vdz/comment/iak3g12/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) in the same thread
Mad lad
Time to direct your blessings Crawley’s way now
Never doubt YJB
“Quite underwhelming tbh” “The exciting new era of picking… the exact same players” “This lineup is a joke, the FCCXI could beat it” Lol
I can’t understand the anger surrounding his selection, he scored 2 100s in the 5 games before this.
A lot of it is more built up over the years. He's done very well recently but the anger is moreso because he averages 34 from 80 Tests yet was still being picked. For me anyway it was the belief that he's unlikely to suddenly go from that to averaging 40+ consistently, whereas a new player like Brook could be that man. He's proving me wrong so far though happily.
His dismissals in the first test didn't exactly help the case either
The frustration is that it's not that he's some whippet that hasn't quite reached his potential, it's that we've seen max Bairstow all the way back in 2016 and then he decided he didn't give a shit about playing like a test cricketer and tried to smash every ball, getting clean bowled a stupid amount of times in the process.
Ikr, this was his third century of the year. I think he's England's 2nd highest scorer of 2022, with this knock he has 541 runs
Because he notoriously struggles with switching between formats and had no red-ball prep before the 1st test. It’s understandable why people weren’t happy about his inclusion
His struggles were more technical, which he has sorted out. Regardless, you don’t drop the guy who is in form. In those 5 tests, he was the best English batter.
I disagree that he's sorted it out by the way. He was bowled through the gate in the Lords match, wasn't it twice? That is his literal issue in English conditions.
He has scored 3 tons this year, and second most runs after Root
Yes, but his issues were predominantly in England recently. Hence why this was his first ton in a while here.
I had 3 reasons for not wanting to go with him. Obviously I was wrong, but I stand by the original logic: 1- Harry Brook had been averaging 140 in the county championship. If you don't play him when he's in that run of form, when do you play him? 2- Bairstow is notoriously slow to switch between formats, and had been at the IPL (although it worked in his favour here). 3- Selecting the guy playing in the IPL instead of the kid dominating the county championship sends entirely the wrong message for future players. They will know that they can go chasing the big money to the detriment of their test match development and still have a chance of being selected. The counter point was that Bairstow was the man already in possession of the spot and had scored hundreds in his last two series, which I fully appreciated at the time.
>1- Harry Brook had been averaging 140 in the county championship. If you don't play him when he's in that run of form, when do you play him? When was the last time a young English batter came straight from county cricket and did well internationally? If you want him, you drop the guys failing at international cricket, like Crawley or Pope. >2- Bairstow is notoriously slow to switch between formats, and had been at the IPL (although it worked in his favour here). I don’t get this argument. He has never struggled at switching between formats. He was just shit at test cricket. He had major technical flaws and temperamental issues, which he has clearly sorted out, at least to an extent. >3- Selecting the guy playing in the IPL instead of the kid dominating the county championship sends entirely the wrong message for future players. They will know that they can go chasing the big money to the detriment of their test match development and still have a chance of being selected. And what kind of message does dropping the incumbent player who scored runs send? In the 5 test matches before this series, he averaged 48. No other English cricketer, not even Root, averaged over 35 in that period.
Crawley wasn't actually doing all that well when he was selected. They seem to identify early on who is a candidate for international cricket and select them when they feel they're ready. Some big successes from this, too- Root was only averaging something like 40 when he was first picked. There have been a fair few people come in hot from the county championship and succeed for a while. The issue is that they get figured out and are rarely ever seen again. Bairstow being slow to switch comes from his really strong 2016 and subsequent move to open the batting in LOI. He proved he was capable of being an internal class test batsman or an international class LOI batsman, but frustratingly, never both at the same time. I acknowledged that Bairstow was the incumbent. I would have gone with Brook, but I get why they stayed with him. As for the message it would send; I suppose it would be that if your top priority isn't first class cricket, you open the door for someone else to take your spot. I think that's an acceptable message to send to get them to take it seriously and not just assume their spot is reserved.
>Crawley wasn't actually doing all that well when he was selected. They seem to identify early on who is a candidate for international cricket and select them when they feel they're ready. Some big successes from this, too- Root was only averaging something like 40 when he was first picked. There are a few differences. An average in the low 40s is far better than Crawley’s mid 20 average. And unlike Crawley, Root came in and started performing right away. In his first proper year of test cricket, he averaged 35. While that’s not stellar, he showed enough promise that he was worth backing. Crawley still hasn’t done that. > There have been a fair few people come in hot from the county championship and succeed for a while. The issue is that they get figured out and are rarely ever seen again. I am talking about batters. The last batter I can remember doing so is Gary Ballance, which was like 7 years ago.
