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 June 2015, 10:16   #21
Jock McTuffnel v3
World Class
 
Jock McTuffnel v3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Cambridge
Team(s): England
Posts: 6,865
The test team is still reactive not proactive - expect the Ali experiment to be tested to destruction - probably the 4th test.
__________________
Jock McTuffnel v3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th June 2015, 10:45   #22
oldandfat
County Pro
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 839
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jock McTuffnel v3 View Post
The test team is still reactive not proactive - expect the Ali experiment to be tested to destruction - probably the 4th test.
I fear you might be right about Ali, but many of us thought the same before India.
oldandfat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th June 2015, 10:51   #23
D/L
Legendary
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Leeds
Team(s): Yorkshire CCC & England, Wakefield Trinity RLFC, Leeds Carnegie RUFC
Posts: 8,729
Quote:
Originally Posted by D/L View Post
England hat on, I'd go for Plunkett. Yorkshire hat on, I'd go for Wood.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanskritsimon View Post
I can't see the point of the Yorkshire hat unless you want to behave as if you think that certain players are much better than you actually know they are. Which would make you seem like a liar, really, wouldn't it? I think that post explains an awful lot of the garbage you've exposed us to. Really, I do wish you'd leave these forums forever.
I doubt anyone would miss the sanctimonious twaddle that is your stock in trade if you slung your hook.

When did you have the sense of humour bypass? It seems to have been very successful.
D/L is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th June 2015, 11:02   #24
Fatslogger
Self Confessed Mentalist
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hitchin
Team(s): England and Liverpool
Age: 42
Posts: 43,648
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanskritsimon View Post
I can't see the point of the Yorkshire hat unless you want to behave as if you think that certain players are much better than you actually know they are. Which would make you seem like a liar, really, wouldn't it? I think that post explains an awful lot of the garbage you've exposed us to. Really, I do wish you'd leave these forums forever.
Lol. Thing is, DL is always talking through his Yorkshire hat. What he means to say is that Plunkett is better than Wood so ought to play for England ahead of Wood but that it would be better for Yorkshire if he were available for them. This of course obfuscates the important but in DL's posts almost entirely unrecognised point that not all Yorshire players are automatically better than non Yorkshire players by dint of county affiliation.
__________________
Work is the curse of the drinking classes - Wilde
Fatslogger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th June 2015, 11:36   #25
D/L
Legendary
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Leeds
Team(s): Yorkshire CCC & England, Wakefield Trinity RLFC, Leeds Carnegie RUFC
Posts: 8,729
I'm sure even you, FS, would know a "tongue in cheek" comment when you see it.

Not so our humourless friend.

Plunkett is, of course, more than just "affiliated" to Yorkshire.
D/L is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th June 2015, 11:37   #26
1000yardstare
Posting Goddess
 
1000yardstare's Avatar
JA 851 Cummins 149 Wagner 147 TCurran 21 SCurran 15
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: London
Posts: 21,077
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fatslogger View Post
Lol. Thing is, DL is always talking through his Yorkshire hat. What he means to say is that Plunkett is better than Wood so ought to play for England ahead of Wood but that it would be better for Yorkshire if he were available for them. This of course obfuscates the important but in DL's posts almost entirely unrecognised point that not all Yorshire players are automatically better than non Yorkshire players by dint of county affiliation.
So if Plunkett was still at Durham would he be better than Wood?
1000yardstare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th June 2015, 11:43   #27
D/L
Legendary
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Leeds
Team(s): Yorkshire CCC & England, Wakefield Trinity RLFC, Leeds Carnegie RUFC
Posts: 8,729
We would have to go to the ICC cricket rankings regularly posted on here (for which, much thanks) to get the definitive and incontrovertible answer to that question.
D/L is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th June 2015, 11:45   #28
Fatslogger
Self Confessed Mentalist
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hitchin
Team(s): England and Liverpool
Age: 42
Posts: 43,648
Quote:
Originally Posted by D/L View Post
I'm sure even you, FS, would know a "tongue in cheek" comment when you see it.

