Cricket 24/7  

Welcome to the Cricket 24/7.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. There are also more forums available to members, such as the Lounge - where members chat about just about anything under the sun except cricket!

Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.


Go Back   Cricket 24/7 > Cricket Discussion Forums > England
Register FAQDonate Members List Calendar Casino Articles Terms of Use Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 25th March 2015, 12:44   #21
CDogg16
Established International
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 4,000
Quote:
Originally Posted by sharky View Post
I assume he will be replaced by someone who can either bowl or bat, which will improve the balance of the side as we will be playing with XI rather than X.
He's useful with the bat and more reliable than Stokes. His Test bowling average is high but if he had played in the West Indies then it would have gone down.
CDogg16 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th March 2015, 15:07   #22
1000yardstare
Posting Goddess
 
1000yardstare's Avatar
JA 808 Wagner 118 TCurran 8 SCurran 0
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London
Posts: 20,324
Woakes is really a number 6 but with Swann gone and Ali taking the number 6 spot the next available place is 8. Woakes has only played 4 Tests batting at 6, 8 and 9.

Stokes also would be a 6 also and their f/c figures are similar 9 100s for Stokes and 8 for Woakes. I see one as cover for the other if both are in the squad. Stokes would look far too low at number 8 and has already a Test 100 batting at 6.

Stokes a batsman who bowls and Woakes a bowler who bats so the number 6 spot is more suited to Stokes.

So I would expect either (prefer the first eleven)
Cook Trott Ballance Bell Root Stokes Rashid Buttler Jordan Broad Anderson
Cook Trott Ballance Bell Root Stokes Rashid Buttler Broad Tredwell Anderson
1000yardstare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th March 2015, 16:37   #23
sanskritsimon
Posting God
 
sanskritsimon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Team(s): Arkholme Bees, Hackney Grasshoppers, Holy Cross Academicals
Posts: 10,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1000yardstare View Post
Woakes is really a number 6 but with Swann gone and Ali taking the number 6 spot the next available place is 8. Woakes has only played 4 Tests batting at 6, 8 and 9.

Stokes also would be a 6 also and their f/c figures are similar 9 100s for Stokes and 8 for Woakes. I see one as cover for the other if both are in the squad. Stokes would look far too low at number 8 and has already a Test 100 batting at 6.

Stokes a batsman who bowls and Woakes a bowler who bats so the number 6 spot is more suited to Stokes.

So I would expect either (prefer the first eleven)
Cook Trott Ballance Bell Root Stokes Rashid Buttler Jordan Broad Anderson
Cook Trott Ballance Bell Root Stokes Rashid Buttler Broad Tredwell Anderson
In general the bowlers are liable to get injured or to be replaced by others better suited to the new conditions, so I think that in order to minimise disruption they have to fit in at the bottom of the order. The top 6 are batting specialists -- if some of them bowl a bit, so much the better -- and Buttler is at 7. I wouldn't be pushing Buttler down to 8 just because Rashid is needed as part of the bowling attack in the short term and is considered to be a better batsman than him. If several of our four best bowlers are also excellent batsmen, then we can have a tail to die for -- that would be fantastic. But it needs to be clear what people are in the side to do -- and thus how one would evaluate whether they're doing well enough to retain their spot. In the XIs you listed, for example, it looks as if Rashid's batting is more important to the team than Buttler's; but it isn't. Rashid is in your first XI as the main spinner on a turning track -- he's effectively the leader of the attack, so his batting is peripheral to his selection. If you thought Tredwell was a better bowler, you'd pick him instead. Buttler on the other hand is only in the team because of his batting. He keeps too, but that's not why he's selected over his competitors.
sanskritsimon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th March 2015, 17:11   #24
1000yardstare
Posting Goddess
 
