Sam Konstas: Are you on board with him?

[Soggy2112]

Most of the takes are born from the fact that he had limited FC experience, was absolutely fawned over by the cricket media, and is in the Test team way before he was ready for it or earned the ppportunity. Not his fault but he is the recipient of such good fortune and hence becomes the target.
Swing for the fences with no fear is great, but just about every other player gets to toil away for years refining their game in all conditions before getting a national gig. Now he’s off on an overseas tour with virtually no experience against spin in FC cricket, and hasn’t earned that chance in many peoples eyes. But the selectors make the call, and they are to blame if he fails, not Sam.

Three problems I have with this argument.

1. Swing for the fences is not how he’s batted to this point in his career, whether or not it’s been instructed, or he’s taken the “be aggressive” instruction and ran with it, who knows?

2. The “other players have had to toil away for years for an opportunity” argument is pretty weak, because there really aren’t any players who have put up consistently big numbers. It’s an idea from when we had guys like Hussey, Hodge, Love etc averaging 50+ for years. There aren’t players who have consistently scored enough runs to say they “deserve” an opportunity. The only one would be Bancroft, who perhaps should’ve got a go last year, but given Green’s success at 4, that’s a tricky argument, but he certainly couldn’t be picked this series.

3. The 19 with limited first class experience argument does not hold up either IMO, there have always been players who have been noticed coming up through the ranks, that get a crack at international level after limited shield exposure. If they think he has what it takes, why is it necessary to serve a long apprenticeship in a lesser competition. It certainly hasn’t hurt Cummins.

I know you’re not necessarily making those arguments btw, just saying that’s why they’re silly.

Ultimately what I think it really is is Australian tall poppy syndrome in full effect. We’re seeing a kid with all the talent in the world being pretty successful and having the time of his life, who hasn’t felt the need follow the same conventions we did necessarily, and people want to cut him down.

 

[PhatBoy]

Three problems I have with this argument.

1. Swing for the fences is not how he’s batted to this point in his career, whether or not it’s been instructed, or he’s taken the “be aggressive” instruction and ran with it, who knows?

2. The “other players have had to toil away for years for an opportunity” argument is pretty weak, because there really aren’t any players who have put up consistently big numbers. It’s an idea from when we had guys like Hussey, Hodge, Love etc averaging 50+ for years. There aren’t players who have consistently scored enough runs to say they “deserve” an opportunity. The only one would be Bancroft, who perhaps should’ve got a go last year, but given Green’s success at 4, that’s a tricky argument, but he certainly couldn’t be picked this series.

3. The 19 with limited first class experience argument does not hold up either IMO, there have always been players who have been noticed coming up through the ranks, that get a crack at international level after limited shield exposure. If they think he has what it takes, why is it necessary to serve a long apprenticeship in a lesser competition. It certainly hasn’t hurt Cummins.

I know you’re not necessarily making those arguments btw, just saying that’s why they’re silly.

Ultimately what I think it really is is Australian tall poppy syndrome in full effect. We’re seeing a kid with all the talent in the world being pretty successful and having the time of his life, who hasn’t felt the need follow the same conventions we did necessarily, and people want to cut him down.

The level to which he’s been cut down has been over the top I think, but people saying ‘hang on a minute, it’s a bit over the top to make out like he’s been a huge success’ are justified IMO.

It’s still up in the air because basically he’s had one legitimately good hour of test cricket and even that could have come apart at the seams a handful of times.

It’s a long, long time ago now but for example Justin Langer hit a half-century on debut.

To do it he faced 150 balls in a low scoring test match (decided by 1 run) against Ambrose, Walsh and Ian Bishop.

He wasn’t able to cement himself a spot for another 8 years.

Cricket has changed a lot since then I know. My point is that what he’s shown on a positive side is that he has ‘game’ or whatever other buzzword you want to use. But it’s an extremely brief sample size and people saying that he’s got a lot still to prove are exactly right so they’re entitled to say it. They’re wrong to use it as a tool to actually criticise him, though.

 

[ABAB]

Get the best of Bumrah? The one time he did make a score he played and missed about 100 times and scored runs from very streaky/lucky shots.

You do know what lucky/streaky shots are don't you??? He played high risk shots and middle a majority of them because he has the talent. How many play and miss did Jaiswal and Labuschagne played........

 

[apollo_creed]

You do know what lucky/streaky shots are don't you??? He played high risk shots and middle a majority of them because he has the talent. How many play and miss did Jaiswal and Labuschagne played........

He played and missed outside off stumps 14 times in 62 deliveries. This doesn’t include the 3 or 4 lbw shouts, edges that fell short or went nowhere near intended. He was very lucky in that knock.