Not so our humourless friend.
He's not humourless, he's just got too irritated with you to find you amusing and would probably dispute that you're funny in the first place. I'm starting to move the other way but try not to feel too encouraged. I'm also still not sure how much of this you actually believe.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1000yardstare View Post
So if Plunkett was still at Durham would he be better than Wood?
More questionable.
__________________
Work is the curse of the drinking classes - Wilde
Fatslogger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th June 2015, 11:48   #29
D/L
Legendary
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Leeds
Team(s): Yorkshire CCC & England, Wakefield Trinity RLFC, Leeds Carnegie RUFC
Posts: 8,729
You must be going on more than just the evidence here then.

I suppose, if one has no sense of humour, it may be difficult to notice one in others.
D/L is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th June 2015, 11:57   #30
Aidan11
Harmisonesque
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Somewhere cold and wet
Posts: 40,206
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1000yardstare View Post
So if Plunkett was still at Durham would he be better than Wood?
Only at drinking alcohol.
Aidan11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th June 2015, 12:05   #31
1000yardstare
Posting Goddess
 
1000yardstare's Avatar
JA 851 Cummins 149 Wagner 147 TCurran 21 SCurran 15
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: London
Posts: 21,077
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aidan11 View Post
Only at drinking alcohol.
Easy as Wood doesn't drink.
1000yardstare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th June 2015, 12:05   #32
Fatslogger
Self Confessed Mentalist
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hitchin
Team(s): England and Liverpool
Age: 42
Posts: 43,648
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aidan11 View Post
Only at drinking alcohol.
He might be better at driving fast too.
__________________
Work is the curse of the drinking classes - Wilde
Fatslogger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th June 2015, 12:46   #33
Aidan11
Harmisonesque
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Somewhere cold and wet
Posts: 40,206
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fatslogger View Post
He might be better at driving fast too.

Wood has more horse power though.
Aidan11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th June 2015, 13:45   #34
oldandfat
County Pro
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 839
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aidan11 View Post
Wood has more horse power though.
V. good
oldandfat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th June 2015, 19:54   #35
Ali TT
Posting God
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 19,355
So, those 4th and 5th bowlers then...
__________________
WARNING
Reading the above post may cause bouts of nausea.
Ali TT is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 26th June 2015, 22:30   #36
Fatslogger
Self Confessed Mentalist
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hitchin
Team(s): England and Liverpool
Age: 42
Posts: 43,648
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ali TT View Post
So, those 4th and 5th bowlers then...
It's obvious that England's attack will be as for last couple of tests, isn't it? Certainly can't see past Wood for third seamer and Ali has got to be ahead of Rashid still at this point. Both could change as the series goes on mind.

As for the Aussie attack, I'm trying not to think about it but current expert opinion has Johnson and Harris as fighting for one spot, so good are their pace stocks.
__________________
Work is the curse of the drinking classes - Wilde

Last edited by Fatslogger : 26th June 2015 at 22:43.
Fatslogger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th June 2015, 21:59   #37
square leg umpire
Legendary
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: yorkshire
Team(s): yorkshire
Posts: 8,726
Quote:
Originally Posted by D/L View Post
I doubt anyone would miss the sanctimonious twaddle that is your stock in trade if you slung your hook.

When did you have the sense of humour bypass? It seems to have been very successful.
Remember Plunkett was selected last year and he's going to that Spanish golfing thing so he's still on England's radar. Though he's probably fallen down the pecking order now.
square leg umpire is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 28th June 2015, 11:35   #38
D/L
Legendary
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Leeds
Team(s): Yorkshire CCC & England, Wakefield Trinity RLFC, Leeds Carnegie RUFC
Posts: 8,729
True and he's picked up injuries at crucial time too. Still a decent prospect though, I think.

He's one of the few we've got who can match the Aussies for pace and his batting can be defensive or belligerent for the needs of the situation.
D/L is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th July 2015, 08:40   #39
Rebelstar
International Material
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,797
Quote:
Originally Posted by D/L View Post
We would have to go to the ICC cricket rankings regularly posted on here (for which, much thanks) to get the definitive and incontrovertible answer to that question.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Jock McTuffnel v3 View Post
The test team is still reactive not proactive - expect the Ali experiment to be tested to destruction - probably the 4th test.
I tend to agree. I've said elsewhere I would not be at all surprised if England stick with the side that drew with the kiwis and the bulk (9) of whom drew in windies, neither of which series result is particularly good.

You could argue the Ali experiment worked, for one series vs India although I'll break that down as to how much of that was down to Ali and how much England would likely have won anyway.

