Ben Stokes

[Arthur Crabtree]

Wasn't Stokes top wicket taker in the first two tests against India? Then he was dropped. England have been uncertain about what to do with him.

[sussexpob]

I wonder what the 2005 team would have been like on county stats? Maybe only Hoggy would have been selected on those terms.

Strauss averaged 44, 48, 50 and 50 in FC before his test call up.

Trescothick was a bit of a punt, but had just performed very well in an ODI series (when his pick made more sense, as his ODI record was much better).... he still averaged 43 that year in FC cricket, considering England were desperate for an opener at the time, and with Atherton set to retire, they needed two... that was enough. He averaged just under 40 the year before.

Ian Bell averaged 64 in his first FC year, and averaged nearly 70 in the year he was picked

Michael Vaughan.... punt, never had a FC record, ill give you that.

Ashley Giles.... clear standout spinner in FC cricket, averaged well under 30 for Warwickshire

Kevin Pietesen... played 4 seasons before a test cap, worst season was 51 average.... had just hit 3 ODI centuries in his debut series....

Geraint Jones.... First full season he averaged 44 and was test capped after with England in desperate need of a batting keeper having seen Read and Foster fail.

Paul Collingwood.... Averaged 50 in both 2001 and 2002 before capped in 2003..... was dropped, came back after scoring 6 x 100's in 2005 county year.

[Dr Cricket]

Wasn't Stokes top wicket taker in the first two tests against India? Then he was dropped. England have been uncertain about what to do with him.

his bowling was quite good in Australia/india series and then got dropped for bad batting when he was batting at 8 which is was stupid and odd.

Stokes is so raw that he isn't a proper batsman or proper bowler yet but got the potential to be a very good all rounder for england.

Just put it this way All rounder is probably the hardest thing to master especially being a proper proper all rounder like Stokes could be.

The only issue with Stokes is that he need to improve his bowling and at the same time improve his batting and he kind of struggling to do that with England at the moment.
At times he been good with the bat but then poor with the ball and other times good with the ball and bad with the bat.
But he got some serious potential and talent.

They are other all rounders where they are primary batsman and can bowl a few overs, or bowlers that can bat well at 8 or 9.

Stokes is probably the only all rounder in recent times since maybe Flintoff that has genuinely been picked in International cricket when he hasn't yet fully learned how to be a top bowler or batsman.

Kallis was a Top class batsman so he was never really under pressure for his bowling same with Watson.
Ashwin and many of the bowling all rounders were essentially picked for their bowling and batting was a bonus.

England and fans need to be patient with Stokes he really got a potential to be a good all rounder for england.

[Dr Cricket]

Sussex I really wanna know apart from Stokes which other player in the Current England team/possible team you think isn't really got the first class stats to play Test cricket.

I really can't think of any player that doesn't really deserve a place.
Stokes is a bit of a hunch but most proper all rounders are a hunch since they really being picked to balance the squad/team and it is impossible to find one player that will be in the top 7 batsman/top 4 bowlers in the country at the same time.
Which is why most of the time All rounders get fast tracked they would get picked if they are around the top 10 batsman or top 10 bowlers in the country.

[SaintPowelly]

The reality is many people with Good stats on County Cricket just won't do well in International cricket.

Selectors get paid to find Cricketers they feel would do well in International cricket.

And thats why England aren't winning test series

[Dr Cricket]

The reality is many people with Good stats on County Cricket just won't do well in International cricket.

Selectors get paid to find Cricketers they feel would do well in International cricket.

And thats why England aren't winning test series

TBH england are losing test series because England are not that good and the senior players are not performing.

Ballance, Root and most of the new Selector panel are picking are doing well for england it mostly been the guaranteed England players failing.

Bowling is probably the only place where the Selectors are going wrong but then I am not sure their many bowlers in County cricket that could improve it.
Not sure why Jordan being picked though, he probably the only person that I can think of that doesn't deserve a spot in team or squad.

[sussexpob]

Sussex I really wanna know apart from Stokes which other player in the Current England team/possible team you think isn't really got the first class stats to play Test cricket.

