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 18th November 2015, 19:16   #81
sanskritsimon
Legendary
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Team(s): Arkholme Bees, Hackney Grasshoppers, Holy Cross Academicals
Posts: 9,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Virgs and Zamora View Post
This is possibly my favourite ever post.

Imagine the chat "sorry chaps, I know you are the two best spinners but unfortunately you bat too well so we need to drop you and pick an inferior bowler who is a proper number 10."

"Okay no probs"
I'm all in favour of picking the best spinners, as you well know. I wouldn't not pick the best spinner because they could bat well. But if we were to pick our spinner because we thought they would make a better all-round contribution than any other available spinner, and if we were then to get used to having the runs they provided, then it might make us less willing to drop them for another possibly better spinner than we otherwise might be. Which would mean the team being weaker in the spin department than it need be. It's not just about spinners; the same would potentially be true for the third seamer, the wicket-keeper, the sixth batsman. It's not a problem if there is an established player whose strong and weak suits are known and accommodated and who hardly ever gets injured. But in a time of transition it can mean holding onto someone for ages even when they are being consistently disappointing in their main role; and so it can slow that transition down.
sanskritsimon is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 18th November 2015, 20:37   #82
Sir Virgs and Zamora
Posting God
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 18,359
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ali TT View Post
I think in fairness to Sans, the English selection is currently muddled because we have so many all rounders who are yet to really justify their place with either discipline. I include the two keepers in that as well.

They say a great all rounder is like having two players in the side for the price of one. Trouble is, when that all-rounder isn't very good that means having two crap players and the sum of the parts is less than the whole.
We take for granted having someone who can be our second (or was it third) highest run scorer in the ashes while be second highest wicket taker. We should appreciate him
Sir Virgs and Zamora is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th November 2015, 10:59   #83
geoff_boycotts_grandmother
Posting God
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 26,713
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ali TT View Post
I think in fairness to Sans, the English selection is currently muddled because we have so many all rounders who are yet to really justify their place with either discipline. I include the two keepers in that as well.

They say a great all rounder is like having two players in the side for the price of one. Trouble is, when that all-rounder isn't very good that means having two crap players and the sum of the parts is less than the whole.
The thing is so long as we're unwilling to select our best players the alternative specialist batsmen are no better than the all-rounders' batting, so do we really lose out?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michelle Fivefer
It was a poor innings by Bell with the bat.
geoff_boycotts_grandmother is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th November 2015, 11:20   #84
sanskritsimon
Legendary
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Team(s): Arkholme Bees, Hackney Grasshoppers, Holy Cross Academicals
Posts: 9,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by geoff_boycotts_grandmother View Post
The thing is so long as we're unwilling to select our best players the alternative specialist batsmen are no better than the all-rounders' batting, so do we really lose out?
Do you think reselecting KP would aid the transition that this thread is about?
sanskritsimon is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 19th November 2015, 11:54   #85
geoff_boycotts_grandmother
Posting God
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 26,713
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanskritsimon View Post
Do you think reselecting KP would aid the transition that this thread is about?
Yes, because he's the ideal batting partner for a young batsman. He'll score quickly, he'll take on the opposition's better bowlers and dominate the strike, he'll pass on his wisdom and experience and more generally be the focus of all the media attention. That will allow a young player to ease themselves into the spotlight of test cricket. In two years' time when Capey is ready to retire from test, they'll be better placed to take on that mantle.

Although I concede that it would be legitimate to argue that a batsman would learn best if thrown in at the deep end at 32/4 instead of 200/4.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michelle Fivefer
It was a poor innings by Bell with the bat.
geoff_boycotts_grandmother is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th November 2015, 12:33   #86
sanskritsimon
Legendary
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Team(s): Arkholme Bees, Hackney Grasshoppers, Holy Cross Academicals
Posts: 9,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by geoff_boycotts_grandmother View Post
Yes, because he's the ideal batting partner for a young batsman. He'll score quickly, he'll take on the opposition's better bowlers and dominate the strike, he'll pass on his wisdom and experience and more generally be the focus of all the media attention. That will allow a young player to ease themselves into the spotlight of test cricket. In two years' time when Capey is ready to retire from test, they'll be better placed to take on that mantle. ...
Your post put me in mind of KP's partnership with James Taylor.
sanskritsimon is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 19th November 2015, 12:37   #87
geoff_boycotts_grandmother
Posting God
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 26,713
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanskritsimon View Post
Your post put me in mind of KP's partnership with James Taylor.
Exactly, and I think Taylor is a better player now for that experience.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michelle Fivefer
It was a poor innings by Bell with the bat.
geoff_boycotts_grandmother is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th November 2015, 12:43   #88
sanskritsimon
Legendary
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Team(s): Arkholme Bees, Hackney Grasshoppers, Holy Cross Academicals
Posts: 9,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by geoff_boycotts_grandmother View Post
Exactly, and I think Taylor is a better player now for that experience.
I think he's a better player now despite it.
sanskritsimon is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 19th November 2015, 12:45   #89
Jock McTuffnel v3
World Class
 
Jock McTuffnel v3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Cambridge
Team(s): England
Posts: 5,258
"Chips in with vital runs" blah blah. You need big scores and 20 wickets to win test matches - when your players get tons and 5fers that happens more often than not.