1000yardstare's Avatar
JA 808 Wagner 118 TCurran 8 SCurran 0
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London
Posts: 20,324
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanskritsimon View Post
In general the bowlers are liable to get injured or to be replaced by others better suited to the new conditions, so I think that in order to minimise disruption they have to fit in at the bottom of the order. The top 6 are batting specialists -- if some of them bowl a bit, so much the better -- and Buttler is at 7. I wouldn't be pushing Buttler down to 8 just because Rashid is needed as part of the bowling attack in the short term and is considered to be a better batsman than him. If several of our four best bowlers are also excellent batsmen, then we can have a tail to die for -- that would be fantastic. But it needs to be clear what people are in the side to do -- and thus how one would evaluate whether they're doing well enough to retain their spot. In the XIs you listed, for example, it looks as if Rashid's batting is more important to the team than Buttler's; but it isn't. Rashid is in your first XI as the main spinner on a turning track -- he's effectively the leader of the attack, so his batting is peripheral to his selection. If you thought Tredwell was a better bowler, you'd pick him instead. Buttler on the other hand is only in the team because of his batting. He keeps too, but that's not why he's selected over his competitors.
You are right that Rashid's main job is the spinner in the West Indies but he is the more experienced batsman playing twice as many f/c matches as Buttler. Buttler wouldn't be in the team if he wasn't a keeper. I was looking at it though, that if you have both playing as batsmen only, where would they bat. Also with Buttler lower down he could play his one day style more comfortably.
1000yardstare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th March 2015, 17:38   #25
Psyduck
Posting God
 
Psyduck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Manchester
Team(s): England, Lancashire, Man Utd
Posts: 15,691
If Rashid does play I'm pretty sure he'll bat below Buttler. However, if they only pick one spinner don't be surprised if that man is Tredwell.
Psyduck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th March 2015, 17:42   #26
1000yardstare
Posting Goddess
 
1000yardstare's Avatar
JA 808 Wagner 118 TCurran 8 SCurran 0
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London
Posts: 20,324
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psyduck View Post
If Rashid does play I'm pretty sure he'll bat below Buttler. However, if they only pick one spinner don't be surprised if that man is Tredwell.
Yes that's the most likely thing that will happen.
1000yardstare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th March 2015, 19:24   #27
CDogg16
Established International
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 4,000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psyduck View Post
If Rashid does play I'm pretty sure he'll bat below Buttler. However, if they only pick one spinner don't be surprised if that man is Tredwell.
I'd be surprised if that was the case. I think Rashid deserves a chance. If Tredwell can't get in the ODI squad when he's England's best limited over spinner I can't see him getting in the test side. The fact that Tredwell was selected at all surprised me, I thought they would have taken a Borthwick or Riley.
CDogg16 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th March 2015, 19:26   #28
CDogg16
Established International
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 4,000
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1000yardstare View Post
Stokes a batsman who bowls and Woakes a bowler who bats so the number 6 spot is more suited to Stokes.

So I would expect either (prefer the first eleven)
Cook Trott Ballance Bell Root Stokes Rashid Buttler Jordan Broad Anderson
Cook Trott Ballance Bell Root Stokes Rashid Buttler Broad Tredwell Anderson
if you look at Woakes' record for Warwickshire I think it's unfair to call him a bowler who bats. He is a genuine all rounder.
CDogg16 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th March 2015, 23:18   #29
Ali TT
Posting God
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 16,900
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1000yardstare View Post
You are right that Rashid's main job is the spinner in the West Indies but he is the more experienced batsman playing twice as many f/c matches as Buttler. Buttler wouldn't be in the team if he wasn't a keeper. I was looking at it though, that if you have both playing as batsmen only, where would they bat. Also with Buttler lower down he could play his one day style more comfortably.
By your logic, if they decided to select another young batsmen, eg Lees, he'd start at 11 and be expected to work his way up.
__________________
WARNING
Reading the above post may cause bouts of nausea.
Ali TT is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 25th March 2015, 23:20   #30
Ali TT
Posting God
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 16,900
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1000yardstare View Post
Woakes is really a number 6 but with Swann gone and Ali taking the number 6 spot the next available place is 8. Woakes has only played 4 Tests batting at 6, 8 and 9.

Stokes also would be a 6 also and their f/c figures are similar 9 100s for Stokes and 8 for Woakes. I see one as cover for the other if both are in the squad. Stokes would look far too low at number 8 and has already a Test 100 batting at 6.

