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 19th November 2015, 19:36   #101
JRC67
International Material
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 1,128
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldandfat View Post
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.
For me Rashid is a difficult call. I'm pretty certain he would mop up the tail on a turning 4th innings. I'm not so sure he is someone who will take top order wickets under the same conditions as he just isn't consistent enough to build any pressure. He can clearly handle a bat, but his county form seems a bit all or nothing and he seemed a bit that way in this series. On his day or in the right conditions I think he's a better bet, but Patel will contribute a little consistently. Guess overall it depends on how many good days he is likely to have in a season.
JRC67 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th November 2015, 20:05   #102
Fatslogger
Self Confessed Mentalist
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hitchin
Team(s): England and Liverpool
Age: 41
Posts: 43,057
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRC67 View Post
For me Rashid is a difficult call. I'm pretty certain he would mop up the tail on a turning 4th innings. I'm not so sure he is someone who will take top order wickets under the same conditions as he just isn't consistent enough to build any pressure. He can clearly handle a bat, but his county form seems a bit all or nothing and he seemed a bit that way in this series. On his day or in the right conditions I think he's a better bet, but Patel will contribute a little consistently. Guess overall it depends on how many good days he is likely to have in a season.
We'd love to have an effective leggie, especially one who can also bat. It's hard to look at his bowling in either the test series or his admittedly relatively limited ODI career and see an effective leggie though. A bit like Anderson in his early career, a relatively short spell of bad Rashid can see all control of an innings evaporate. I don't think we'll see good Rashid nearly often enough to compensate, although I suppose it is possible he'll do what Anderson did and improve. He's a far more mature player in terms of the amount of cricket he's had before international calls though, so the comparison is probably not all that valid beyond a certain point. You can wonder whether we've seen enough of him to know whether he might be worth a rather better bowling average but I'm pretty sure we've seen enough to know he's unlikely to be able to keep it tight. Taking him along as a luxury player to run through tails, mostly after he's contributed to the top order getting a side over 400, doesn't feel like something we can afford. Worth pointing out also that so far he's run through the tail just the once.
__________________
Work is the curse of the drinking classes - Wilde

Last edited by Fatslogger : 19th November 2015 at 20:17.
Fatslogger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th November 2015, 20:44   #103
JRC67
International Material
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 1,128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fatslogger View Post
We'd love to have an effective leggie, especially one who can also bat. It's hard to look at his bowling in either the test series or his admittedly relatively limited ODI career and see an effective leggie though. A bit like Anderson in his early career, a relatively short spell of bad Rashid can see all control of an innings evaporate. I don't think we'll see good Rashid nearly often enough to compensate, although I suppose it is possible he'll do what Anderson did and improve. He's a far more mature player in terms of the amount of cricket he's had before international calls though, so the comparison is probably not all that valid beyond a certain point. You can wonder whether we've seen enough of him to know whether he might be worth a rather better bowling average but I'm pretty sure we've seen enough to know he's unlikely to be able to keep it tight. Taking him along as a luxury player to run through tails, mostly after he's contributed to the top order getting a side over 400, doesn't feel like something we can afford. Worth pointing out also that so far he's run through the tail just the once.
Had meant to say better bet to take an odd 5 wickets. Ali didn't have a great UAe tour, but Patel and Rashid's performances have almost managed to secure his place in the team. The hope has to be either Ali can really kick on as a bowler or Ansari proves a success in division 1 and can develop in to an international bowler. Despite the criticism at the time Ashley Giles was light year ahead of the current alternatives.
JRC67 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th November 2015, 20:53   #104
Fatslogger
Self Confessed Mentalist
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hitchin
Team(s): England and Liverpool
Age: 41
Posts: 43,057
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRC67 View Post
Had meant to say better bet to take an odd 5 wickets. Ali didn't have a great UAe tour, but Patel and Rashid's performances have almost managed to secure his place in the team. The hope has to be either Ali can really kick on as a bowler or Ansari proves a success in division 1 and can develop in to an international bowler. Despite the criticism at the time Ashley Giles was light year ahead of the current alternatives.
A friend asked me the question: would England would have won the UAE series with an in the prime of his career Ashley Giles. I think the answer was a probably, yes. Even just a spinner who kept it tight, was difficult to score off, chipped in with some wickets and let the quicks get on with it would have been enough, I think and Giles was rather better than that on sub continental tours (nod to Pops).

