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 21st February 2020, 18:32   #381
Chin Music
Administrator
 
Chin Music's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: la sala de opinion equivocada
Team(s): ****
Posts: 25,940
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReyaJp View Post
Although Broad, Anderson and Swann didn't have a consistent support from one particular bowler they always had good support.

Bresnan, Tremlett, Onions, Finn, Sidebottom, Monty all did a decent job before being discarded.
All of those bowlers had their ups and downs. Bresnan I discussed before, Tremlett very gifted but made of balsa, Onions a very decent seamer but rather injury prone too. Finn the most talented and quick of the lot but lost his action and run up and never the same again from 2013 onwards. Sidebottom a swinging conditions man only and Monty to only play in more 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 online now   Reply With Quote
Old 21st February 2020, 18:53   #382
sanskritsimon
Posting God
 
sanskritsimon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Team(s): Arkholme Bees, Hackney Grasshoppers, Holy Cross Academicals
Posts: 11,846
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ali TT View Post
I don't remember that about Onions. Given two of the others rotated in and out at the time were Finn and Tremlett, both moderate batters, it suggests you are pulling that statement from thin air to justify your argument ...
Don't be cheeky. It doesn't suggest anything of the kind. It merely suggests that your memory / interpretation of selections differs from mine. Which is hardly surprising and wholly unremarkable. The test batting of Onions, Finn and Tremlett is as per the data.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sharky View Post
In which case I struggle to see where you are fitting him into your team?
I'm sorry if I haven't expressed myself clearly but I would not drop Stokes. I think he has (been somewhat deliberately) developed into a top six batsman, and he's very good at it now, so I'd let him carry on doing that job.
sanskritsimon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st February 2020, 19:46   #383
sharky
Posting God
 
sharky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Sunny Sussex
Team(s): Sussex, England
Posts: 12,013
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanskritsimon View Post
Don't be cheeky. It doesn't suggest anything of the kind. It merely suggests that your memory / interpretation of selections differs from mine. Which is hardly surprising and wholly unremarkable. The test batting of Onions, Finn and Tremlett is as per the data.

I'm sorry if I haven't expressed myself clearly but I would not drop Stokes. I think he has (been somewhat deliberately) developed into a top six batsman, and he's very good at it now, so I'd let him carry on doing that job.
And play 5 bowlers? Sorry to keep bringing it up but I always think having a set notion of how a team should be made up is a mistake because at different times the talent pool you have has different amounts of depth in different positions. You have to make the best out of the resources you have available at that time.
__________________
She was like a candle in the wind...Unreliable
sharky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st February 2020, 20:46   #384
Ali TT
Posting God
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 23,469
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanskritsimon View Post
Don't be cheeky. It doesn't suggest anything of the kind. It merely suggests that your memory / interpretation of selections differs from mine. Which is hardly surprising and wholly unremarkable. The test batting of Onions, Finn and Tremlett is as per the data.

I'm sorry if I haven't expressed myself clearly but I would not drop Stokes. I think he has (been somewhat deliberately) developed into a top six batsman, and he's very good at it now, so I'd let him carry on doing that job.
I don't care if you find it cheeky or not, but the suggestion that Onions's career was curtailed due to his lack of batting ability is simply false. Firstly, he suffered serious injuries that kept him out of cricket for some time. Eventually, once fit again he was finally snubbed in favour of Finn, Tremlett and Rankin for the 2013/14 Ashes tour. The common feature of those three is not any batting ability, but their considerably greater height which Flower mistakenly thought could win England that tour (Onions was told as much by Flower). He was also seen as being too similar to Anderson, so wouldn't provide enough variability in the attack.
__________________
WARNING
Reading the above post may cause bouts of nausea.
Ali TT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd February 2020, 01:23   #385
sanskritsimon
Posting God
 
sanskritsimon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Team(s): Arkholme Bees, Hackney Grasshoppers, Holy Cross Academicals
Posts: 11,846
Quote:
Originally Posted by sharky View Post
And play 5 bowlers? Sorry to keep bringing it up but I always think having a set notion of how a team should be made up is a mistake because at different times the talent pool you have has different amounts of depth in different positions. You have to make the best out of the resources you have available at that time.
You do. I am glad to play five bowlers, because that's what England were doing anyway with four plus Trott or Colly or KP or whoever, and because that's what any team always does anyway. It's just a question of how much better that fill-in fifth bowler is. It's hardly ever going to be the case that no one in the top six can bowl some overs.