He might be a gun but he won’t get anywhere longterm playing like he did against India. He rode his luck and was very streaky. Thankfully there’s by all reports a technically competent sensible batsman there.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

Three problems I have with this argument.

1. Swing for the fences is not how he’s batted to this point in his career, whether or not it’s been instructed, or he’s taken the “be aggressive” instruction and ran with it, who knows?

2. The “other players have had to toil away for years for an opportunity” argument is pretty weak, because there really aren’t any players who have put up consistently big numbers. It’s an idea from when we had guys like Hussey, Hodge, Love etc averaging 50+ for years. There aren’t players who have consistently scored enough runs to say they “deserve” an opportunity. The only one would be Bancroft, who perhaps should’ve got a go last year, but given Green’s success at 4, that’s a tricky argument, but he certainly couldn’t be picked this series.

3. The 19 with limited first class experience argument does not hold up either IMO, there have always been players who have been noticed coming up through the ranks, that get a crack at international level after limited shield exposure. If they think he has what it takes, why is it necessary to serve a long apprenticeship in a lesser competition. It certainly hasn’t hurt Cummins.

I know you’re not necessarily making those arguments btw, just saying that’s why they’re silly.

Ultimately what I think it really is is Australian tall poppy syndrome in full effect. We’re seeing a kid with all the talent in the world being pretty successful and having the time of his life, who hasn’t felt the need follow the same conventions we did necessarily, and people want to cut him down.

In all walks of life you live and die by your behaviour and your values. Cricket shouldn't be any different. Scrutiny is a part of life.

 

[sr36]

He played and missed outside off stumps 14 times in 62 deliveries. This doesn’t include the 3 or 4 lbw shouts, edges that fell short or went nowhere near intended. He was very lucky in that knock.

He might be a gun but he won’t get anywhere longterm playing like he did against India. He rode his luck and was very streaky. Thankfully there’s by all reports a technically competent sensible batsman there.

I think there will be a re-evaluation of risk. With the ball bouncing and seaming as much as it did in the last two tests, nicking off was the high risk dismissal. It was going over the stumps unless really full - meaning lbw and bowled balls were much more playable. Blocking was a high risk shot. I think he got it right in Melbourne - played and missed a heap batting conventionally in the first over - it was a matter of time before he nicked one. Shifted to shots that made him less likely to nick off. Also made Bumrah shift from his unplayable length to targetting the stumps with balls that were full and very playable.

He got carried away in Sydney.

 

[Soggy2112]

He played and missed outside off stumps 14 times in 62 deliveries. This doesn’t include the 3 or 4 lbw shouts, edges that fell short or went nowhere near intended. He was very lucky in that knock.

He might be a gun but he won’t get anywhere longterm playing like he did against India. He rode his luck and was very streaky. Thankfully there’s by all reports a technically competent sensible batsman there.

I think the point we’re missing is that it would be extremely surprising if he did. He said himself, he had a plan, and then went out and executed it effectively.

In terms of the merit of the plan itself, McSweeney and Khawaja had both gotten out to Bumrah 4/5 times heading into the fourth test and had looked fairly comfortable against the other bowlers. McSweeney in particular I felt looked really technically sound. He was playing it under his eyes, bat was coming down straight with minimal gap between bat and pad, and he had fairly good weight transfer. The only criticism is he played at some balls he could have left but that’s harsh when you’re facing a guy who bowls 140+ and is a genuine LBW/bowled threat. I think Konstas basically assessed that if he played conventionally he had no chance. The part about his play that was smart, was that with the shots he played, with the fields that were set, the only real risk was getting bowled and we know that the vast majority of Bumrah’s balls don’t hit the stumps. So while it was a gamble that needed some luck, it was smart cricket that played the percentages. It also, forced Bumrah off his normal line and length, which allowed the other bats to get settled and into the game, which I think was just as important as the runs he scored.

So yes, he was lucky at times, but he was taking calculated risks. For a 19 year old on debut to have the intelligence and courage to try that is immensely impressive and I don’t quite understand why people are seeing it as a negative. We know he has the ability to bat “normally” at Shield level and he’s just shown he has the ability and temperament to match it with the best of the best so there’s plenty of reason to be bullish about him as a prospect.

 

[Spirit Level]

Anyone who can rustle the jimmies of the Indians like he did I can get on board with.

Showed them up as the spoilt children they are.

 

[PhatBoy]

Interesting to note that using the ‘control percentage’ metric that cricinfo keeps for every innings, only a half-century from Tim Southee since 2015 has had a lower one than Konstas’ 60

 

[ioppolo]

Interesting to note that using the ‘control percentage’ metric that cricinfo keeps for every innings, only a half-century from Tim Southee since 2015 has had a lower one than Konstas’ 60

Those reverse ramps (both the missed ones and ones that came off) would've sent the metric machine into chaos mode

 

[PhatBoy]

Those reverse ramps (both the missed ones and ones that came off) would've sent the metric machine into chaos mode

I think the ones that worked count as in control because they hit the middle of the bat and went where they were intended.

