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

Posted: **Mon Nov 19, 2018 2:58 pm**

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.

Posted: **Mon Nov 19, 2018 5:32 pm**

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.

Posted: **Mon Nov 19, 2018 10:19 pm**

Pope not having a good game with the Lions.

Posted: **Thu Nov 22, 2018 2:48 pm**

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. :dance

6 bowlers in the last 4 Tests. Will it be back to 6 in the West Indies?

Posted: **Thu Nov 22, 2018 8:50 pm**

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?

With 2 opening batsmen, Root, Stokes and Moeen counting as all-rounders, a keeper and 2 opening bowlers, then it will depend on who else is picked.

Burns
Jennings
X
Root
Stokes
Y
Foakes
Moeen
Curran/Broad
Z
Anderson

I'm guessing in the Windies, X = Bairstow, Y = Buttler and Z = Leach?

Posted: **Thu Nov 22, 2018 10:28 pm**

Might play four seamers in WI going by Slipstream's recent averages in the islands. Big query then whether Leach or Mo plays.

Posted: **Thu Nov 22, 2018 10:32 pm**

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

Posted: **Fri Nov 23, 2018 1:22 am**

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.

I think it will be Ali but Leach did well with the Lions http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine ... ype=series

There won't be Warrican and Cornwall. Warrican 31 wickets at 8.96, Cornwall at 19 at 18.42

It might be Broad Anderson Curran Stokes Ali Leach.

Posted: **Fri Nov 23, 2018 4:00 pm**

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?? :hmmm

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? :facepalm

Posted: **Fri Nov 23, 2018 11:49 pm**

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?

Well we aren't going to find out. Bairstow has that position.
Starc, Cummins, Hazelwood v Jennings and Bairstow? :mrgreen:

Posted: **Sun Nov 25, 2018 1:16 pm**

Slipstream wrote:I think Stokes would have been the best number 3 once he had settled into the role.

It's tempting to think that Stokes should step up his responsibilities as a top order bat now he has a great deal of experience. But stats suggest he isn't actually getting any better, for all his coaching makes him look a nice straight orthodox batter. What we have had so far is a number seven batter and a fourth seamer augmented by some excellent fielding. His record against sides with strong spin attacks isn't that good. In ten Tests this year he averages under 27 with no hundreds.

My gut feeling is that he'll start to score runs again. Though it always has been.

Posted: **Sun Nov 25, 2018 1:21 pm**

Chances are he'll go to the WI as a number five. That will at least give him the opportunity to buff his figures up a little. There is always the temptation to want Stokes in the side as that eleventh player who balances the side but doesn't quite get in as either a batter or a bowler. But England have a lot of those. Particularly Moeen. You could have two of these players at a pinch, but not so much if you have a keeper down at seven like Foakes.

Of course, no one else has come in and surpassed Stokes' 33 average in the middle order. But it would be difficult just to settle for that input- you would always be wanting to look around for something better.

Posted: **Sun Nov 25, 2018 1:30 pm**

If the two openers can cement their places, then it looks like we're starting to get a settled side:

Burns
Jennings
Bairstow
Root
Stokes
Buttler
Foakes
2 from Moeen/Curran/Woakes
2 from Broad/Anderson/Leach/Rashid

Posted: **Sun Nov 25, 2018 1:55 pm**

That's full of untested options though. And we don't know how much longer Broad (who's place is no longer automatic) and Anderson (who is approaching middle age) will go on for. Bairstow was a nailed on number seven, wk/bat, but now is a maybe number 3. No one really knows if Burns, Foakes, Rashid, Jennings, Curran or Leach, or even Mo or Buttler will still be around in a year. To me, 2018 has left the side more uncertain than ever. I've got Joe Root as the only player I have much long term confidence in.

Posted: **Sun Nov 25, 2018 3:38 pm**

For me Foakes is long term too

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

There may be troubles ahead: England selection issues.

Re: There may be troubles ahead: England selection issues.

Re: There may be troubles ahead: England selection issues.

Re: There may be troubles ahead: England selection issues.

Re: There may be troubles ahead: England selection issues.

Re: There may be troubles ahead: England selection issues.

Re: There may be troubles ahead: England selection issues.

Re: There may be troubles ahead: England selection issues.

Re: There may be troubles ahead: England selection issues.

Re: There may be troubles ahead: England selection issues.

Re: There may be troubles ahead: England selection issues.

Re: There may be troubles ahead: England selection issues.

Re: There may be troubles ahead: England selection issues.

Re: There may be troubles ahead: England selection issues.

Re: There may be troubles ahead: England selection issues.

Re: There may be troubles ahead: England selection issues.