Cricket-Match-Special ... A forum for discussion

No problem Stokes batting at six ...as long as (a) Bairstow bats seven with the gloves ..and (b)The top five bats are fit for purpose.
Getting the latter bit right seems to be the problem. Not helped by "wildcard" selections like Buttler at seven...

At least we see another (rather young) new man in Pope next up : let us hope he can put down a marker .

Arthur Crabtree wrote:Freddie batted at seven behind Stewart in his early years, and later on had Prior after him. In between, he actually averaged about 44. I think he would have been a number six, had he not been injured all the time and unable to spend time in the middle working on his batting.

Batted six for 66 innings, averaged 32. This is the most innings by position. It worked because, as you say, he had prior behind at times, but more importantly imo he had a stable and quality top 5 ahead of him.

He wouldn't work now. You cant have one exceptional player in the top 5 justifying his slot, the next best only really justifying it on relativity to others poor performance.

We need batting power. If that means sacrificing a bowler for a 4 man attack then do it. Stokes is fine in a team batting at 7 where a keeper is good enough like Gilchrist, or 8 when a keeper ain't the best. At 6 with a paper thin batting line up, it's quite frankly madness

alfie wrote:No problem Stokes batting at six ...as long as (a) Bairstow bats seven with the gloves ..and (b)The top five bats are fit for purpose.
Getting the latter bit right seems to be the problem. Not helped by "wildcard" selections like Buttler at seven...

At least we see another (rather young) new man in Pope next up : let us hope he can put down a marker .

Indeed. Pope seems like a good choice. They need to stick with him for 10 tests though and see if he improves

sussexpob wrote:

Arthur Crabtree wrote:Freddie batted at seven behind Stewart in his early years, and later on had Prior after him. In between, he actually averaged about 44. I think he would have been a number six, had he not been injured all the time and unable to spend time in the middle working on his batting.

Batted six for 66 innings, averaged 32. This is the most innings by position. It worked because, as you say, he had prior behind at times, but more importantly imo he had a stable and quality top 5 ahead of him.

He wouldn't work now. You cant have one exceptional player in the top 5 justifying his slot, the next best only really justifying it on relativity to others poor performance.

We need batting power.If that means sacrificing a bowler for a 4 man attack then do it.
Stokes is fine in a team batting at 7 where a keeper is good enough like Gilchrist, or 8 when a keeper ain't the best. At 6 with a paper thin batting line up, it's quite frankly madness

Sorry , just not possible. If Anderson and Broad were five/six years younger and you had a Graeme Swann to bowl spin ; then OK. But with the current makeup of the bowling attack five bowlers is essential unless you're playing on a total green top.

In any case as they can't even find enough bats for 1-5 the chances of improving the number six in the short term are pretty well lottery scale...

If England bat first, I wonder if Kohli will be tempted to give Ashwin a few overs with the new ball against Cook and Jennings?

KipperJohn wrote:If England bat first, I wonder if Kohli will be tempted to give Ashwin a few overs with the new ball against Cook and Jennings?

He did on Thursday evening.

KipperJohn wrote:If England bat first, I wonder if Kohli will be tempted to give Ashwin a few overs with the new ball against Cook and Jennings?

Indeed he'd be tempted ! Who would Cook least like to see bowling at him first up after that last match ? Suppose you'd still normally let your pace men have first go ; but he'd have to at least consider it.

alfie wrote:No problem Stokes batting at six ...as long as (a) Bairstow bats seven with the gloves ..and (b)The top five bats are fit for purpose.
Getting the latter bit right seems to be the problem. Not helped by "wildcard" selections like Buttler at seven...

At least we see another (rather young) new man in Pope next up : let us hope he can put down a marker .

With Anderson, Broad and a spinner, we do not have another bowler capable of holding together a 4-man attack: we need a 5th option.
You have to play a keeper: Bairstow (current incumbent, and batting well enough) is selected.
Five top-order slots remain, of which only Root (captain) and Cook (longevity) are assured: pick 3 more to fill slots 2, 3/4 & 5.

On recent form of all those previously selected, this combined quintet will not score the necessary runs to obtain a substantial team total.
So for the additional bowler required, is there someone available that might score some runs at the same time? If so, maybe an all-rounder will help...

Thus Stokes will play whenever available.

Good discussion here, will agree with most of what's been said about the batting line-up. The issue is that there are so many slots to fill (arguably the entire top 6 sans Root) that who knows where to begin?

I would argue that Stokes is a better bat than Flintoff, even if Stokes has had a pretty poor six months or so (and being so in-and-out of the side with injuries and self-inflicted issues, it's not surprising). Better average, more hundreds, more everything really. Flintoff had a golden period of a couple of years when he was genuinely a number 6, but even then he only just averaged over 40, and as has been pointed out, had five batsmen with a 40-45 average above him and the handy G Jones and Giles at 7 and 8 (think Strauss's average was closer to 50 than 40 in that period, as was Thorpe and then KP). The rest of the time Flintoff barely justified a number 7 batting position, let alone 6.

I think Stokes is a better batsman on career records so far, but one thing he certainly is is inconsistent. With as woeful a batting line-up as England has, you can't afford that at 6. 7 maybe.

Pope is batting at 4 it has been confirmed. Prefer him at 6.

Porter isn't going to play. Waiting on whether Mo or Woakes will slot in for Stokes.

Big call in picking a twenty year old with a handful of games and no Lions experience. A lot to ask of him.

Bumrah has been ruled out.

Play them both and 'rest' Rashid....

I'd ideally have Burns in for Buttler too, unless Butler takes the gloves and Bairstow moves up. Feel it is harsh on Pope to debut at 4. Few failures and you know everyone will be saying he's been thrown in too soon....

GG - Amir Sohail wrote:Play them both and 'rest' Rashid....

I'd ideally have Burns in for Buttler too, unless Butler takes the gloves and Bairstow moves up. Feel it is harsh on Pope to debut at 4. Few failures and you know everyone will be saying he's been thrown in too soon....

For me he needs to be given, at very least, the rest of this series plus both winter tours. And even then, there would need to be an outstanding candidate knocking in the door.

Cricinfo says that India have never kept the same side under Virat.

That's correct. That stat was released during India's tour of South Africa. Been totally a horses for courses selection policy by Virat. Most of those baffled many. With such tactics it is doubtful we will see any Indian superstar being developed under his captaincy.