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

Stokes in ODI squad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hales "might" not play either. Why can't they make a decision on him now whether they ban him or not? He's been cleared. Don't understand them at all.
 

This is the major sticking point imo - if the ECB thought they would be okay to play stokes im sure they would, especially now they are naming him in future squads for the ODIs.

Big difference between being summoned back from New Zealand for a hearing and being summons back from Perth in the middle of a test..

As for the calls saying if Plunkett is good enough for the ODIs he's good enough for tests.... Jesus ffs. Completely different.

I'm not saying that re: Plunkett. I'm saying he looks a good option in Australian conditions - and the lad, to be fair, has done pretty well in one day conditions. Also, its an asymmetry again: we can pick batsmen who do well at ODIs but not bowlers. Bayliss was literally saying Jake Ball had done well in ODIs (he hasn't btw) too, as justification.

Plunkett has control, height, aggression and pace. He's a good bowler in these conditions. Could have been like Chris Tremllet. No Cummings, aye. But he'd do a job - can't see anyone else, including Wood and Overton, who'd do it better.
 
I suppose that just comes down to our own perceptions chunky, what I'm saying though, is I don't believe people are blaming them for the incident - just the mishandling of the suspension - and of course we know that the only man responsible for his not being in Australia is Ben Stokes himself.

Again I reiterate, I thought the suspension was bang on at first. It was an excellent PR move amongst other things. However I do believe that there would be very very little dissent from the public if they reinstated him for Perth.

It's clear there's a real clamour now to get him back involved. It's still possible that they suspend him again during any trial process, but I do feel that they could come out and say that he's served his punishment for the misdemeanours of being out late, pissed and fighting. Then add on, that should the Police and CPS look to prosecute, further sanctions will be placed and potentially another punishment given, if the need dictates, upon completion of that process.

In so doing, that would send a clear message that firstly, contracted England cricketers have to uphold a good level of behaviour even when not officially on duty. Then secondly, it would still stress that they want to allow the lawmakers to do their work without pressure or prejudice from FTECB.

If anyone's got Strauss on Facebook or LinkedIn, forward him my idea ;)
The series is gone. No point recalling him now.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top