On face value with Ali in the side England have a modest record of P11 W5 D2 L4 . I know some won't like this (tough), but aside from the India series which makes up ONLY 1/4 of series with him in the side England have lost 1 Test out of 2 and the series to Sri Lanka AT HOME, drawn 1-1 with a "mediocre" windies side and just lost to the kiwis to make it 1-1 in a home series here.

So in series terms it's P4 W1 D2 L1 including 3 series of which England won none but arguably should have won at least 2. So the India series, the one that had many and still quite a few believing Ali to be some kind of spinstar:

1st Test : 1/97 and 3/105 as India and England played out a draw with no score lower than 391/9d (to end the match)

2nd Test : England lost having been bowled out 2nd innings for 223, Ali making 32 and 39 with tidy bowling figures

3rd Test : England piled on 569/7d of which Ali made 12, Anderson's 5/53 set up a strong position and so Ali took 6/67 bowling last as India fell well short of the 445 target.

4th Test : India were skittled for 152 as Broad took 6/25, Ali scored just 13 but took 4/39 2nd innings as India failed to make England bat again.

5th Test : India were skittled for 148 this time, all 4 seamers taking a wicket while Ali bowled just one over. Ali continued his sequence by scoring just 14, and that over he bowled 1st innings was his only over.


Both his notable performances with the ball came from strong positions, and bowling last against an Indian side that did not bat well - as I recall a number of his wickets of the 6/67 and 4/39 were decent balls but played pretty poorly. But those two bowls were enough for some to believe he is good enough to lead our spin attack, I'd suggest the presence of Rashid in a home series suggests even the England selectors are doubting him.

As ever don't get me wrong, I wish Ali would get his batting together and so be the 5th bowler, but things don't look promising :

Ali (series by series batting and bowling)

vs SRL : 162 runs @ 54.00 & 3 wkts @ 60.33
vs IND : 124 runs @ 20.67 & 19 wkts @ 23.00
vs WIN : 66 runs @ 22.00 & 6 wkts @ 34.67
vs NZL : 104 runs @ 26.00 & 5 wkts @ 50.00

His one decent series batting average wise owed quite a bit to his 108no, batting #7 and he has batted there only twice. Without the not out he still managed 39.50 runs per innings, but 26.00 is his next best series average albeit in shorter series.

His bowling is very much skewed, more wickets in one series than the other 3 combined and to put into real context, in around 2/3 of the overs bowled. I'll ignore the Test mentioned above where he bowled just one over, he has taken one wicket most often when bowling (8 times in 19 innings) which makes it the mode average and indeed median, probably either is a fair average to use to eliminate skew in an early career.

His last 9 bowls have produced just 11 wkts @ 41.73, while he is tidy and would be a handy 5th bowler, to be that at the expense of a spinner in the current set up handicaps England somewhat. He is in danger of becoming wheelie bin mark II who could bat a bit and whose career average was 40.60, took a best of 5/57 and was economic so "kept an end tight" as many put it.

However, our best years have come since with Swann as spinner, I know he is an exception and not easily replaced, but a spinner who can not just keep it tidy but takes wickets is priceless and worked well without needing five bowler theory.

So in answer to who should be 4th and 5th, a spinner should really be 4th with Root backing him up IF Ali cannot be relied on to play as a batsman first and foremost, or 4 seamers with Ali/Root as the 5th.

However I would advocate putting out turning wickets and trying to negate their bowling strength. It may be better to 'gamble' on Rashid being Test quality than hoping Ali can repeat his trick against India. As I've said already, it is really a shame come annoying in fact that he can't get his batting up to a decent consistency (say around 35 average) so he can be included as something resembling a batting all-rounder.
Rebelstar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th July 2015, 11:19   #40
1000yardstare
Posting Goddess
 
1000yardstare's Avatar
JA 851 Cummins 149 Wagner 147 TCurran 21 SCurran 15
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: London
Posts: 21,077
a) he is a young, learning and improving spinner
b) he was injured and didn't have enough bowling under his belt in the West Indies and shouldn't have been called up
c) he had quite a few catches dropped off his bowling
d) low on confidence because of his results
e) needs to be told to just bowl the same as he did against India
1000yardstare 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 10:11.



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