Has Scott Boland run out of luck?
Looking at the seamer's wicket drought compared to his tsunami to start his career.
Remember when Scott Boland came to England and started off doing this kind of madness?
And yet a few weeks later, Scott Boland is probably finished in thisAshes. No matter how much Australia rates him, this Ashes has been horrendous for him. To average over 100 in what has a moderate to low-scoring series is insane. Scott Boland cannot take a wicket right now.
He has the same wickets as Travis Head and less than Joe Root.
The part-time offies are lapping the man who was fighting with George Lohmann for the lowest average of all time a few months back.
But while he hasn't been at his best this Ashes, has he really lost the magic he had in England just a short while back? Like, is that even possible?
The real question is, has Scott Boland just run out of luck?
There was a time during the third Ashes Test when I was toying with a piece on England being the best-performed team ever to be down 3-0. Obviously, the entire thing didn't quite happen. But generally, sports fans hate these pieces. And I had a discussion with a journalist who was saying if they go down three nil, they will deserve to.
And he had a point. England had the better of the conditions, had themselves in several games before baffling mistakes, and while some people would point to them dropping a lot of catches as bad luck, they chose to drop a specialist keeper for an injured player they clearly hadn't seen a lot of.
From the declaration, the kamikaze batting at Lord's right through to bouncing Travis Head when the ball was moving everywhere at Headingley. England had plenty of chances to win a Test in this series. And in truth, had Alex Carey left Wood's skier for Boland, Australia might have slipped through the slim - but definitely there - cracks to end up 3-0 in a close-fought series.
That it was 2-1 was probably much closer to fair. Australia has been better, on paper, that is certainly how it looks, but England has worked out a good proportion of their top order. Lyon is a huge loss because he's such an iron man for Australia, and only two of the quicks have fired so far.
No matter how you look at it, Australia had been better, but not 3-0 better. Luck, or variance, always plays a part. Especially when there isn't much between the two teams.
One thing in England's favour has been Scott Boland not taking wickets. Even if England is not as good as Australia, it would be hard to argue that they have schemed very well to take players out.
For Warner, Broad used something they had prepared earlier. But Marnus Labuschagne is currently averaging less than Pat Cummins this series. And Steve Smith has crossed 50 once. Carey and Green also struggled.
But it's not just the batters; Josh Hazlewood hasn't been great either, for him. Part of that might be that he's still struggling with injury. But he and Boland are both fast-medium line and length bowlers. So I don't think it's a surprise both have struggled.
Clearly, Boland has struggled more. But looking beyond the average, you can see how much closer these two are.
Scott Boland has gone at nearly five runs an over this series. But Josh Hazlewood is going at 4.6. This is not a normal thing.
Before this series, Hazlewood had two games with an econ more than four, yet five times he was under two runs an over for an entire match.
So if they're getting to Hazlewood, then clearly, it's even worse for Boland. England are using his predictably great length against him.
Why it didn't bother Hazlewood as much is because he has a good bouncer. And in this series, he doubled the amount he delivered.
Now some of that was the fun Test at Lord's. But even so, Hazlewood can do that. Would Boland? Probably not; he rarely bowls bouncer spells ever. But he did miss Lord's, so who knows.
Both guys have delivered around 150 balls this series on length, and weirdly enough, Boland has the better average there. He's taken both his wickets when he has landed the ball where he wants. However, he can't land there with impunity like normal because England keeps moving in their crease.
We've already done an entire article on how England is leading the world in how to use the crease. Either by standing a long way forward, sometimes back, or taking a couple of steps down the wicket to change the length on the bowler. They don't allow you a length to hit.
On the other hand, the Indian batters are all pretty much crease-bound. This means they are not upsetting Boland's length at all. They are just waiting for him to bowl a delivery that cuts back sideways on them, or they chase the ones that go the other way and get an edge. You cannot sit and wait with Boland. England understood that and attacked him.
England are scoring three runs more per over against him in this series on length.
That is an extraordinary leap from where he normally is. They knew where he wanted to bowl it, and they were willing to take a risk to upset it, and so far, it could not be working better.
But they also get outside the line when they come down, taking away his LBW shouts. So he is less likely to get the LBW call even when he sees them move and finds the right length and the ball hits the seam. And they're close to the line and length, meaning they smother some balls before they can tear them in half.
So that is why this exists. His average in this series of 60, and before that, his average on a length was 7.18.
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to Good Areas to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.