Agree about Ali and Ansari. The latter looks a whole lot better for the efforts of those who did tour and the former had an indifferent to bad series with the ball and a terrible one with the bat (yes he was stitched up but he could still have scored some runs) yet still if anything strengthened his position.
__________________
Work is the curse of the drinking classes - Wilde
Fatslogger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th November 2015, 21:01   #105
geoff_boycotts_grandmother
Posting God
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 26,713
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fatslogger View Post
A friend asked me the question: would England would have won the UAE series with an in the prime of his career Ashley Giles. I think the answer was a probably, yes. Even just a spinner who kept it tight, was difficult to score off, chipped in with some wickets and let the quicks get on with it would have been enough, I think and Giles was rather better than that on sub continental tours (nod to Pops).

Agree about Ali and Ansari. The latter looks a whole lot better for the efforts of those who did tour and the former had an indifferent to bad series with the ball and a terrible one with the bat (yes he was stitched up but he could still have scored some runs) yet still if anything strengthened his position.
I also think that England would have won the series with Capey. Or even Woakes instead of so many spinners.

Had we scored our runs quicker or Bell could catch we'd have won the first test. The second tests we were an over or two from drawing and the third test we had a decent (if not decisive) first innings lead.

With such small margins involved, you can't afford to make such selection howlers.
__________________
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, 22:22   #106
Fatslogger
Self Confessed Mentalist
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hitchin
Team(s): England and Liverpool
Age: 41
Posts: 43,057
Quote:
Originally Posted by geoff_boycotts_grandmother View Post
I also think that England would have won the series with Capey. Or even Woakes instead of so many spinners.

Had we scored our runs quicker or Bell could catch we'd have won the first test. The second tests we were an over or two from drawing and the third test we had a decent (if not decisive) first innings lead.

With such small margins involved, you can't afford to make such selection howlers.
Probably although all a bit speculative. Woakes in particular might not have been amazing but then he almost certainly would have done better than any of the spinners. He'd probably have scored more runs than Ali opening too.
__________________
Work is the curse of the drinking classes - Wilde
Fatslogger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th November 2015, 02:25   #107
Chin Music
Administrator
 
Chin Music's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: la sala de opinion equivocada
Team(s): ****
Posts: 23,522
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fatslogger View Post
A friend asked me the question: would England would have won the UAE series with an in the prime of his career Ashley Giles. I think the answer was a probably, yes. Even just a spinner who kept it tight, was difficult to score off, chipped in with some wickets and let the quicks get on with it would have been enough, I think and Giles was rather better than that on sub continental tours (nod to Pops).

Agree about Ali and Ansari. The latter looks a whole lot better for the efforts of those who did tour and the former had an indifferent to bad series with the ball and a terrible one with the bat (yes he was stitched up but he could still have scored some runs) yet still if anything strengthened his position.
Arguably the prime of his career Ashley Giles was the one who went to Pakistan itself in 2000 and took a stack of wickets in that series, generating a good deal more spin than he would later in his career as he tended to get more side and get more action on the ball as a consequence. The Gilo of 4/5 years later had issues with his hip and as a consequence didn't do that, bowled more front on and operated far more over the wicket in a containing role.