Stokes a batsman who bowls and Woakes a bowler who bats so the number 6 spot is more suited to Stokes.

So I would expect either (prefer the first eleven)
Cook Trott Ballance Bell Root Stokes Rashid Buttler Jordan Broad Anderson
Cook Trott Ballance Bell Root Stokes Rashid Buttler Broad Tredwell Anderson
Woakes isn't really a 6. At best he's a 7, just that England seem to have a surfeit of bowlers who could bat at this position currently
__________________
WARNING
Reading the above post may cause bouts of nausea.
Ali TT is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 25th March 2015, 23:30   #31
Sir Virgs and Zamora
Posting God
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 18,631
Kim always said that woakes would be a number 6 in tests who bowled useful overs. England don't know what to do with him. Gutted he misses windies as he did well vs India but had rotten luck with dropped catches. I learned yesterday that dropped catches are to be ignored and we base all analysis on the final result and not how the match developed so I apologise for making that point. It is woakes' fault the catches were dropped.
Sir Virgs and Zamora is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th March 2015, 00:21   #32
Ali TT
Posting God
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 16,900
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Virgs and Zamora View Post
Kim always said that woakes would be a number 6 in tests who bowled useful overs. England don't know what to do with him. Gutted he misses windies as he did well vs India but had rotten luck with dropped catches. I learned yesterday that dropped catches are to be ignored and we base all analysis on the final result and not how the match developed so I apologise for making that point. It is woakes' fault the catches were dropped.
It is a shame. If England want to be competitive over the next few years, they need Woakes to develop. Previous little else in the cupboard.
__________________
WARNING
Reading the above post may cause bouts of nausea.
Ali TT is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 26th March 2015, 02:35   #33
1000yardstare
Posting Goddess
 
1000yardstare's Avatar
JA 808 Wagner 118 TCurran 8 SCurran 0
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London
Posts: 20,324
Quote:
Originally Posted by CDogg16 View Post
if you look at Woakes' record for Warwickshire I think it's unfair to call him a bowler who bats. He is a genuine all rounder.
Yes he is a true all-rounder who should bat at 6. Woakes started off as a opening bowler batting at number 10. That makes me think he was a bowler first not a batsman who started bowling so I see him as a bowling all rounder. He gradually moved up the batting line up. I think if you asked him to choose to do one job only it would be bowling and Stokes would choose to bat.

Stokes started his f/c career batting at 6 and a first/second change bowler.
1000yardstare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th March 2015, 11:15   #34
oldandfat
County Pro
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 729
Woakes will replace Anderson. He is belittled as a Test player with so little evidence. He bowls at 85mph and can move it around. He is also a capable batsman. What is not to like?
A lower middle order of Stokes, Butler, Woakes, Rashid is a strong looking 6-9 (with Broad at 10) could add some useful runs.
oldandfat is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 26th March 2015, 11:20   #35
Maty
Posting God
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Team(s): Derybshire
Age: 29
Posts: 13,300
Send a message via MSN to Maty
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Virgs and Zamora View Post
Kim always said that woakes would be a number 6 in tests who bowled useful overs. England don't know what to do with him. Gutted he misses windies as he did well vs India but had rotten luck with dropped catches. I learned yesterday that dropped catches are to be ignored and we base all analysis on the final result and not how the match developed so I apologise for making that point. It is woakes' fault the catches were dropped.
So you expect the story of one the most compelling World Cup semi-finals to be one of dropped catches? Games of such magnitude aren't normal situations, errors are always going to be part of the course.

