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 > International Cricket
Register FAQDonate Members List Calendar Casino Articles Terms of Use Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 31st July 2018, 10:01   #241
JRC67
International Material
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 1,552
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanskritsimon View Post
I suspect Stokes is a better first change bowler than either of them at present.
The problem is he's to valuable as a batsman to bowl a full quota as a bowler. Porter probably is the better bowler but Curran offers a bit of variety to Stokes, Broad, Anderson. Neither is ever going to be really quick.
JRC67 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31st July 2018, 10:28   #242
sanskritsimon
Posting God
 
sanskritsimon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Team(s): Arkholme Bees, Hackney Grasshoppers, Holy Cross Academicals
Posts: 10,577
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRC67 View Post
The problem is he's too valuable as a batsman to bowl a full quota as a bowler. ...
If Stokes is "too valuable as a batsman" then I suppose one reason for this would be that we've hardly picked any batsmen! As long as he's somewhere in the team Stokes will bat anyway, so if he's our best third seamer he should play as such. The bowling would be better because we wouldn't have a fourth seamer bowling overs that would otherwise be bowled by a better bowler, and the batting would be better because we'd have an extra batsman.
sanskritsimon is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 31st July 2018, 11:36   #243
Sir Virgs and Zamora
Posting God
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,389
What have stokes' bowling returns been the last couple of years? I have not checked but it seems to me he has gone backwards a bit.
Sir Virgs and Zamora is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 31st July 2018, 12:15   #244
1000yardstare
Posting Goddess
 
1000yardstare's Avatar
JA 830 Cummins 149 Wagner 147 TCurran 21 SCurran 9
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: London
Posts: 20,853
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Virgs and Zamora View Post
What have stokes' bowling returns been the last couple of years? I have not checked but it seems to me he has gone backwards a bit.
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/eng...s;type=bowling

Not bad. We can consider him as our 3rd seamer rather that 4th. No others keep the 3rd seamer spot. 8 have tried. Hopefully Curran can make it his own.
1000yardstare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31st July 2018, 16:31   #245
JRC67
International Material
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 1,552
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1000yardstare View Post
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/eng...s;type=bowling

Not bad. We can consider him as our 3rd seamer rather that 4th. No others keep the 3rd seamer spot. 8 have tried. Hopefully Curran can make it his own.
I think part of the point with the stats is he only averaging 20 overs per match as opposed to say Anderson at 35. I'm not sure his body would take a full quota of 30 plus overs.
JRC67 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31st July 2018, 16:38   #246
JRC67
International Material
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 1,552
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanskritsimon View Post
If Stokes is "too valuable as a batsman" then I suppose one reason for this would be that we've hardly picked any batsmen! As long as he's somewhere in the team Stokes will bat anyway, so if he's our best third seamer he should play as such. The bowling would be better because we wouldn't have a fourth seamer bowling overs that would otherwise be bowled by a better bowler, and the batting would be better because we'd have an extra batsman.
If Stokes was bowling 30 plus overs a match he'd be missing even more games through injury. They're managing his workload because there aren't 6 better batsmen currently available.
JRC67 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31st July 2018, 16:53   #247
1000yardstare
Posting Goddess
 
1000yardstare's Avatar
JA 830 Cummins 149 Wagner 147 TCurran 21 SCurran 9
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: London
Posts: 20,853
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRC67 View Post
I think part of the point with the stats is he only averaging 20 overs per match as opposed to say Anderson at 35. I'm not sure his body would take a full quota of 30 plus overs.
I have no worries. At Durham he has sometimes bowled 17 over stints. He just doesn't seem to get tired. In a quarter of his Tests he has bowled more than 30 overs. The most being 52.0.
1000yardstare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31st July 2018, 17:50   #248
AJ101
International Material
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 1,569
To me Stokes isn't that effective when the ball isn't reversing at all so he tends to get used in short bursts if it's not.
AJ101 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31st July 2018, 18:52   #249
sanskritsimon
Posting God
 
sanskritsimon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Team(s): Arkholme Bees, Hackney Grasshoppers, Holy Cross Academicals
Posts: 10,577
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRC67 View Post
If Stokes was bowling 30 plus overs a match he'd be missing even more games through injury. They're managing his workload because there aren't 6 better batsmen currently available.
I think you're guessing about his body. They're currently managing his workload (i.e., bowling him relatively sparingly) on the basis that he's picked as a batsman -- it's true that there aren't six better batsmen currently available -- but in my view it would be better for the team if they were to manage his workload (i.e., drop him down the order) on the basis that he's picked as a bowler because there aren't four better bowlers currently available. There's no substitute for having the best bowling attack you can have, and as stated previously, Stokes is going to bat anyway. The way I see it, as soon as we find a reliable spin bowler, picking just four bowlers with Stokes as the third seamer is a no-brainer. It would also make picking a second spinner more possible. At present Stokes's role as half a seam bowler means the extra bowling spot always goes to a seamer who must fill in overs for him, and so we can't pick a second spinner unless we play six bowlers or only two-and-a-half seamers.
sanskritsimon is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 31st July 2018, 22:08   #250
JRC67
International Material
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 1,552
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanskritsimon View Post
I think you're guessing about his body. They're currently managing his workload (i.e., bowling him relatively sparingly) on the basis that he's picked as a batsman -- it's true that there aren't six better batsmen currently available -- but in my view it would be better for the team if they were to manage his workload (i.e., drop him down the order) on the basis that he's picked as a bowler because there aren't four better bowlers currently available. There's no substitute for having the best bowling attack you can have, and as stated previously, Stokes is going to bat anyway. The way I see it, as soon as we find a reliable spin bowler, picking just four bowlers with Stokes as the third seamer is a no-brainer. It would also make picking a second spinner more possible. At present Stokes's role as half a seam bowler means the extra bowling spot always goes to a seamer who must fill in overs for him, and so we can't pick a second spinner unless we play six bowlers or only two-and-a-half seamers.
Only guessing to the extent that England's management and Stokes have talked about needing to manage his workload due to an intermittent problem with his left knee since 2016. He's got quite a heavy delivery action similar to Flintoff who also had the same problem. Managing it clearly does cause a problem with the make up of the bowling attack.
JRC67 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 21:39.



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