I have never checked the ‘rules’ as such but I think it’s a pretty straight forward measure of just ‘if you play and miss or you are mis-hitting the ball it’s counted as not in control’.

Some other interesting numbers were that in Adelaide the control percentages for both sides were virtually identical.

That’s not to say that Australia ‘got lucky’ necessarily because I think most people watching would have said after watching both teams for a few hours that Australia bowled fuller which allowed them more wicket taking opportunities rather than plays and misses.

The one ‘unlucky’ stat that DID stand out though was Akaash Deep who’s numbers were exemplary but still averaged over 50 for the series

 

[sr36]

I think the ones that worked count as in control because they hit the middle of the bat and went where they were intended.

I have never checked the ‘rules’ as such but I think it’s a pretty straight forward measure of just ‘if you play and miss or you are mis-hitting the ball it’s counted as not in control’.

Some other interesting numbers were that in Adelaide the control percentages for both sides were virtually identical.

That’s not to say that Australia ‘got lucky’ necessarily because I think most people watching would have said after watching both teams for a few hours that Australia bowled fuller which allowed them more wicket taking opportunities rather than plays and misses.

The one ‘unlucky’ stat that DID stand out though was Akaash Deep who’s numbers were exemplary but still averaged over 50 for the series

Deep bowled well but too short. There'd be lots of not in control attributed to him where the batsman was in position to play, but held the bat inside the line.

 

[Coops93]

I saw the ball that dismissed Konstas in the BBL game tonight, fast, short of the length, rising to just under the armpit. and Kostas had no idea how to deal with it. I think he will be dealing with this type of ball a fair bit in the near future.

I'm not overly concerned by that, at all. A perfectly bowled 148km/h bouncer right at armpit/neck height when you're not really set is going to trouble just about every batter ever. Everything else I've seen of him he's been fine with short balls, so getting out to a proper fast and perfectly directed one isn't alarming.

 

[Gough]

He looks to struggle more when the pace is off the ball. Sri Lanka will be interesting for him.

 

[PhatBoy]

He looks to struggle more when the pace is off the ball. Sri Lanka will be interesting for him.

Have a feeling Jayasuriya might be Herath Mk II for a few guys depending on the condition of the Galle pitches

 

[sr36]

Have a feeling Jayasuriya might be Herath Mk II for a few guys depending on the condition of the Galle pitches

He took 12 on debut when we played them in Galle 2022 - so maybe Jayasuriya MkII. He turns some nicely and others slide through beautfully. It'll be hard work.

 

[RookiePick]

Good enough for what?

Dimuth Karunaratne has been the most prolific opener in the world over the last decade or thereabouts. He averages 39.


Duckett does the same only he scores at not far off a run a ball in a team who’s modus operandi is to score fast. Why wouldn’t it be good enough.

No idea if this has been addressed but I'm not sure averaging ~39 at 50 odd and averaging ~39 at almost 90 are the same thing. Especially as an opener.

The extra 5 odd overs Dimuth knocks the shine off the ball to make life easier for the blokes behind him has a fair bit of value, IMO, in the long form.

I guess England kind of mitigate this by having none of the blokes in the side care about their wicket.

 

[PhatBoy]

No idea if this has been addressed but I'm not sure averaging ~39 at 50 odd and averaging ~39 at almost 90 are the same thing. Especially as an opener.

The extra 5 odd overs Dimuth knocks the shine off the ball to make life easier for the blokes behind him has a fair bit of value, IMO, in the long form.

I guess England kind of mitigate this by having none of the blokes in the side care about their wicket.

Have you literally watched no test cricket that India, then Australia, and to an extent South Africa during the middle, have played over the last quarter of a century?

If you get on top of the bowling and get the opposition immediately taking slips out, changing their bowling plans, and going to lunch at 2-120 that can quickly mutate into 2-230 by tea instead of 2-70 at lunch that can quickly devolve into 5-120 an hour before it.

England in the games they have won, have done that repeatedly.

Why on earth, in ANY sport, would ANYONE, look at a player and go ‘you can ONLY serve one purpose in this team and only one function. Please limit your effectiveness.’ It makes no sense whatsoever.

Suggesting that two players averaging the same but one does his role BETTER when the other player’s team is deliberately trying to attack to win is ridiculous. He’s seeing off the new ball, scoring runs, and putting the opposition under pressure.

