Stokes v Woakes
- Thread starter brandon
- Start date
- Status
Probably in better form with the bat mind!
Tonton Zola Moukoko
Midfield
Just having a look at their respective stats, surprised to see Woakes has better average with bat and ball. Looked a bog standard bits and pieces cricketer to me, he'll fit right in.
J
johnson
Guest
Someone who can bowl line and length and be solid with the bat might be actually what they need at the minute
England haven't been as bad as people make out this summer, just lacked control at the right times.
Broad should be the one that is dropped really like, I like him, but he has been shocking this summer
England haven't been as bad as people make out this summer, just lacked control at the right times.
Broad should be the one that is dropped really like, I like him, but he has been shocking this summer
A
Andy Reids Love Chil
Guest
Stats are bollocks, Stokes is by far the better cricketer.
Woakes wouldn't be in the squad if Finn was fully fit and approaching his best.
Woakes wouldn't be in the squad if Finn was fully fit and approaching his best.
J
johnson
Guest
But he isn't, so that is a total non argument
brandon
Striker
You're right, he isn't.
You have to the factor in the 'Riverside factor' regards the batting average.
Then also realise that stats can be mask the real truth - it is my firm opinion that Woakes is nothing more than a decent county all-rounder and never will he be anymore.
A
Andy Reids Love Chil
Guest
He isn't what?
J
johnson
Guest
Finn is nowhere ready to play, so has nothing to do with anything, have to consider selection from who is available.
Apparently wakes has gained a yard of pace, so I wouldn't judge him until you have seen him again.
I just don't get the batting stuff like, he is playing a number 8, so his batting is totally irrelevant, it only becomes an issue, when they want to drop a batsman to play a spinner and play woakes or Stokes at 6 or 7.
Currently we should pick our best 4 seamers, based on their bowling and nothing else.
Who would they be?
brandon
Striker
His batting is relevant because the selectors and people within the team tell us it is. Plus he bats in the top order for Durham and many believe (not just on here) that he should be given more of an opportunity to bat higher up.
As far as his bowling is concerned - he was the quickest on show at Lords. Make of that what you will.
smoker
Striker
Every single player in that squad, aside from Anderson and Cook, is being picked for his batting.
Tonton Zola Moukoko
Midfield
It's annoyed me for years the way England want to bat down to 10. It's cowardly.
J
johnson
Guest
Yeah true, but on the current balance of the team it isn't important, and if he bats at 8, you should pick your best 4 bowlers. I think he is in there.
got them a hell of a lot of success though
smoker
Striker
Bowlers who can bat are being deliberately picked to cover for the pisspoor state of English batting. In the previous test lineup, only Anderson and Plunkett (who has scored a ton for the lions) have not scored a test hundred.
Likewise, ask why Jos Buttler has been fast-tracked into the England team ahead of excellent glovesmen like James Foster and Tim Ambrose?
brandon
Striker
That's true, but then who would you say are currently our best four bowlers? Out of interest??
Regarding the keeping situation - both of those are in their thirties and perhaps they didn't want someone so old to come in, seeing how Prior is being talked of no longer being a spring chicken. As a side note I quite like the look of that Simpson at Middlesex.
The new Mark Ealham
rentaghost
Striker
Which 4 bowlers do you think are the best to choose even if we completely disregard batting ability?
- Status