I really can't think of any player that doesn't really deserve a place

Is Mo Ali is the best spinner in England? Is Stokes the 6th best batsman? Is Buttler the best keeper, in terms of glovework or runs ( he gave 26 byes away in the England innings, which is shocking)..... was Steve Borthwick a test match spinner? Was Chris Jordan, who has been far from test quality until he had one year for us, anywhere near test quality?

Morgan
Tredwell
Ansari
Dernbach
Gurney
Bresnan
Samit Patel ( who they picked in Asia as basically a front line spinner)
Amjad Khan
Darren Pattinson
Tim Ambrose
Meaker

Those are names of the top of my head that were capped under Flower or since that made no sense

[Dr Cricket]

Ansari a bit harsh since he only played one game against Ireland.
Morgan was hyped up by supposedly being a great player of Spin yet can't pick it to save his life and was good in ODI so probably why he got picked for Test but he did get dropped quite easily afterwards from test.
Bresnan is being harsh since he did do well for england in 2010-11 period played far too many games after that.
Agree with rest of those other players though but mostly were picked for ODI and lets be honest england management have shown clear sign that they don't really know much about ODI or planned properly for those sometimes it really feels like they picking random players for the ODI.

Keepers have stopped being picked on keeping now all are being picked on batting and they just have to be decent with the gloves, the hype and praise of buttler keeping in this test is been annoying and I heard some people saying Sky are been told to be positive and say nice things about england, I really hope that is not true.
Buttler keeping been awful in the past two test yes he took 2 good catches but he missing Stumping and glove work is shoddy most of the time.
Although saying that not sure if their any keeper better than him at the moment as a package.
Bairstow not really a great keeper and his batting is not at the same level as buttler.


Mo ali along with Stokes got picked as an all rounder and you really can't judge them as batsman or bowling selection, they essentially got picked since the selectors see them being in the top 10-15 players in both displines and with Ali he clearly in the top 3-4 spinners in the country and his batting basically made him jump the other spinners ahead of him.

[sussexpob]

We arent debating how well they have done, we are talking about players who's performance in county cricket wasnt not relatively successful when picked, or being asked to do things that they are not accustomed to.

Bairstow, for instance, wasnt a keeper and should never have been picked as so.
Mo Ali is a number 3 batter and part time spinner... putting him at 8 and asking him to bowl all innings is not a long term plan that will work
Stokes has never proved he is a top 6 bat, so if he is an allrounder in the team, he should be at 7 or 8.
Ansari's record is hardly worthy of ODI treatment
Morgan's record in FC was terrible when he got a test cap, Bresnan wasnt awful but he wasnt a great standout.

[sussexpob]

Stokes is a bit of a hunch but most proper all rounders are a hunch since they really being picked to balance the squad/team and it is impossible to find one player that will be in the top 7 batsman/top 4 bowlers in the country at the same time.
Which is why most of the time All rounders get fast tracked they would get picked if they are around the top 10 batsman or top 10 bowlers in the country.

Also, I am not saying I wouldnt have picked Stokes, I would have. His record with ball and bat deserved a chance. Its the role at which he is being asked to play (number 6) and the fact that his bowling has proved to be very poor so far.

If England cant use him as a proper all rounder, then the last thing they should do is pretend he is a top 6 batsman. For me his bowling is so poor, he cant be picked in the team unless he is a full time bat..... despite today and this test, his career at all levels suggest his batting is not good enough, and with time I expect that to be proven.

Another important issue here is improvement by asking people to do more..... Bairstow is a good example. If you keep getting out through the gate bowled or playing across the ball, you should be in a net practicing how to bat, not being asked to learn to be a test keeper. Its totally unfair, and at the moment Stokes should be being told to improve his bowling. He can survive in this team averaging 25-30 with the bat if he can get his bowling to 30-35...... he cant survive batting at 6 averaging under 40 and bowling at 35-40

[Dr Cricket]

ah ok yeah agree with most of that.
Hopefully Strauss looks at it since most have been saying the communication of what England wants and what counties are doing have been causing lots of issues with Selection lately and in the past.
Strauss said he looking at it but won't make any changes yet although I hope he not waiting for result and then if the results are good he sticks with the current status.

apparently Gillespie wants to be a selector and have more of a say in what players get picked for England and so Wood/Rashid/Finn and other recent un selectable stories don't happen.

