• TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
  • Follow
    • Follow
    • facebook
    • twitter
    • google+
    • instagram
    • youtube
Hearst Corporation
  • TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
Forums
  • Register
  • Login
  • Forums
  • Entertainment
  • Sport
International Cricket 2016
<<
<
166 of 284
>>
>
Darren Lethem
18-07-2016
Originally Posted by hannah:
“Not necessarily you could drop either Ballance or Vince to accommodate the second spinner.

So the team could be
Cook, Hales, Root, Vince or Ballance, Stokes, Bairstow, Woakes, Ali, Rashid, Broad, Anderson”

So you get around the batting issue by dropping a batsmen ? 4 batsmen, 6 bowlers and a keeper ? Too bowling heavy.
makeba72
18-07-2016
Originally Posted by Darren Lethem:
“So you get around the batting issue by dropping a batsmen ? 4 batsmen, 6 bowlers and a keeper ? Too bowling heavy.”

I had a similar comment when I posted a side with more all-rounders, and I don't quite see the issue. Stokes, and Bairstow ARE batsmen. The fact they bowl and keep wicket as well... why is that an issue?
Darren Lethem
18-07-2016
Originally Posted by makeba72:
“I had a similar comment when I posted a side with more all-rounders, and I don't quite see the issue. Stokes, and Bairstow ARE batsmen. The fact they bowl and keep wicket as well... why is that an issue?”

For me Stokes wouldn't get into the side purely as a test match batsmen just yet. Yes as an all rounder but not as somebody you would put in as a specialist batsmen. Coming in at 5, that is what he is virtually doing. In a ODI absolutely but this is a test match and sometimes your number 5 may have to stand and block for hours on end. I would sooner Ballance than Stokes in that role.
alanwarwic
18-07-2016
Stokes is a pure all-rounder.
You really cannot pigeon hole him in any of the two.

And I cannot see Ali being dropped. There was little need for his bowling against the div 2 standard Sri Lanka. He also scoed a big century, though even there, his batting was hardly needed.
The problem now is that Rashid might only get his chance against a better side.
mimik1uk
18-07-2016
Originally Posted by alanwarwic:
“And I cannot see Ali being dropped. There was little need for his bowling against the div 2 standard Sri Lanka. He also scoed a big century, though even there, his batting was hardly needed.
The problem now is that Rashid might only get his chance against a better side.”

he has bowled 179 overs in tests this year and taken 7 wickets @ 92

thats 1 wicket every 25 overs bowled, yes his batting gives us depth but he is still being picked primarily as a spin bowler
alanwarwic
18-07-2016
Even Swan batted, but having no one of Swanns quality we only have now spinners who can bat.
mimik1uk
18-07-2016
Originally Posted by alanwarwic:
“Even Swan batted, but having no one of Swanns quality we only have now spinners who can bat.”

does that mean we just keep picking him as our main spinner rather than try someone else ?
alanwarwic
18-07-2016
There is no reason why Ballance and Vince could not have been replaced by Borthwick and Rashid.
3 spinners who can bat, why not?
seansnotmyname@
18-07-2016
Well, I'd have had Borthwick in from the start, scores more runs at number 3 in the country, bowling secondary, but would be a nice option.

In the end they've picked a 14 man squad for a reason, they'll want to monitor Stokes and Anderson to make sure there's no reaction to their first bowling in ages.

They'll then want to look at the pitch, Old Trafford is notoriously, a different type of British pitch. This good weather could turn it into a "bunsen" and yes if that's the case I can see both spinners playing. In the end the two spinners and Stokes being able to bat, makes that option possible. After all you'd be replacing Vince/Ballance with Stokes, improvement in batting, Ball with Rashid another improvement, and Finn and Jimmeh about the same. Obviously improves the bowling with all 3 too.

Yet it may look like it is has steepling bounce and they may try to keep Finn in at all cost.
SULLA
19-07-2016
Originally Posted by dtcdtcdtc:
“Jimmy, Stokes and Rashid back in the squad:


England squad
Alastair Cook (capt), Alex Hales, Joe Root, James Vince, Gary Ballance, Ben Stokes, Jonny Bairstow (wk), Moeen Ali, Adil Rashid, Chris Woakes, Stuart Broad, James Anderson, Steven Finn, Jake Ball

I reckon all 3 of them will make the starting X1

http://www.espncricinfo.com/england-...y/1036119.html”

Why is Ali still there ?