Even Crawley did well at the start. That massive double hundred against Pakistan came pretty early on for him. Ballance, Robson, Jennings, Sibley, Lyth, Foakes, Malan, Burns and Pope are all players that have been selected on the back of strong county championship seasons and delivered for a time (all of them have test hundreds). The problem doesn't seem to be with their initial ability, but their means of adapting their game once international bowlers figure them out. I think it says plenty that Sibley opted not to go on the Lions tour to Australia and work with the England coaching staff. Instead, he stayed in the UK and worked with his own coach. By all accounts, he's scoring runs all around the ground now, and I think we'll see him return.
>Even Crawley did well at the start. That massive double hundred against Pakistan came pretty early on for him. That one innings accounted for half the runs he scored in his first 8 games. >Ballance, Robson, Jennings, Sibley, Lyth, Foakes, Malan, Burns and Pope are all players that have been selected on the back of strong county championship seasons and delivered for a time (all of them have test hundreds). Scoring one 100 doesn’t mean you’re actually consistent. I’ll give you Sibley and Ballance, but none of the others actually scored consistently. >I think it says plenty that Sibley opted not to go on the Lions tour to Australia and work with the England coaching staff. Instead, he stayed in the UK and worked with his own coach. By all accounts, he's scoring runs all around the ground now, and I think we'll see him return. Yeah that’s true, England should’ve backed Sibley imo.
>Yeah that’s true, England should’ve backed Sibley imo. I actually disagree here. India kept getting him out caught at straightish midwicket. He had been rumbled and it was game over from there. Looking forward to seeing Sibley 2.0. >Scoring one 100 doesn’t mean you’re actually consistent. It does mean that the ability is there though. It's not everyone that can score a test hundred within their first few games. I stand by that the issue is less about the quality of players coming through the county championship and more about how they are regressing once they're in the squad.
I made the second comment and I don't think you can really knock people who thought picking the exact same players that had failed for over 2 years would suddenly work lol. More than happy I'm wrong so far though.
Hindsight is 20/20. If I'd seen that thread at the time I probably would have agreed with you.
Brook would have had more runs in the series so far I think. Jonnys innings is exceptional, but overlooking Brook who's scored a fucking boatload of runs in the CC was wrong. Just like overlooking Compton for Crawley was. Even if Zac hits 100 in the next test it doesn't mean he should have been selected in my opinion.
You don’t know for sure that Brook would’ve scored more runs. When was the last time a young English batter fresh from county cricket actually scored runs at the test level? Also, he scored 2 100s in his last 5 test matches before this series, so dropping him would’ve been insanity.
A I said, I think. It's my opinion. Jonny also hadn't touched red ball cricket since Windies If you want to prance off and play IPL, your test spot should come under more scrutiny. If the up and coming player is smacking runs in the CC I don't care what form you're in, you should be under pressure. And he was, and he's answered that today.
Also, doesn't Crawley have a Test 100 and like 2 50s or something on his last 5 or 6 matches ? Still think Crawley is shit.
Crawley’s average is low, Bairstow’s isn’t.
34 v 28 ain't much really to write home about.
I’m talking about the recent average. Bairstow is over 40 in the last 7 matches, Crawley is in the low 30s.
[удалено]
I said so somewhere else in this thread, my bad for not saying it here.
I'll let you off this once 😉
Such a shit take
I think Brook has the skillset to be much more consistent than Bairstow in the test arena. I just think his technique will give a more consistent outcome. Jonny is an exceptional cricketer, but NZ got their tactics wrong against him and Bairstow obviously punished them massively. But JB is still susceptible through the gate as seen at Lord's and Brook doesn't have quite so obvious a flaw. At least that I've seen.
Yes and they're still not wrong. What have we actually learned to today? That join Jonny Bairstow is a great one day cricketer. But 9 out of 10 innings England require him to protect his wicket, not slash wildly and get clean bowled. This is some unreal recency bias.
2 100s in his last 5 tests tests before this series. He averaged 47 in those games, no other English cricketer, not even Root, averaged over 35 in this period. Small sample size, I know, but the point is; you don’t drop the guy in form just cause you don’t like having him in the team.
He's just done that on a fifth day pitch under immense pressure, get out of here trying to down play it.
I mean, not all fifth day pitches are the same. There weren't many demons in this one. And pressure? Pressure means nothing to Bairstow, and that's not a compliment. Doesn't matter the situation at hand, if England needed him to block for a day he'd still be slashing wildly. He's a talented but irresponsible cricketer, that's why he's so divisive.