Brilliant.
Maty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th March 2015, 11:23   #36
Fatslogger
Self Confessed Mentalist
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hitchin
Team(s): England and Liverpool
Age: 41
Posts: 43,277
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldandfat View Post
Woakes will replace Anderson. He is belittled as a Test player with so little evidence. He bowls at 85mph and can move it around. He is also a capable batsman. What is not to like?
A lower middle order of Stokes, Butler, Woakes, Rashid is a strong looking 6-9 (with Broad at 10) could add some useful runs.
I quite like the batting present in that line up but one could argue that you'd rather be wasting Woakes at 8 and Rashid at 9 (both of whom probably have better FC batting figures than Stokes). More pertinently though, I'm not sure I really like the bowling. Stokes may well develop into a test class bowler but so far I don't think he is and I fear Rashid is and will remain a long way off. Hope I'm wrong if he plays though.
__________________
Work is the curse of the drinking classes - Wilde
Fatslogger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th March 2015, 13:37   #37
sanskritsimon
Posting God
 
sanskritsimon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Team(s): Arkholme Bees, Hackney Grasshoppers, Holy Cross Academicals
Posts: 10,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1000yardstare View Post
Yes he is a true all-rounder who should bat at 6. ...
It depends. I think you've just described a batting all-rounder, but you go on to say he's a bowling all-rounder. But what if we have several different players who merit this quoted description? If we had four of them we could bat them at 8--11 and have the mother of all batting line-ups. In that situation you might feel sorely tempted to also pick a bowling specialist and have a five-man bowling attack. At the other end of the scale, you could play just two specialist batsmen and have far more bowlers than you'd ever need. Of those two strategies I'd veer towards the first one, as nos 10 and 11 are likely to score useful runs fairly often, whereas the 8th bowler, no matter how good he is, is unlikely to bowl useful overs. The key is that when one batsmen is out, the next batsman's runs just get added on to the total; whereas with bowlers, every over that a bowler bowls is one that no one else can then bowl.

I don't see a problem with batting a true all-rounder in the so-called tail. Talk of a player being wasted at position X in the order rather depends on knowing who's going to come in after him. For example, Woakes is likely to be less wasted at 9 if nos 10 and 11 are Rashid and Broad than he would be at 8 if nos 9--11 were Tufnell, Onions, and Malcolm. And in any case, I don't think it matters if a player is left not out. It happens all the time, often to specialist batsmen batting in the top 6, and captains often declare, leaving two players not out. There has been a lot of talk on this forum in recent years about the value of having bowlers who can bat well, and I don't think one should set a ceiling on that value by deeming players to be too good to bat in the tail. The question will be how much one can realistically improve the bowling attack by dropping a batting specialist, shunting people up a place, and adding another bowler at the bottom. If the best available bowlers are also capable batters, then the value added by doing that may be quite low; whereas the value of being able to keep the oppo in the field for two days might conceivably be exerted fairly regularly.

Returning to Woakes, I think he will be a very good bowler for England, and I've been impressed by his ODI bowling since the end of last season. But I'm not sure he would get into my test XI for the West Indies even if he was fit. At this stage I see Stokes as a more promising top 6 batsman than Woakes, and I don't think England will really need a third seamer until Barbados.
sanskritsimon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th March 2015, 13:49   #38
Sir Virgs and Zamora
Posting God
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 18,631
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maty View Post
So you expect the story of one the most compelling World Cup semi-finals to be one of dropped catches? Games of such magnitude aren't normal situations, errors are always going to be part of the course.

Brilliant.
Not at all. I just think that someone pointing out a crucial catch should not be attacked.

Re woakes - I was emailed a terrible survey by telegraph fantasy cricket and where they asked for feedback I said woakes being classed as a bowler for years is a farce. He was top of wark's batting averages when they won the title wasn't he?
Sir Virgs and Zamora is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th March 2015, 14:24   #39
CDogg16
Established International
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 4,000
If Ali, Stokes and Woakes all play in the England side they could have a very strong batting line up.
CDogg16 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th March 2015, 14:38   #40
sharky
Posting God
 
sharky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Sunny Sussex
Team(s): Sussex, England
Posts: 10,399
Quote:
Originally Posted by CDogg16 View Post
If Ali, Stokes and Woakes all play in the England side they could have a very strong batting line up.
I'd struggle to see any of them averaging much above 40 with the bat or 30 with the ball, so I'd say we can only fit one, possibly two in the team.
__________________
She was like a candle in the wind...Unreliable
sharky is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 14:09.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Cricket247.org