Our series record this year : W1 L2 D1 = bang average.

Not enough centuries and only Broad, Jimmy and Rashid have a 5 fer.
__________________
Jock McTuffnel v3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th November 2015, 12:50   #90
geoff_boycotts_grandmother
Posting God
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 26,713
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jock McTuffnel v3 View Post
"Chips in with vital runs" blah blah. You need big scores and 20 wickets to win test matches - when your players get tons and 5fers that happens more often than not.

Our series record this year : W1 L2 D1 = bang average.

Not enough centuries and only Broad, Jimmy and Rashid have a 5 fer.
Does that make England above average?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michelle Fivefer
It was a poor innings by Bell with the bat.
geoff_boycotts_grandmother is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th November 2015, 13:08   #91
D/L
World Class
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Leeds
Team(s): Yorkshire CCC & England, Wakefield Trinity RLFC, Leeds Carnegie RUFC
Posts: 6,110
Quote:
Originally Posted by geoff_boycotts_grandmother View Post
Yes, because he's the ideal batting partner for a young batsman. He'll score quickly, he'll take on the opposition's better bowlers and dominate the strike, he'll pass on his wisdom and experience and more generally be the focus of all the media attention. That will allow a young player to ease themselves into the spotlight of test cricket. In two years' time when Capey is ready to retire from test, they'll be better placed to take on that mantle. ...
Surprisingly, no mention there of Pietersen's capacity for promoting team harmony off the pitch and usefully communicating disinformation to fellow South Africans.
D/L is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th November 2015, 13:34   #92
Fatslogger
Self Confessed Mentalist
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hitchin
Team(s): England and Liverpool
Age: 41
Posts: 43,057
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jock McTuffnel v3 View Post
"Chips in with vital runs" blah blah. You need big scores and 20 wickets to win test matches - when your players get tons and 5fers that happens more often than not.

Our series record this year : W1 L2 D1 = bang average.

Not enough centuries and only Broad, Jimmy and Rashid have a 5 fer.
You'd stick with Rashid on the basis of one 5 wicket haul in six innings despite his returns and his actual bowling being otherwise poor?

Of course you want five wicket hauls but it's not uncommon to win tests without them, especially when playing a five man attack with all chipping in. I'd be far more worried about a batsman not getting hundreds than a bowler not getting five wicket hauls.
__________________
Work is the curse of the drinking classes - Wilde
Fatslogger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th November 2015, 13:38   #93
Sir Virgs and Zamora
Posting God
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 18,359
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jock McTuffnel v3 View Post
"Chips in with vital runs" blah blah. You need big scores and 20 wickets to win test matches - when your players get tons and 5fers that happens more often than not.

Our series record this year : W1 L2 D1 = bang average.

Not enough centuries and only Broad, Jimmy and Rashid have a 5 fer.
If you keep saying we have lost two series this year it does not make it true. You do know that don't you?
Sir Virgs and Zamora is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th November 2015, 13:43   #94
Psyduck
Posting God
 
Psyduck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Manchester
Team(s): England, Lancashire, Man Utd
Posts: 15,193
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jock McTuffnel v3 View Post
"Chips in with vital runs" blah blah. You need big scores and 20 wickets to win test matches - when your players get tons and 5fers that happens more often than not.

Our series record this year : W1 L2 D1 = bang average.

Not enough centuries and only Broad, Jimmy and Rashid have a 5 fer.
You keep getting this wrong Jock.

Edit - Sir Virgs has beat me to it.

Edit 2 - the part about the lack of 5 wicket hauls is way off beam too.
Psyduck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th November 2015, 13:58   #95
geoff_boycotts_grandmother
Posting God
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 26,713
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psyduck View Post
You keep getting this wrong Jock.

Edit - Sir Virgs has beat me to it.

Edit 2 - the part about the lack of 5 wicket hauls is way off beam too.
Edit 3 - GBG as well
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michelle Fivefer
It was a poor innings by Bell with the bat.
geoff_boycotts_grandmother is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th November 2015, 14:41   #96
JRC67
International Material
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 1,128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fatslogger View Post
That's perhaps fair enough but the specialist spinner we picked because our all rounder spinner wasn't good enough / needed supplementing in UAE, turned out to be worse than our all rounder spinner. I know Sans is framing it as Rashid was also picked as an all rounder to avoid admitting that there really might not be better spinners out there, possibly including ones not even getting picked for their counties but that seems a little implausible.