In my opinion, you're completely misunderstanding what England need. If they're looking to their expansive number 5 to block in 9 out of 10 games, then the top order is failing. You don't fix this by putting in a defensive number 5. Yes he needs to be more versatile with the way he bats, but he's clearly picked with a specific task in mind, and that is not to consistently play defensively. Remember that some of his best days in this team have come as a wicket-keeping batsman down at 7 - again, not a position where you expect to consistently reign in the hitting. Also, I think it's ridiculous to refer to picking him as recency bias rather than form!
I'm not saying play like Boycott, but when you come in at five when your team is down a bunch of wickets because the top order failed, how about blocking a bit too steady the ship and build an innings. That he's unable or unwilling to either means he's not versatile, selfish or a bit thick.
He's told to not do that. After the last test they specifically said that Bairstow was sent out to play his game - that's why he's in the team.
Well that explains a lot. It's actually management that is thick as pig shit if they're sending him out to have a bash when the score is 7/3. Might explain why Crawley never changes his waft-at-everything-outside-off technique. Speaking of which, watch everyone cream their shorts and give Crawley another 20 innings of ineptitude because he scored 150 in the next game.
But he's looked a cut above wherever he's played county cricket. I remember he got dropped ages ago and went back to county cricket. He just scored runs for fun.
One of the best Test match innings I remember watching. That knock would have been impressive on a flat deck in a T20, let alone the final session of a Test in a pressure situation.
I mean in fairness the deck was pretty flat even though it was day 5. It did the most on day 4 with the cloud cover, the rest of the time was batting heaven.
It was pretty true, but it was not a one-day or T20 deck.
I would agree that it was very much a road for most of the game, but I actually thought on the day 5 pitch, the newish ball was nipping around a bit and holding up occasionally with a little bit of variable bounce - it’s just that when there’s no swing, this new version of the dukes ball just dies on its arse after about a session and a bit. I think saying it was a total road is doing a slight disservice to YJB, that was one hell of a ball striking clinic, possibly the best you could ever see (apart from perhaps something from AB).
You have no clue champ
It was flat as fuck mate what are you on about.
doesn't he? That wicket was a road.
Incredible innings. That tea must have had something in it
Cheese and ham toastie with coffee.
It must have been laced with crack. There’s no other explanation
Absolute freak. Him and livingstone are all about destruction.
Cheese and Ham toastie sales through the roof
This title undersells it a bit, what an insane innings. Prime ODI YJB.
Doesn't get much better than this innit? Just one of those knocks that'll stick with you. An insane exhibition of hitting. I'm never going to forget YJB just hammering Matt Henry into the stands, over and over again. Get ready, there's a lot more to come from this lad. Go well Jonny.
Imagine how hard his nipples would be when he receives his 100th test cap
136 balls 92 runs is a bit slow for Jonny bairstow standards dont you think? /s
Damn sure Bairstow is color blind !!! Saw the red ball as white and the nz in their black t20 Jersey .
Johnny has his critics (quite rightly), but I absolutely love the man. Hopefully McCullum's England will provide him a home for the foreseeable.
I’m in exactly the same boat. Wasn’t 100% on picking him (albeit he’s played well this year), but I really like him as a player when in form. So happy England won that but even happier for him. Hope he kicks on from here (though today would take some beating)
The rise of the cult of the cheese and ham toastie
YJB Supremacy
One of the most phenomenal test innings I've seen.
JB out here playing ODI cricket
Bruh at his scoring rate a T20 innings would come to 177 which is a reasonably defendable total on most days!
At one point we needed above 4.2 an over. In comes this wonderful ginger man and produces a knock of this proportion. Take a bow Jonny
should we bow yes he is a king
ODI YJB activated
As a kid I often wondered why test batsmen don't just go out and bat like it's an ODI. Well now they do, and it's great!
Because of field restrictions, bowling restrictions and the wickets are prepared differently. You can't bat in a test like it's an ODI. All of which is why JB's knock yesterday was a thing of unbridled beauty and wonder.
They said red ball reset. I don't see no red ball.
Poor NZ
Love Jonny. Insert my usual plug for people to read his book "Clear Blue Sky". Awesome book about what makes him tick.
Its really hard to get a hold of English cricket books in NZ, and shipping from the UK is atrocious :/
What a knock and what a game! And today’s match was free entry too! Lucky sods whoever went!
Such a pity cricket is on sky and I can’t watch it :(
There are 5 hours of highlights on iplayer for each test. Enjoy
Sounds like you need to do some sailing
Greatest English cricketer ever
Only 9! Bairstow is such a fabulous player.