I take your point, the only thing being that I still think Pakistan would have gone after the more defensive version and still kept the scoreboard ticking quite effectively without losing too many wickets. For instance, Fat Sam didn't bowl that badly but ended up travelling a fair bit. Quite honestly he bowled better than the other two in that last test but still hardly kept things that tight.
__________________
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
Old 20th November 2015, 09:17   #108
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 Sir Virgs and Zamora View Post
By more threatening bowler do you mean "takes fewer wickets"
Not like you to view everything in terms of numbers.

"More threatening" is really quite self-explanatory, I would have thought but, if it needs a little more explanation, it includes the ability to turn the ball both ways, actually looking for ways to take a wicket and not simply relying upon loose shots.
D/L is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th November 2015, 09:22   #109
Ali TT
Posting God
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 15,907
Problem for Rashid is that his aura of wicket taking menace exists solely in the realms of the hypothetical.
__________________
WARNING
Reading the above post may cause bouts of nausea.
Ali TT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th November 2015, 09:30   #110
D/L
World Class
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Leeds
Team(s): Yorkshire CCC & England, Wakefield Trinity RLFC, Leeds Carnegie RUFC
Posts: 6,110
A matter of opinion, obviously.

Ali's hardly exists at all.
D/L is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th November 2015, 09:39   #111
Sir Virgs and Zamora
Posting God
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 18,359
Quote:
Originally Posted by D/L View Post
A matter of opinion, obviously.

Ali's hardly exists at all.
Apart from him being the fastest English spinner to fifty wickets for decades. Other than that you are correct.
Sir Virgs and Zamora is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th November 2015, 09:59   #112
Notts Exile
International Material
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Berkshire
Team(s): Notts and Forest
Posts: 1,876
Quote:
Originally Posted by D/L View Post
A matter of opinion, obviously.

Ali's hardly exists at all.
Not really. He does actually take wickets.

You don't like England players who take wickets do you?
Notts Exile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th November 2015, 10:51   #113
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
I also think that England would have won the series with Capey. Or even Woakes instead of so many spinners.

Had we scored our runs quicker or Bell could catch we'd have won the first test. The second tests we were an over or two from drawing and the third test we had a decent (if not decisive) first innings lead.

With such small margins involved, you can't afford to make such selection howlers.
I think that in terms of being able to bowl straight and pitch the ball properly, Tredwell would have been a better pick than any of the spinners we actually picked. But more generally, if one thinks of how we might have won that first match of the series, it's worth reflecting that one of the reasons why we apparently had a sniff of victory on the last day is because Pakistan were able to score their runs fairly fast in the first innings. If we had not gifted them so many runs with our execrable spin bowling -- by, for example, playing more seamers instead -- then not only would Pakistan have taken longer to get into a position where they felt the match was safe, but also we wouldn't have been able to bowl them out in the second innings. I wouldn't like to suggest that we might have been more likely to win had we played fewer seamers and more rubbish spinners (e.g. by dropping Wood for Patel, though that would have given us an extra arrow in our bow for the run chase as well), but I don't think you can realistically argue that we would have been more likely to win had we played more seamers and fewer spinners. The seamers might have been more economical but they would never have been able to bowl Pakistan out. I know you think we would have won the series with Woakes in the team but really, it's a fiction. Woakes is worse than Wood and Wood performed above expectations. Anyway, wrong thread for all this.
sanskritsimon is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 20th November 2015, 11:15   #114
Chin Music
Administrator
 
