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 26th March 2015, 13:39   #41
Fatslogger
Self Confessed Mentalist
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hitchin
Team(s): England and Liverpool
Age: 41
Posts: 43,313
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.
Add Rashid and Broad and your number 11 batsman would be the latter, who has a test ton. Not sure I'd fancy us to take 20 wickets with that. I'm also not at all sure I fancy Stokes at 6 (although suppose he's at 7 with Ali playing). He's got a test ton and clearly plenty of potential with the bat but he's a long way off realising it consistently. Is his bowling good enough to play him as a bit of a project pick from the batting point of view? We could certainly stand to have the odd specialist bowler who couldn't bat at all if he added something with the ball but our non batting specialists are Tredwell and Anderson and I neither trust the former, nor have much optimism about the longevity of the latter.
__________________
Work is the curse of the drinking classes - Wilde
Fatslogger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th March 2015, 13:46   #42
Fatslogger
Self Confessed Mentalist
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hitchin
Team(s): England and Liverpool
Age: 41
Posts: 43,313
Quote:
Originally Posted by sharky View Post
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.
If they all averaged 39 and 31 the right way round that would be fine. Woakes is 37.9 and 25.5 in FC cricket, interestingly. The others don't come close to that kind of gap. Stokes, although younger so dragged back a bit by having less time playing out of nappies is 33.9 and 28.3. I know he plays at Chester le Street but that's slightly more a bowling than batting all rounder.

Incidentally, I don't think for a moment that Rashid is likely to have a long test future, I just quite liked the idea of being able to bat Broad at 11.
__________________
Work is the curse of the drinking classes - Wilde
Fatslogger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th March 2015, 13:54   #43
CDogg16
Established International
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 4,000
Cook
Trott
Ballance
Bell
Root
Stokes
Buttler
Ali
Woakes
Rashid
Broad

I don't think this attack would take 20 wickets but it looks a good batting line up.
CDogg16 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th March 2015, 14:13   #44
slop
Posting God
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Cambridge
Team(s): South Africa
Age: 42
Posts: 18,805
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fatslogger View Post
If they all averaged 39 and 31 the right way round that would be fine. Woakes is 37.9 and 25.5 in FC cricket, interestingly. The others don't come close to that kind of gap. Stokes, although younger so dragged back a bit by having less time playing out of nappies is 33.9 and 28.3. I know he plays at Chester le Street but that's slightly more a bowling than batting all rounder.

Incidentally, I don't think for a moment that Rashid is likely to have a long test future, I just quite liked the idea of being able to bat Broad at 11.
He's a genuine 11 at the moment.
slop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th March 2015, 23:55   #45
Ali TT
Posting God
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 17,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by CDogg16 View Post
Cook
Trott
Ballance
Bell
Root
Stokes
Buttler
Ali
Woakes
Rashid
Broad

I don't think this attack would take 20 wickets but it looks a good batting line up.
Problem with strong batting line ups is that even the best will collapse reasonably regularly. Unless they are backed up by capable bowlers that means defeat.
__________________
WARNING
Reading the above post may cause bouts of nausea.
Ali TT is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 27th March 2015, 16:22   #46
Fatslogger
Self Confessed Mentalist
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hitchin
Team(s): England and Liverpool
Age: 41
Posts: 43,313
Quote:
Originally Posted by slop View Post
He's a genuine 11 at the moment.
Bit harsh but sadly only a bit. He'd be a pretty useful 10 still.
__________________
Work is the curse of the drinking classes - Wilde
Fatslogger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th March 2015, 18:10   #47
slop
Posting God
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Cambridge
Team(s): South Africa
Age: 42
Posts: 18,805
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fatslogger View Post
Bit harsh but sadly only a bit. He'd be a pretty useful 10 still.
Well, he has the ability of a higher order player, but his fear of short pitched bowling made him look like a bona fide tailender at the moment.
slop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th March 2015, 14:04   #48
CDogg16
Established International
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 4,000
Quote:
Originally Posted by slop View Post
Well, he has the ability of a higher order player, but his fear of short pitched bowling made him look like a bona fide tailender at the moment.
Earlier on his career if he had been moved up the order and given more responsibility with the bat he could have developed into a decent batsman.
CDogg16 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th March 2015, 14:53   #49
Ali TT
Posting God
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 17,649
Broady may never quite have fulfilled his batting potential but a number 9 who averages 20+ is hardly a disaster
__________________
WARNING
Reading the above post may cause bouts of nausea.
Ali TT is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 29th March 2015, 08:49   #50
Rebelstar
International Material
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,627
I wouldn't bat Broad at 11 for the same reason I would have had Devon above Tuffers in the Test side.

Devon could hit a few lusty blows, all Tuffers could do was 'cock and prop' ie defend. If I were a top order batsman with the tail I'd rather have a Devon cameo with someone below him who might hang around than vice versa

Same applies, for me, with Broad. I'd have an Anderson, Tredwell or 'limited' batsman below him simply because Broad can smack some runs and the last thing you want is any batsman at the other end throwing his wicket away trying to get runs before Broad or whoever does the same
Rebelstar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th March 2015, 20:50   #51
Fatslogger
Self Confessed Mentalist
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hitchin
Team(s): England and Liverpool
Age: 41
Posts: 43,313
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rebelstar View Post
I wouldn't bat Broad at 11 for the same reason I would have had Devon above Tuffers in the Test side.

