Arthur Crabtree wrote:Ed Smith will unearth the new Don.
Judging on some of his past ideas, he might even try to unearth the original one.
Arthur Crabtree wrote:Ed Smith will unearth the new Don.
sussexpob wrote:Arthur Crabtree wrote:Ed Smith will unearth the new Don.
Judging on some of his past ideas, he might even try to unearth the original one.
Slipstream wrote:I think Stokes would have been the best number 3 once he had settled into the role. As for it not being a good idea as he bowls, he is the 4th seamer, would hardly bowl in the first session. Very strong physically and mentally. Has bowled 17 overs in a spell for Durham.
https://www.wisden.com/stories/stats-an ... es-cricviz
Just to note we are playing 5 bowlers in the 3rd Test at last.
6 bowlers in the last 4 Tests. Will it be back to 6 in the West Indies?
Slipstream wrote:In the last 2 years it seems the WI fast bowlers are more successful. England want 6 bowlers so 2 spinners will play. Good time to revert of 5 bowlers and more specialist batsmen.
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine ... pe=bowling
Arthur Crabtree wrote:Might play four seamers in WI going by Slipstream's recent averages in the islands. Big query then whether Leach or Mo plays.
Slipstream wrote:I think Stokes would have been the best number 3 once he had settled into the role. As for it not being a good idea as he bowls, he is the 4th seamer, would hardly bowl in the first session. Very strong physically and mentally. Has bowled 17 overs in a spell for Durham.
https://www.wisden.com/stories/stats-an ... es-cricviz
sussexpob wrote:Slipstream wrote:I think Stokes would have been the best number 3 once he had settled into the role. As for it not being a good idea as he bowls, he is the 4th seamer, would hardly bowl in the first session. Very strong physically and mentally. Has bowled 17 overs in a spell for Durham.
https://www.wisden.com/stories/stats-an ... es-cricviz
If Stokes is indeed a wizard at playing swing, then working backwards with a quick bit of maths, one can also work out that when the ball doesnt move, he averages 29 vs pace ( I worked it out, if you really want an explanation I can give it to you). Does a player with a spotless technique average 29 against a static ball? Or 29 vs spin bowlers?
Whether or not he plays looping swing well, 32 vs pace bowlers away from the new ball says all I need. And far from having the model technique, does Stokes ever move his feet once the bat lift has reached its top before the bowler releases? Not to me, he plants and swings..... not sure how this writer can think he has no technical issues.
Hes technically faultless, he plays the toughest balls better than anyone, he is the toughest, grittiest, combative cricketer on the planet, and no one can mentally dent him....
So why does he average 32 in test cricket??
Almost like all evidence suggests hes a pretty terrible top 6 bat, who maybe should be considered a top 6 for Zimbabwe in 1997, but for England, now?
Slipstream wrote:I think Stokes would have been the best number 3 once he had settled into the role.
Return to International Cricket
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests