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

Kim wrote:Rankin will go, Id bet anything.

And Morgan (I've convinced myself that this is a horrific possibility)

Id guess the squad will be one bigger than expected cos of Bresnan.

I won't take Morgan but your resentment towards him whilst supporting Bairstow comes across as hypocritical. Morgan has played 4 more Tests than JB, at a slightly better average and has a couple of hundreds unlike Bairstow. Plus has a decent ODI record. Not saying I'd take him of course. It'd a be a joke but not as bad as if Bairstow is picked.

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.

The Tremlett I saw today - in an abolsutely crucial match - really cant go to the ashes. The pace has gone - really gone.

The experts pretty much unanimously said the selectors were idiots for not picking him for the Oval Test though...

Arthur Crabtree wrote:The experts pretty much unanimously said the selectors were idiots for not picking him for the Oval Test though...

Well there you go. Second new ball, relegation on the line - and no threat at all. TBF Woakes batted beautifully - he really climbed into Meaker with the new ball towards the end - But Tremlett looked floaty. But hes got a new one year contract so his day wasn't totally wasted.

If we're the selectors, he's not going. And neither is Rankin, unless Bresnan doesn't make it.

Rankin will go, Id bet anything.

And Morgan (I've convinced myself that this is a horrific possibility)

Id guess the squad will be one bigger than expected cos of Bresnan.

Morgan hasn't got a vote yet.

Is Woakes going?

Shanky's got a point, I don't rate Bairstow, but I picked him, as back up to Prior, not as a number six, but on the assumption he would be cover for the number 6 spot. Which doesn't really make sense. I'm just going along with the fact the selectors think a lot of him.

Maybe take Woakes as backup batter cum allrounder if Taylor isn't convincing enough. I have Compton opening with Root at 6 in my first choice XI. Wishful thinking, I know.

I think at least one of Woakes or Stokes has to be in the squad to give that allrounder option. I won't start with 5 bowlers but if Swann gets injured and they have to play Monty/Tredwell/Kerrigan as the spinner, doing so in a 4 man attack is fraught with danger IMO. 5 bowlers (i.e. 4 seamers and 1 spinner) would be the better option in that case. The other left field choice (which obviously won't happen and probably quite rightly so) would be to take a spinning allrounder (Rashid or Borthwick) as cover for Swann and play him alongside 4 specialist spinners if Swann is injured. Won't happen of course and rightly so. The former sounds a better plan IMO.

Even if Swann plays, 5 bowlers is still of course worth considering on surfaces such as Adelaide.

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.

Providing Bresnan is still injured, I quite fancy Chris Jordan getting the nod and even possibly making the staring XI. 52 wickets in 13 matches, plying his trade a flat track Hove and the ability to hold a bat will give him the advantage over the likes of Rankin and possibly Stokes.

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.

Arthur Crabtree wrote:Morgan hasn't got a vote yet.

Is Woakes going?

Shanky's got a point, I don't rate Bairstow, but I picked him, as back up to Prior, not as a number six, but on the assumption he would be cover for the number 6 spot. Which doesn't really make sense. I'm just going along with the fact the selectors think a lot of him.

Difficult one. He looked a real test batsman yesterday - especially the way he smashed Meaker with the new ball. Maybe neither him or Stokes go as neither quite - yet- offer real cover for batting or bowling?
Niether ready to be the third seamer in a 4 man attack or test number 6?

Kim wrote:

Arthur Crabtree wrote:Morgan hasn't got a vote yet.

Is Woakes going?

Shanky's got a point, I don't rate Bairstow, but I picked him, as back up to Prior, not as a number six, but on the assumption he would be cover for the number 6 spot. Which doesn't really make sense. I'm just going along with the fact the selectors think a lot of him.

Difficult one. He looked a real test batsman yesterday - especially the way he smashed Meaker with the new ball. Maybe neither him or Stokes go as neither quite - yet- offer real cover for batting or bowling?
Niether ready to be the third seamer in a 4 man attack or test number 6?

I think there's a good chance that Either Stokes or Woakes will go especially in a 17 man squad. The inclusion of Woakes at the Oval test suggests that Flower is interested in seeking an allrounder as an option.

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.

Stokes looks an interesting bowler, but a bit raw as a bat. Woakes looks a very capable batter, and his record suggests he can bowl, and he's put on useful pace. Difficult to judge him on the flat deck at the Oval. I hope he goes and plays, as (sorry to say this again...) I think we need quality support for our attack more than we need a specialist at six. Especially with Prior at seven. If we struggle with runs in Australia, it won't because he don't have Taylor, or Bairstow or Bopara as a seventh bat.