Devon could hit a few lusty blows, all Tuffers could do was 'cock and prop' ie defend. If I were a top order batsman with the tail I'd rather have a Devon cameo with someone below him who might hang around than vice versa

Same applies, for me, with Broad. I'd have an Anderson, Tredwell or 'limited' batsman below him simply because Broad can smack some runs and the last thing you want is any batsman at the other end throwing his wicket away trying to get runs before Broad or whoever does the same
Simpler than that: you bat him above someone worse than him because he's better than them.
__________________
Work is the curse of the drinking classes - Wilde
Fatslogger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th March 2015, 06:33   #52
beefy
World Class
 
beefy's Avatar
Bulldog spirit
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London Town
Team(s): England & Arsenal
Posts: 7,352
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fatslogger View Post
Simpler than that: you bat him above someone worse than him because he's better than them.
Good post.
__________________
ENGLAND; Ashes holders, World Champions and the Number One cricket team in World Cricket.
beefy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th March 2015, 06:34   #53
beefy
World Class
 
beefy's Avatar
Bulldog spirit
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London Town
Team(s): England & Arsenal
Posts: 7,352
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ali TT View Post
Problem with strong batting line ups is that even the best will collapse reasonably regularly. Unless they are backed up by capable bowlers that means defeat.
That's not really true though is it.
__________________
ENGLAND; Ashes holders, World Champions and the Number One cricket team in World Cricket.
beefy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th March 2015, 07:23   #54
Rebelstar
International Material
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,627
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fatslogger View Post
Simpler than that: you bat him above someone worse than him because he's better than them.
Nicely taking what I said out of context to make oversimplistic although out of context seems to be flavour of the month. I'm talking about scenarios where two tailenders are more or less same ability, different styles.

I wouldn't waste Broad at 11 either way, but if there were batting deep enough it became a similar scenario then I'd bat the more aggressive batsman 10 and the more defensive one 11
Rebelstar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th March 2015, 10:45   #55
Ali TT
Posting God
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 17,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by beefy View Post
That's not really true though is it.
I think it is. Look through the records and quite a few instances of sides like Australia and West Indies relying on their bowlers when the batsmen have struggled. It's also worth mentioning that neither those two sides had particularly strong trails. Capable yes but not packed with all-rounders.

Anyhow I'm not one for strict criteria on selecting sides other than pick the best xi. If this means you're number 11 has a test century, then fine, but don't start out with that as an intention.
__________________
WARNING
Reading the above post may cause bouts of nausea.
Ali TT is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 30th March 2015, 11:51   #56
Fatslogger
Self Confessed Mentalist
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hitchin
Team(s): England and Liverpool
Age: 41
Posts: 43,313
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rebelstar View Post
Nicely taking what I said out of context to make oversimplistic although out of context seems to be flavour of the month. I'm talking about scenarios where two tailenders are more or less same ability, different styles.

I wouldn't waste Broad at 11 either way, but if there were batting deep enough it became a similar scenario then I'd bat the more aggressive batsman 10 and the more defensive one 11
Appreciate your underlying point but the examples used weren't terribly illustrative because Broad is a far better batsman than Tredwell or Anderson.

England used to play Hoggard quite high up the order at 9 because he was competent at supporting a batsman still in, leaving Harmison and Jones, both of whom could actually hit the ball but were defensively extremely suspect, down at 10 and 11.
__________________
Work is the curse of the drinking classes - Wilde
Fatslogger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th March 2015, 14:20   #57
Psyduck
Posting God
 
Psyduck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Manchester
Team(s): England, Lancashire, Man Utd
Posts: 15,839
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fatslogger View Post
England used to play Hoggard quite high up the order at 9 because he was competent at supporting a batsman still in, leaving Harmison and Jones, both of whom could actually hit the ball but were defensively extremely suspect, down at 10 and 11.
I think Hoggard might even have batted as high as 8 for England, probably after Ashley Giles retired. He must surely be a contender for one of the worst #pivotal #8's of all time.
Psyduck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th March 2015, 17:45   #58
Ali TT
Posting God
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 17,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psyduck View Post
I think Hoggard might even have batted as high as 8 for England, probably after Ashley Giles retired. He must surely be a contender for one of the worst #pivotal #8's of all time.
But when we needed him most http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engin...ch/216994.html

Ok, he was #pivotal #9 in that case but still... Pivotal
__________________
WARNING
Reading the above post may cause bouts of nausea.
Ali TT is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd April 2015, 10:09   #59
CDogg16
Established International
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 4,000
Apparently his injury isn't improving as well as first hoped. This is a blow as after watching Stokes bowl against the Windies Woakes is clearly the better option.
CDogg16 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd April 2015, 10:29   #60
Chin Music
Administrator
 
Chin Music's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: la sala de opinion equivocada
Team(s): ****
Posts: 23,903
Quote:
Originally Posted by CDogg16 View Post
Apparently his injury isn't improving as well as first hoped. This is a blow as after watching Stokes bowl against the Windies Woakes is clearly the better option.
Stokes didn't bowl well yesterday but otherwise I think he's bowled pretty well this series with the type of pace that England has been looking for without some of the luck needed and a bit of his own carelessness (the no ball where he would have taken a wicket).

Woakes has hardly had that successful introduction into test cricket but we need to invest in both of these guys as younger players with talent IMO.
__________________
Quote:
"One of the greatest problems of our time is that many are schooled but few are educated" - Thomas More
Chin Music is offline   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 23:25.



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