Agree with the confusing roles they give to Ali/Stokes but guessing Ali performance with the ball in India and lack of batting performance made the selectors get confused and they basically have no idea on the position 6-7-8 from Stokes/Ali/Buttler.

The best example I can think of that might explain Ali weird role is Jadeja he was basically picked as a batsman against england, his bowling wasn't really seen as a wicket taking threat more of a part time spinner, doesn't really perform at all with the bat in this test career but his bowling was successful against Australia and had a good few year at odi with the ball.
Basically he went from being a batsman to an all rounder then eventually to a bowler and then dropped from the team.

Right now the Selectors/Cook don't really know what Ali is in the international team is he a top 6 bat that can bowl a few overs of spin ( he was doing that against Sri lanka or a front line spinner (was doing that against india)

Not sure Selectors/Team know what Ali best role is in the team.

You can argue England got too many all rounder and they basically not always picking the best team since they trying to have too many batsman and bowlers in the same team.

PS wrote this before I saw what you wrote above and I agree with you there.

England have been asking too much from the players you can argue it has hampered couple of players careers in ODI and Test cricket plus the annoying habit of wanting bowlers to be good fields man/batsman which means players like Bresnan/Jordan get picked over other players because they bat or field better.

[sussexpob]

There can only be one of Stokes and Ali in the team. I think Ali is the more proven batsman in county cricket, is performing better with the ball, and adds an option for spin while the cupboard is bare. Ali might be a 5th bowler in a team that has another successful strike bowling option, and more of a 6. Personally I would keep Ali, and put another bowler in. I think at the moment the 5th bowling option is giving more runs away then another batting 8 would score

Both cant be in the team. If anything, it just muddies the role of everyone in the lower order batting, and bowling attack roles

[Dr Cricket]

yeah agree, I really didn't understand why they had Jordan/Ali/Stokes in the same team in the Caribbean they essentially had a long weak batting line up and a long weak bowling line up too many all rounders.

In an Ideal world their only one all rounder in each team considering you only pick 5 bowlers and 7 batsman.
you pick one of Ali/Stokes as the all rounder/5th bowler and the other get picked as a batsman or a bowler but not as both.
You kind of feel that Stokes is picked as the All rounder and Ali is the front line spinner that only works if Ali bowls like a front line spinner.

No idea why Jordan or proper bowlers get picked for Batting, it annoys me when Bresnan got picked when he was past it and it annoys me now when jordan get picked for fielding or batting at number 9.

In international cricket game or when picking teams I always pick the best 6 batsman with one being keeper and 4 best bowlers with the last pick either being a batman or an all rounder although I kind of do like Australia policy of picking a batsman that can bowl tight overs that policy has some merit if the other 4 bowlers are good.

Considering 4 bowler are enough and 5th bowler only bowl to rest the main bowlers.

Watson essentially played 56 test for that reason and Mitchell marsh got into the team because Watson chose not to bowl any more in Test and did the same role as Watson.

[Aidan11]

This thread has taken off since I was last on here so just a few points to add.

Stokes hasn't yet hit it with the ball yet so hopefully that will come in time when his confidence grows. People are also looking at his batting stats. The stats don't tell the whole story (Peter Moores take note). We saw yesterday what happens when Stokes gets going. It's taken him a few tests but maybe being at 8 didn't help. Durham supporters are used to seeing Stokes in this mood. He can hit a ball much harder than a dressing room locker. Spectators like a showman. Down the years we've had Botham, Flintoff & KP, well here's the new guy.

Calls for Rushworth are likely to fall on deaf ears with the selectors. He's 29 and not many quicks make their debut at that age. Wood is younger so a better long term prospect.


As for Stokes coming in at 6 because Ali was in the nets...I'm afraid I fell for this too. It looks to have been something started on Twitter and even respected cricket journos picked up on it as being true (or they may have mischievously started it). Paul Allott also confirmed on CWOTV yesterday that this was hogwash and it was intended from the start to have Stokes bat at 6.

[greyblazer]

I repeat what I have said on Twitter, Facebook and articles, in recent times. Stokes is a player who may flop in a series of games, but you always know he will play a gem of a knock. As a captain, you want such a player in your side every time.