Originally Posted by hannah:
“find it funny that is was the batting that lost us this match yet there will probably will be three changes to the bowling line up”

You could argue that we lost because we let them get two many runs. Only 2 of the 5 bowlers performed.
makeba72
19-07-2016
Originally Posted by Darren Lethem:
“For me Stokes wouldn't get into the side purely as a test match batsmen just yet. Yes as an all rounder but not as somebody you would put in as a specialist batsmen. Coming in at 5, that is what he is virtually doing. In a ODI absolutely but this is a test match and sometimes your number 5 may have to stand and block for hours on end. I would sooner Ballance than Stokes in that role.”

Originally Posted by alanwarwic:
“There is no reason why Ballance and Vince could not have been replaced by Borthwick and Rashid.
3 spinners who can bat, why not?”

I see your point about Stokes, Darren, but I was making a broader point about all-rounders not being seen as batsmen and, like alanwarwic, I don't automatically see lots of all-rounders as changing the balance of a side.

But speaking now specifically about Stokes... on recent form, I don't see him doing any worse than Vince or Ballance, so in the absence of anyone else, why not put him in earlier and have the added bonus of extra bowling? I wouldn't trust Ballance or Vince to bat long at the moment.
mimik1uk
19-07-2016
Originally Posted by alanwarwic:
“There is no reason why Ballance and Vince could not have been replaced by Borthwick and Rashid.
3 spinners who can bat, why not?”

so in your scenario you would have just three specialist batsmen in the team, 4 all-rounders and 3 bowlers ?

if we pick vince and ballance as specialist batsmen we dont pick them assuming they are going to fail which is basically what you are arguing here

you are saying lets just pick all-rounders as they cant do any worse then the specialist batsmen and they can bowl as well

i wouldn't have picked ballance but he does average 46 in test cricket and we seem to be saying that we would be better off just picking a bowler that can bat a bit in front of him rather than back him to get back to the form he showed 2 years ago
SULLA
19-07-2016
Originally Posted by alanwarwic:
“
And I cannot see Ali being dropped. There was little need for his bowling against the div 2 standard Sri Lanka. He also scoed a big century, though even there, his batting was hardly needed.”

Ali did score that big century. His problem is that he usually fails. His few decent scores have failed to get his average out of the twenties.
Callum Collum
19-07-2016
Originally Posted by hannah:
“Not necessarily you could drop either Ballance or Vince to accommodate the second spinner.

So the team could be
Cook, Hales, Root, Vince or Ballance, Stokes, Bairstow, Woakes, Ali, Rashid, Broad, Anderson”

I'd be happy with that team if the pitch warranted it, especially with England one behind. Bairstow, Ali and Stokes are all players who have been or might be picked as batsmen. Woakes and Rashid can also bat a bit. So there is batting down to 9. Wish I could include Broad but sadly not these days.
alanwarwic
19-07-2016
Originally Posted by mimik1uk:
“he has bowled 179 overs in tests this year and taken 7 wickets @ 92

thats 1 wicket every 25 overs bowled, yes his batting gives us depth but he is still being picked primarily as a spin bowler”

Ali is seen as a containing bowler and Rashid not. The thought is that with Rashid or Borthwick playing, we then need another bowler,someone who can allow the pace bowlers a longer rest.

Swann was so good at it, the overwork hastened his retirement.
jazzydrury3
19-07-2016
Use to love it when Swann and Broad were batting together, as it usually meant a shed load of runs in a short period
Nova21
19-07-2016
Originally Posted by alanwarwic:
“Ali is seen as a containing bowler and Rashid not. The thought is that with Rashid or Borthwick playing, we then need another bowler,someone who can allow the pace bowlers a longer rest.

Swann was so good at it, the overwork hastened his retirement.”

The drubbing in Australia hastened his retirement and he bottled it half way through and gave up
seansnotmyname@
19-07-2016
Originally Posted by Nova21:
“The drubbing in Australia hastened his retirement and he bottled it half way through and gave up”

He shouldn't have retired half-way through, but the guy had bits of bone floating around in his right elbow for years, had something like 3 ops on it.

