Kim wrote:Maybe. Might depend on whether they take a second spinner or not. I suppose they will though the options resemble West Hams up front with Carroll injured - grim to ghastly.
They'll take Monty, there isn't much else they can do.
Kim wrote:Maybe. Might depend on whether they take a second spinner or not. I suppose they will though the options resemble West Hams up front with Carroll injured - grim to ghastly.
hopeforthebest wrote:The way Watson, Clarke and Bailey played in ODI series I think any spinner would have received the same treatment as Tredwell so I still feel he has a strong chance. Of course going only with Swann and having back up in the performance squad is also possible. I have the feeling that they still believe Root can bowl at test level and we shall see that tested in the warm up games to relieve Swann of the full burden.
Kim wrote:hopeforthebest wrote:The way Watson, Clarke and Bailey played in ODI series I think any spinner would have received the same treatment as Tredwell so I still feel he has a strong chance. Of course going only with Swann and having back up in the performance squad is also possible. I have the feeling that they still believe Root can bowl at test level and we shall see that tested in the warm up games to relieve Swann of the full burden.
I hope not.
Alviro Patterson wrote:shankycricket wrote:
Regarding Woakes vs Stokes, I'd like to find space for both in the squad but they won't take 18, so maybe take Woakes ahead of Taylor/Ballance as the backup batter. I don't think it'd be a terrible move. If I have to pick one, I'll go with Stokes as I believe as he is a better bowler (or to put it in another way, at least more likely to pick wickets at Test level). Woakes IMO is the better batsman, techincally and I think he has the potential to score Test hundreds. Quite ironic as they are supposed to be exactly the opposite at county level but from whatever I've seen of them, I think England are right in their assessment of Stokes as a bowling allrounder and Woakes as a batting allrounder. I'd pick both in the squad but if it comes down to only one of them, I think I'll plump for Stokes, being the better bowler IMO.
Stokes has had the benefit of bowling on a bowler friendly surface at Chester-Le-Street, such wickets don't really exist in Australia.
shankycricket wrote:Alviro Patterson wrote:shankycricket wrote:
Regarding Woakes vs Stokes, I'd like to find space for both in the squad but they won't take 18, so maybe take Woakes ahead of Taylor/Ballance as the backup batter. I don't think it'd be a terrible move. If I have to pick one, I'll go with Stokes as I believe as he is a better bowler (or to put it in another way, at least more likely to pick wickets at Test level). Woakes IMO is the better batsman, techincally and I think he has the potential to score Test hundreds. Quite ironic as they are supposed to be exactly the opposite at county level but from whatever I've seen of them, I think England are right in their assessment of Stokes as a bowling allrounder and Woakes as a batting allrounder. I'd pick both in the squad but if it comes down to only one of them, I think I'll plump for Stokes, being the better bowler IMO.
Stokes has had the benefit of bowling on a bowler friendly surface at Chester-Le-Street, such wickets don't really exist in Australia.
I'm not going by their county stats, just based on what I've seen of them at international level and I think you're incorrect in your assessment about the Australian pitches. Just look at some of the scores in the Shield.
shankycricket wrote:greyblazer wrote:Broad, Anderson, Rankin, Finn, Tremlett and Onions.
Bresnan, not even in the squad? He did enough in the 3 Tests he played in the home Ashes to at least be in the squad. I'm no fan but your hatred is reaching personal levels now especially when you pick Tremlett who has had a terrible county season.
greyblazer wrote:shankycricket wrote:greyblazer wrote:Broad, Anderson, Rankin, Finn, Tremlett and Onions.
Bresnan, not even in the squad? He did enough in the 3 Tests he played in the home Ashes to at least be in the squad. I'm no fan but your hatred is reaching personal levels now especially when you pick Tremlett who has had a terrible county season.
If I start hating those who I have never met then that day I have to call myself as mad haha. Well I have my reasons especially in a 4-man attack. Yes as I have always liked Tremlett I frankly accept that may have influenced me to plump for him. I have never been someone who keeps talking about this tall bowlers rubbish but I rate those who can get awkward bounce from even a goodish length. Of course I haven't seen too much of Tremlett in recent times and maybe he has lost a yard of pace.
Making_Splinters wrote:Well England are going to play four bowlers, three of whom are automatic picks. Bresnan's injury has made things a little complex but they'll probably take him in the hope he can prove his fitness between now and the first test. The two back up pace bowlers for me have to be Onions and Rankin.
0nions is the best domestic bowler in the country and Rankin looked the real deal when he stepped up to the ODI team. Anyone suggesting Tremmlet hasn't seen much county cricket, he's likely to be axed by Surrey!
Neither Woakes nor Stokes is as good as Onions or Rankin, we're playing seven batters so their batting is irrelevant unless we're suddenly going to play five bowlers.
alfie wrote:shankycricket wrote:Alviro Patterson wrote:shankycricket wrote:
Regarding Woakes vs Stokes, I'd like to find space for both in the squad but they won't take 18, so maybe take Woakes ahead of Taylor/Ballance as the backup batter. I don't think it'd be a terrible move. If I have to pick one, I'll go with Stokes as I believe as he is a better bowler (or to put it in another way, at least more likely to pick wickets at Test level). Woakes IMO is the better batsman, techincally and I think he has the potential to score Test hundreds. Quite ironic as they are supposed to be exactly the opposite at county level but from whatever I've seen of them, I think England are right in their assessment of Stokes as a bowling allrounder and Woakes as a batting allrounder. I'd pick both in the squad but if it comes down to only one of them, I think I'll plump for Stokes, being the better bowler IMO.
Stokes has had the benefit of bowling on a bowler friendly surface at Chester-Le-Street, such wickets don't really exist in Australia.
I'm not going by their county stats, just based on what I've seen of them at international level and I think you're incorrect in your assessment about the Australian pitches. Just look at some of the scores in the Shield.
For what it's worth , I reckon Stokes would actually be quite suited to Australian pitches. Not suggesting he be thrown into the Test team this time round - his batting doesn't look up to number six/seven , and if he were part of a four man attack England might be struggling ! But , if the worst were to happen with Bresnan , he might be the best "spare" to have on hand. I like Woakes as a batsman , on what I have seen. But I doubt he is in the best six bats in England , and I suspect he would not prosper here with the ball unless we have an unusually wet summer.
If all are fit , England will go Anderson Broad Bresnan , and two of Finn Tremlett Rankin will be backup. Onions hovering on the fringe of selection. So I don't expect either man on the trip. But if Bresnan were ruled out , I would be tempted to take Stokes.
We will all know soon enough.
Return to Cricket Opinion Polls
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 29 guests