Suggesting that he tries to play a more limited style would be like telling an allrounder who has proven that can bat and bowl at the required standard ‘no please, STOP bowling.’

 

[RookiePick]

Have you literally watched no test cricket that India, then Australia, and to an extent South Africa during the middle, have played over the last quarter of a century?

If you get on top of the bowling and get the opposition immediately taking slips out, changing their bowling plans, and going to lunch at 2-120 that can quickly mutate into 2-230 by tea instead of 2-70 at lunch that can quickly devolve into 5-120 an hour before it.

England in the games they have won, have done that repeatedly.

Why on earth, in ANY sport, would ANYONE, look at a player and go ‘you can ONLY serve one purpose in this team and only one function. Please limit your effectiveness.’ It makes no sense whatsoever.

Suggesting that two players averaging the same but one does his role BETTER when the other player’s team is deliberately trying to attack to win is ridiculous. He’s seeing off the new ball, scoring runs, and putting the opposition under pressure.

Suggesting that he tries to play a more limited style would be like telling an allrounder who has proven that can bat and bowl at the required standard ‘no please, STOP bowling.’

Well...that's one way to look at it. Another way would be to look at whether or not it achieves the desired result.

Sure, what England are doing is different. Their blokes are getting to fill their personal boots pretty well. As a match winning strategy it appears to be middling at best.

In b4 WTC doesn't mean anything

 

[PhatBoy]

Well...that's one way to look at it. Another way would be to look at whether or not it achieves the desired result.

Sure, what England are doing is different. Their blokes are getting to fill their personal boots pretty well. As a match winning strategy it appears to be middling at best.

In b4 WTC doesn't mean anything

17 wins 13 losses, in a team that has, realistically, two genuinely world class batsmen - and one of them has only played 24 of the 32 matches Duckett has played, following on from a run where England under your much more successful ‘bat time’ tactic brought them 2 wins from 18 matches.

Think I know which one I’m going with if I have to choose.

The WTC can be whatever you want it to be mate. That ladder won’t miraculously change the fact that what England have done has changed their fortunes and no amount of teams pretending that trophy is the be all and end all of test cricket will change that.

You’re not going to turn around if Rabada cuts a swathe through Australia in July and tell everyone that SA is the best team in the world.

Because we both know it would be a lie. It would be nice recognition of their return to some sort of parity and their recent improvement but they are far from the finished product and you, I, and everyone else knows that.

Australia are the best team in the world at the moment and the actual test rankings, not the WTC ladder, reflect that.

People pointing at that ladder and then having a pixelated laugh and saying ‘haha Bazzball’ are basically telling the world ‘hey check it out I haven’t watched a single England series aside from the ashes over the last 3 years and I read some Fox Sports articles when they lost to India and Pakistan.’

 

[sr36]

Well...that's one way to look at it. Another way would be to look at whether or not it achieves the desired result.

Sure, what England are doing is different. Their blokes are getting to fill their personal boots pretty well. As a match winning strategy it appears to be middling at best.

In b4 WTC doesn't mean anything

There's no right or wrong. It's whatever works. In the last series Aussies went in with a pretty clear strategy of soaking up the pressure of the new ball and batting time. Seemed perfect strategy. 5 test series. Traditionally new ball pitches. Opposition had one incredibly dangerous strike bowler - see him off and wear him down.

He was too good. It wasn't working. They weren't getting any runs at all from the top order, so they switched to an opener to take him on strategy, which was better for this series.

What makes test cricket so great is that there isn't one right way.

 

[sr36]

17 wins 13 losses, in a team that has, realistically, two genuinely world class batsmen - and one of them has only played 24 of the 32 matches Duckett has played, following on from a run where England under your much more successful ‘bat time’ tactic brought them 2 wins from 18 matches.

Think I know which one I’m going with if I have to choose.

The WTC can be whatever you want it to be mate. That ladder won’t miraculously change the fact that what England have done has changed their fortunes and no amount of teams pretending that trophy is the be all and end all of test cricket will change that.

You’re not going to turn around if Rabada cuts a swathe through Australia in July and tell everyone that SA is the best team in the world.

Because we both know it would be a lie. It would be nice recognition of their return to some sort of parity and their recent improvement but they are far from the finished product and you, I, and everyone else knows that.

Australia are the best team in the world at the moment and the actual test rankings, not the WTC ladder, reflect that.

People pointing at that ladder and then having a pixelated laugh and saying ‘haha Bazzball’ are basically telling the world ‘hey check it out I haven’t watched a single England series aside from the ashes over the last 3 years and I read some Fox Sports articles when they lost to India and Pakistan.’

And frankly, SA's best hope is to take on our bowlers. They're not going to win by out grinding our batters.