• The forum upgrades are now largely complete.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.

England v India - 3rd T20

Status
Not open for further replies.
mikemanc said:
He's fully fit for batting and was able to bowl 2 overs as 6th bowler whilst easing back into bowling. I don't agree with that being ludicrous. Ball playing over Wood on the other hand....
Click to expand...

You don't find it ludicrous that Stokes bowled 2 overs for 11 runs, meaning he didn't bowl his full allowance despite been by far our most economical bowler........ meanwhile Ball went for 39 off 3 overs, Jordan went for 40 off 3.4 overs, Willey went for 37 off 3 overs and Plunkett went for 42 off 3 overs????

Baffling captaincy............... I always thought that sort of thing only existed at Durham this season, apparently not
 

GordonMuchallNo1Fan said:
You don't find it ludicrous that Stokes bowled 2 overs for 11 runs, meaning he didn't bowl his full allowance despite been by far our most economical bowler........ meanwhile Ball went for 39 off 3 overs, Jordan went for 40 off 3.4 overs, Willey went for 37 off 3 overs and Plunkett went for 42 off 3 overs????

Baffling captaincy............... I always thought that sort of thing only existed at Durham this season, apparently not
Click to expand...
it is but its not always the same is it with bowlers bowling at different times and sometimes against set players or at the death etc
 
GordonMuchallNo1Fan said:
You don't find it ludicrous that Stokes bowled 2 overs for 11 runs, meaning he didn't bowl his full allowance despite been by far our most economical bowler........ meanwhile Ball went for 39 off 3 overs, Jordan went for 40 off 3.4 overs, Willey went for 37 off 3 overs and Plunkett went for 42 off 3 overs????

Baffling captaincy............... I always thought that sort of thing only existed at Durham this season, apparently not
Click to expand...
I think you have missed his point fella
 
GordonMuchallNo1Fan said:
You don't find it ludicrous that Stokes bowled 2 overs for 11 runs, meaning he didn't bowl his full allowance despite been by far our most economical bowler........ meanwhile Ball went for 39 off 3 overs, Jordan went for 40 off 3.4 overs, Willey went for 37 off 3 overs and Plunkett went for 42 off 3 overs????

Baffling captaincy............... I always thought that sort of thing only existed at Durham this season, apparently not
Click to expand...

On this occasion you may be right we will never know but you have never quite grasped that that a bowler who has the most economical figures isn't always the best person to bowl that last over and if they did bowl the last over there would be every chance they wouldn't have the most economical figures. You use this argument EVERY time when Durham lose a game and a bowler that has less runs per over off him than others but doesn't finish his allocation. It isn't quite as simple as that.
 
rentaghost said:
On this occasion you may be right we will never know but you have never quite grasped that that a bowler who has the most economical figures isn't always the best person to bowl that last over and if they did bowl the last over there would be every chance they wouldn't have the most economical figures. You use this argument EVERY time when Durham lose a game and a bowler that has less runs per over off him than others but doesn't finish his allocation. It isn't quite as simple as that.
Click to expand...
Well given a bowler (on this occasion) Stokes is going at 5.50 an over on a batting paradise, I think if I was captain I'd happily go along with that as opposed to folk going at over double that. I mean Jake Ball over Ben Stokes.... Haway man. That said maybe Stokes was only told to bowl 2 overs? Either way its absolutely stupid with a losing outcome.... I'd be upset if Jake Ball was bowling for Durham
 
chunkylover53 said:
I agree with you. But he was saying that he’s fit to bat and bowl 2 overs so a better option than root

I’m with you on it
Click to expand...
I'm not saying he's a better option than Root :lol: They see Stokes as good enough to bat top 6 on his batting alone and made the call to rest Root which isn't a massive surprise given that he plays every format. The fact he could bowl 2 overs might have been seen as a bonus but for all I know he was feeling his hamstring so didn't bowl out for that reason. All I'm saying is it's over the top to say it was ludicrous that he didn't bowl out.

And I think Ball in particular and Jordan are fortunate to be in the side. I'd have played either Curran ahead of Ball as I think they've got a lot more to offer longer term, or maybe even have had a look at someone like Olly Stone. I'd also have Wood and Woakes ahead of both of them but obviously they weren't in the squad. I can't see Ball playing many more games.
 
How on earth is Jake Ball in the squads forthe short stuff?

He is a line and length 4 day bowler. He hasn't a good one day player

I've no idea why he suddenly came back into the side?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top