Stokes could certainly be replaced by a better fast bowler. In fact, I think we're quite well at home there as long as the excellent Anderson and Broad remain fit and as long as at least one or two of the others manage not to be broken either. You might argue that Woakes would be another all rounder competing. As above though, it's not that clear that he'd be replaced by a better specialist batsmen were he to be dropped for one of those.
Stokes's bowling figures took a serious hammering in The West Indies - but I'm also sure he has at least one easy catch dropped off his bowling in each of the tests. In most series his average is around someone like Tim Bresnan's, so I think he is a pretty decent 4th seamer. In the days of the second test I watched he was certainly quicker than Broad and Anderson and wasn't far off Wood with his quicker balls. In the current squad I don't see Woakes or Jordan as any better and haven't really seen Footitt so I can't really comment.

Woakes actually surprised me in the 2 ODIs I watched and did look much improved from the player I last saw a couple of years ago. He seemed both significantly quicker and he also appeared to have better control of his line and length. Difficult to pass comment watching real time as to whether he can still swing the ball, which was his main strength a couple of years ago. I've never been a real fan, but I think there is potential for him to maybe make an impact at test level now.

On the spin bowler front I think most sane people probably see the cupboard as being quite empty. I'd agree there isn't much point in looking for a poor spinner who can't bat, so we might as well select a poor spinner who can. In SA I can't see much work for a spinner apart from as a 5th bowler. At least with Ali I feel there might still be some natural improvement due to his lack of bowling when younger. His control of line and length did seem to improve in UAe and he has managed to put together 2 or 3 overs without bowling a longhop in the last couple of ODIs. From the little bit I've seen of Patel I don't think he's ever going to be able to bowl a series of decent balls, but he's probably a slightly better bat in the sense that he will probably have slightly more good days than Rashid. All 3 are a little too hit and miss with the bat, but I think Ali is the best of the 3.
JRC67 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th November 2015, 15:07   #97
Notts Exile
International Material
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Berkshire
Team(s): Notts and Forest
Posts: 1,876
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Virgs and Zamora View Post
TImagine the chat "sorry chaps, I know you are the two best spinners but unfortunately you bat too well so we need to drop you and pick an inferior bowler who is a proper number 10."
The funny thing is that during the 1st ODI Rameez Raja kept banging on about how England had too many all-rounders. I can see why this might seem a problem to someone with very few braincells but surely it's the obvious thing to do if your best bowlers available happen to be able to bat. Now England were missing Wood and Finn who wouldn't be classed as all-rounders but were Rashid, Woakes and Willey not selected on their bowling ability? I would have suggested so. It's good if those guys can contribute but you would hope the'd lose their places just as soon as someone who can bowl better comes along, like the position Moeen is in right now.
Notts Exile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th November 2015, 16:01   #98
D/L
World Class
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Leeds
Team(s): Yorkshire CCC & England, Wakefield Trinity RLFC, Leeds Carnegie RUFC
Posts: 6,110
The quality of Rashid's bowling in the ODI series so far is a moot point. Some criticism seems to take little account of his being a leg spinner and therefore likely to serve up more loose deliveries than an off spinner whilst presenting more of a threat. We have seen, and not just in the ODIs, that a high proportion of Ali's wickets are little to do with the quality of his bowling.

I hope the selectors have not been too influenced by the results Rashid achieved in this ODI series. Test cricket is a completely different game and a leg spinner can be a very valuable asset on a wearing wicket and bowling into footmarks, particularly one who can turn the ball the other way.
D/L is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th November 2015, 16:06   #99
Sir Virgs and Zamora
Posting God
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 18,359
Quote:
Originally Posted by D/L View Post
The quality of Rashid's bowling in the ODI series so far is a moot point. Some criticism seems to take little account of his being a leg spinner and therefore likely to serve up more loose deliveries than an off spinner whilst presenting more of a threat. We have seen, and not just in the ODIs, that a high proportion of Ali's wickets are little to do with the quality of his bowling.

I hope the selectors have not been too influenced by the results Rashid achieved in this ODI series. Test cricket is a completely different game and a leg spinner can be a very valuable asset on a wearing wicket and bowling into footmarks and particularly one who can turn the ball the other way.
By more threatening bowler do you mean "takes fewer wickets"
Sir Virgs and Zamora is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th November 2015, 17:48   #100
oldandfat
County Pro
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 657
I like Ali and on non-spinning pitches I believe he has made significant contributions, he takes a surprising amount of top order wickets. He would be in my team, but he is no Swann/Monty.
I do, however, believe Rashid is unlucky to dropped from the squad. Not statistically but rather by significant contributions. In the 1st Test he nearly bowled us to a win and in the 2nd nearly batted us to a draw. Not a bad start to a Test career? I am not sure Patel will ever have that impact.
oldandfat 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 15:20.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Cricket247.org