Chin Music's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: la sala de opinion equivocada
Team(s): ****
Posts: 23,522
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanskritsimon View Post
I think that in terms of being able to bowl straight and pitch the ball properly, Tredwell would have been a better pick than any of the spinners we actually picked. But more generally, if one thinks of how we might have won that first match of the series, it's worth reflecting that one of the reasons why we apparently had a sniff of victory on the last day is because Pakistan were able to score their runs fairly fast in the first innings. If we had not gifted them so many runs with our execrable spin bowling -- by, for example, playing more seamers instead -- then not only would Pakistan have taken longer to get into a position where they felt the match was safe, but also we wouldn't have been able to bowl them out in the second innings. I wouldn't like to suggest that we might have been more likely to win had we played fewer seamers and more rubbish spinners (e.g. by dropping Wood for Patel, though that would have given us an extra arrow in our bow for the run chase as well), but I don't think you can realistically argue that we would have been more likely to win had we played more seamers and fewer spinners. The seamers might have been more economical but they would never have been able to bowl Pakistan out. I know you think we would have won the series with Woakes in the team but really, it's a fiction. Woakes is worse than Wood and Wood performed above expectations. Anyway, wrong thread for all this.
Reminds me of when England picked Shaun Udal for the 2005 tour to Pakistan. He had taken stacks of wickets in the county season that preceded that tour and deserved his call up. Despite bowling far less junk than either Ali or Rashid in that paticular series, the Pakistani batsman continually hit him out the ground ceding any control the England seamers had built up. Not really unlike this series, although the likes of Yousuf, Inzi and the younger Younus made that Pakistan batting lineup far stronger than this one.

The big problem is that whatever spinner that England picked for this tour, even good old Tredders whom I wouldn't have had a problem with them picking by the way, would have been unlikely to run through the Pakistan side and I could have easily seen Misbah and Younus launching him down town too frequently. The problem is that high class players of spin bowling tend to be rather destructive rather often against ordinary spin. let alone that a high class Indian batting lineup made a mess of Shane Warne rather regularly in their own spin friendly conditions.
__________________
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
Old 20th November 2015, 11:16   #115
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 Sir Virgs and Zamora View Post
Apart from him being the fastest English spinner to fifty wickets for decades. Other than that you are correct.
Is that in matches played or overs bowled?

Whichever, it takes no account of how the wickets were taken.
D/L is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th November 2015, 11:21   #116
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 Notts Exile View Post
Not really. He does actually take wickets.

You don't like England players who take wickets do you?
Of course I do, but are you able to take other things into consideration?
D/L is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th November 2015, 11:25   #117
Sir Virgs and Zamora
Posting God
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 18,359
Quote:
Originally Posted by D/L View Post
Is that in matches played or overs bowled?

Whichever, it takes no account of how the wickets were taken.
Strike rate I believe. I might be wrong.

He takes wickets. His problem is he bowls too many pies.
Sir Virgs and Zamora is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th November 2015, 12:05   #118
JRC67
International Material
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 1,128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Virgs and Zamora View Post
Strike rate I believe. I might be wrong.

He takes wickets. His problem is he bowls too many pies.
I thinks its both but I could be wrong. The bottom line in the test series Rashid only looks better on paper in terms of number of overs bowled. Rashid got fewer wickets at a higher average with a significantly worse strike rate. There is a significant anyone but Ali brigade but no alternative really looks any better. Maybe Rashid looked threatening on TV, but what I saw was a player who struggled to pitch successive balls on the same wicket and who leaked runs without the Pakistan top order even trying to take any risks against. I didn't watch the final day of the first test so being fair I missed his one positive performance.
JRC67 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th November 2015, 13:17   #119
sanskritsimon
Legendary
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Team(s): Arkholme Bees, Hackney Grasshoppers, Holy Cross Academicals
Posts: 9,611
One aspect of transition that seems definitely to have happened is that Cook's got his reputation back. He's leading by example with the bat now, and perhaps relatedly, his captaincy isn't coming in for too much criticism. He's said one or two daft things along the way, but in general, I'd say Cook's managed to ride out the transition from the team-with-KP to the team-without-KP fairly well. Indeed, one gets the feeling that this forum is now one of the only places still plagued by tiresome pro-KP carping on a fairly regular basis.
sanskritsimon is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 20th November 2015, 13:23   #120
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 sanskritsimon View Post
...Indeed, one gets the feeling that this forum is now one of the only places still plagued by tiresome pro-KP carping on a fairly regular basis.
In fairness, it's almost always in response to adoration.

It's time everyone was allowed to forget him, really.
D/L 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