As for resources available I think that is alot to do with what the England honchos think they are looking for at the time. For a while they were looking for flashy top-order batsman, and they made that look like it was to do with the failure of more reliable top-order batsmen but it wasn't, because as soon as they started looking for them they were there.

I think if we start to look for bowlers who can be one of four they will be there. And I think that was the case in the past even when they didn't think they were there so they didn't look for them. And then retrospectively the story can be that they weren't there, just as the story at the time was that they weren't there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ali TT View Post
I don't care if you find it cheeky or not, but the suggestion that Onions's career was curtailed due to his lack of batting ability is simply false. Firstly, he suffered serious injuries that kept him out of cricket for some time. Eventually, once fit again he was finally snubbed in favour of Finn, Tremlett and Rankin for the 2013/14 Ashes tour. The common feature of those three is not any batting ability, but their considerably greater height which Flower mistakenly thought could win England that tour (Onions was told as much by Flower). He was also seen as being too similar to Anderson, so wouldn't provide enough variability in the attack.
Didn't Flower say at some point that he wanted more runs from his third seamer? It is true, as you say, that Onions's test career was not curtailed due to his lack of batting ability. His batting ability is probably what he is most remembered for as an England player, whilst on tour to South Africa.
sanskritsimon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 14:17   #386
1000yardstare
Posting Goddess
 
1000yardstare's Avatar
JA 876 Bumrah 216 Cummins 267 TCurran 45 SCurran 43
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: London
Posts: 22,431
ECB
England all-rounder Ben Stokes will miss the remainder of the #raisethebat Test series against Pakistan for family reasons.

Stokes will leave the UK later this week and travel to New Zealand. He will miss England's two Test matches against Pakistan at the Ageas Bowl starting on Thursday 13 August and Friday 21 August.

The England and Wales Cricket Board, along with the Stokes family, requests that all media respects the family's privacy at this time.

?
1 Burns
2 Sibley
3 Crawley
4 Root
5 Lawrence
6 Buttler
7 Woakes
8 Curran
9 Bess
10 Broad
11 Wood

Last edited by 1000yardstare : Yesterday at 14:34.
1000yardstare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 14:46   #387
PavlovsDog
Club Cricketer
 
PavlovsDog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1000yardstare View Post
ECB
England all-rounder Ben Stokes will miss the remainder of the #raisethebat Test series against Pakistan for family reasons.

Stokes will leave the UK later this week and travel to New Zealand. He will miss England's two Test matches against Pakistan at the Ageas Bowl starting on Thursday 13 August and Friday 21 August.

The England and Wales Cricket Board, along with the Stokes family, requests that all media respects the family's privacy at this time.

?
1 Burns
2 Sibley
3 Crawley
4 Root
5 Lawrence
6 Buttler
7 Woakes
8 Curran
9 Bess
10 Broad
11 Wood
And why are we dropping Pope exactly?
PavlovsDog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 16:29   #388
Steveh
County Pro
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 684
Quote:
Originally Posted by PavlovsDog View Post
And why are we dropping Pope exactly?
We are not (really). Bringing back Crawley seems likely, resting Anderson almost inevitable. Archer hasn't done much wrong, nor bowled excessively, but rotation seems to be de rigueur, so he may make way for Wood and his extra mph.
Steveh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 23:18   #389
1000yardstare
Posting Goddess
 
1000yardstare's Avatar
JA 876 Bumrah 216 Cummins 267 TCurran 45 SCurran 43
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: London
Posts: 22,431
Quote:
Originally Posted by PavlovsDog View Post
And why are we dropping Pope exactly?
Because I am an idiot. Forgot all about him.
1000yardstare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Today, 00:21   #390
AJ101
International Cricketer
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 2,882
Hope his family is ok.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1000yardstare View Post
Because I am an idiot. Forgot all about him.
Stick Pope in for Lawrence and I think that's the team we'll play, although Wood could just as easily be Archer or Jimmy.
AJ101 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Today, 03:38   #391
luckyluke
Established International
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steveh View Post
We are not (really). Bringing back Crawley seems likely, resting Anderson almost inevitable. Archer hasn't done much wrong, nor bowled excessively, but rotation seems to be de rigueur, so he may make way for Wood and his extra mph.
Itís interesting you say that because not long ago we there was talk of the two of them having competitions as to who bowled the quickest, but archer seems to have slowed a bit
__________________
Most heartless decision:

In a women's league match in Denmark, a heavily pregnant woman arrived at the crease, and asked for a runner. Her request was denied, on the grounds that her incapacity had not occured during the course of the match.
luckyluke 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 06:45.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© Cricket247.org