There's no doubt in my mind, he's by far the player we miss most of those that haven't played since then. Could take wickets and contain.
Mitu_Pappi
19-07-2016
The manner of Moeen Alis dismissal in the 2nd innings is curious. Before he came in to bat it ocurred to me that he would not stand between Pakistan and a lords test victory.

His dismissal and the shot he played strengthened that doubt i had.

Putting it out there. I think others have thought this too.
Darren Lethem
19-07-2016
Originally Posted by Mitu_Pappi:
“The manner of Moeen Alis dismissal in the 2nd innings is curious. Before he came in to bat it ocurred to me that he would not stand between Pakistan and a lords test victory.

His dismissal and the shot he played strengthened that doubt i had.

Putting it out there. I think others have thought this too.”

Are you calling Moeen Ali a cheat ? I think you are talking utter cobblers.

That is not only libellous it is totally without foundation.
howard h
19-07-2016
Originally Posted by Darren Lethem:
“Are you calling Moeen Ali a cheat ? I think you are talking utter cobblers.

That is not only libellous it is totally without foundation.”

Totally agree, a very strange idea.

But I would like to know what a player, who can biff the ball a bit but has never thrown caution to the wind so early in his innings (that I can recall) for England, had going through his head at the time to make such a shot?

OK, Stokes, Buttler, maybe Broad - if they did that early on, the reasoning could be to get on top of the bowler early and if they fail then shrug shoulders, comes off or it doesn't. But Ali?

He's an established and experienced Test player now, but when the batting's in trouble that's not the shot you go for. I certainly wouldn't drop him because of it, but a quiet word "don't do it again unless the situation is completely different".
SULLA
19-07-2016
Originally Posted by alanwarwic:
“Ali is seen as a containing bowler and Rashid not. The thought is that with Rashid or Borthwick playing, we then need another bowler,someone who can allow the pace bowlers a longer rest.

Swann was so good at it, the overwork hastened his retirement.”

Ali a containing bowler ???? The stats say otherwise
Jamesp84
19-07-2016
Originally Posted by Mitu_Pappi:
“The manner of Moeen Alis dismissal in the 2nd innings is curious. Before he came in to bat it ocurred to me that he would not stand between Pakistan and a lords test victory.

His dismissal and the shot he played strengthened that doubt i had.

Putting it out there. I think others have thought this too.”

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...54f6c5615f.jpg
mimik1uk
20-07-2016
Originally Posted by alanwarwic:
“Ali is seen as a containing bowler and Rashid not. The thought is that with Rashid or Borthwick playing, we then need another bowler,someone who can allow the pace bowlers a longer rest.

Swann was so good at it, the overwork hastened his retirement.”

hold on a sec , how many bowlers do you want us to play ?

assuming borthwick and stokes played as per your suggestion and both batted in the top 6, do we then need 4 other bowlers AND root as an option, giving us 7 bowling options. pakistan just beat us using only 4 bowlers.

the problem that seems to be happening here is everyone is looking at individual players in isolation and whether they merit a spot and completely forgetting about picking a team of XI players
makeba72
20-07-2016
Originally Posted by mimik1uk:
“hold on a sec , how many bowlers do you want us to play ?

assuming borthwick and stokes played as per your suggestion and both batted in the top 6, do we then need 4 other bowlers AND root as an option, giving us 7 bowling options. pakistan just beat us using only 4 bowlers.

the problem that seems to be happening here is everyone is looking at individual players in isolation and whether they merit a spot and completely forgetting about picking a team of XI players”

As I wrote earlier, I don't understand this kind of question.

Borthwick bats at three and is clearly in great form at the moment. The fact he bowls would be a bonus for England. I don't understand an argument that says this means we'd then have to pick a specialist batsmen rather than a bowler if he were picked. Same with Stokes (so long as one thinks his batting is good enough for the top 6). Just because someone is an all-rounder, why does that disturb the balance of a side? I honestly don't get it. If they can bat, they can bat, and surely one then treats the additional bowling options as a bonus.
<<
<
166 of 284
>>
>
VIEW DESKTOP SITE TOP

JOIN US HERE

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Hearst Corporation

Hearst Corporation

DIGITAL SPY, PART OF THE HEARST UK ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK

© 2015 Hearst Magazines UK is the trading name of the National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved.

  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Complaints
  • Site Map