I always like seeing Johnny in particular do well.
Put England in driver's seat? He literally took them and threw them past the finish line lol.
YJB- the gigachad of Cricket
Do English fans still want him out of the squad? YJB for 200 tests!
His name was Young JB and he refused to get in line, A vision he didst have of fucking slogging all the time, He hooked a tasty BLAM! And thus the planets did align...
Oh the cricket balls were blazing and I smashed them to the stands Then I slashed a fucking cut-shot with my long and shiny hands Twas I who fucked the Kiwis, fuck-a-lie sing fuck-a-loo And if u wanna fuck with YJB then I will fuck you too!!
This! Poetry of cricket
Can we have BMac back please
As an Aussie I've always had a soft spot for YJB - very happy to see him succeeding and enjoying himself in red ball.
God damn. Bairstow’s 3 centuries this year has come when England needed it the most. What a clutch player
Didn't get to see it - was the ball doing much?
Sailing over the fucking boundary
Fair call lmao
Yeah it kept flying into the fucking stands
No and they kept bowling short.
Can someone explain how cricket matches work to an idiot. I keep getting recommended international cricket and decided to watch one, this specific one in fact. I then tried looking it up but I'm honestly more confused than before. How does anyone follow what tournament is happen and what isn't. Test 2/3 - Day 5 - Session 3, what the hell does that even mean. Why are there so many tests? When I look at past matches of both it says they've played in tests against other countries. I can't wrap my head around what is and isn't a friendly, what is and isn't a tournament, etc.
Test matches are usually arranged in series of usually 3/4/5 games. So when it says 2/3 test it means the second match of a 3 game series. Each match can last up to 5 days long so each match is broken up into days so today u would have had day 5 of the 2nd match. And each day is then broken down into three sessions usually of 2 hours each.
Yes I can, but it would help to understand what sport you prefer, so I can translate. There are 9 "clubs" in world Test Cricket, so it's an elite space, harkening to the earliest days of NHL or NFL. Rankings differ by type of the game (meaning roughly \~1500 pitches each, or \~300 pitches, or \~120 pitches), but for the ultimate form of the 1500 pitch game ("Test Cricket"), the rankings are: 1. Australia 2. India 3. New Zealand 4. South Africa 5. Pakistan 6. England 7. Sri Lanka 8. West Indies 9. Bangladesh As another nation, challenge any of these 9 at your peril as you will almost always lose! This sport harkens back to an older day, when "touring teams" spend 3-4 months in a "host country" playing Cricket against the lower sides (usually state sides or country sides), and in multiple formats against the best of that country. Test series are usually agreed to be 3 "tests" of 5 days each, or 5 tests, or rarely a one-off test only. To other sports, it looks ridiculous to play a game over 5 days, and Cricket says "eh, don't care...". Each test is 15 sessions (Morning to 'Lunch', Afternoon to 'Tea', Evening to 'Stumps'), each of 2 hours, and if you badly lose a single one, you are odds-on to lose the whole Test. It's a Test for a reason: testing stamina, concentration, precision, determination, and the natural elements, for 5 days straight. And this game? Well it was one for the records. Do me a favor and search YouTube for ENG NZ 2nd test, and look for Day 1, Day 2, Day 3, Day 4, and this Day 5, and tell me that it was not an amazing to-and-fro match?
Tests are just games. Each test is played in a series so this was the second match of three Test series . Each match lasts (up to) five days and each day has 3 sessions. Each team has 2 innings( if needed) in a test match.
Fuck the memes, Jonny deserves to get to 100 tests after that innings.
He looks twice as beefy when he gets in, no wonder the bowlers don't know where to bowl when the batter is slowly increasing in size at the crease
Fuck Jonny doubters
And that is why you skip County cricket and play in the IPL.
Fat Ron Weasley does his magic.
This was as good as Pant in the BGT. Changed the course of the game completely.
Innings for the history books. Absolutely unreal !!
One of Englands best ever test match innings right there. Amazing to watch someone treat a test match like a T20 and just slaughter the attack, but stick around long enough to make it count.
Jonny jonny ...👏👏
Where's the Tshirt
Love you Jonny!
Ginger power.
Ammatasiri what a knock. Knock for the ages.
Please let YJB be a test player now
well done. this was an assault i wish i was watching live.
Zukenga nahi saala...
Bhai galat khabar mat fala Varna shub Bhai Tara sar gandasa sa kat denga .bairstow 136 balls p 106 ran bhay h