Cricket fred

[Big D]

Firstly, must be bad news for the Stokes family and he is absolutely doing the right thing. There will be some arseholes abuse him for it no doubt.

Crawley in and gameday decision on who replaces Anderson for me. Curran or Leach, mayve even Foakes or Livingston if they feel adventurous and think 4 bowlers is enough (I don't).

[Banquo]

Stokes out for rest of series- sounds like his Dad is very poorly still. All the best.

That’s going to have big implications for our lineup.

So simply Crawley in, right? I would probably bring in Curran or Wood.

Crawley seems logical and it’s only the same imbalance but without the quality Stokes brings.

Not sure about bowling changes- depends on how they see the pitch. Pakistan won’t be worried about any spin bowlers we can field though Rashid has been looking tasty- is he in the bubble?

[Puja]

Stokes out for rest of series- sounds like his Dad is very poorly still. All the best.

That’s going to have big implications for our lineup.

So simply Crawley in, right? I would probably bring in Curran or Wood.

Crawley seems logical and it’s only the same imbalance but without the quality Stokes brings.

Not sure about bowling changes- depends on how they see the pitch. Pakistan won’t be worried about any spin bowlers we can field though Rashid has been looking tasty- is he in the bubble?

If we do drop Anderson for Curran, then that would stiffen the tail a bit as well. With Broad back in form, you could argue that we'd bat all the way down to 11.

Puja

[Banquo]

That’s going to have big implications for our lineup.

So simply Crawley in, right? I would probably bring in Curran or Wood.

Crawley seems logical and it’s only the same imbalance but without the quality Stokes brings.

Not sure about bowling changes- depends on how they see the pitch. Pakistan won’t be worried about any spin bowlers we can field though Rashid has been looking tasty- is he in the bubble?

If we do drop Anderson for Curran, then that would stiffen the tail a bit as well. With Broad back in form, you could argue that we'd bat all the way down to 11.

Puja

Pop gun Sam? Depends on conditions but I’d rather Wood than another bits and pieces all rounder

[Digby]

Whilst it was a brilliant partnership and run chase, need to bear in mind how green (:)) that Pakistani attack is- though they did have a holding bowler in Abbas to Digby's post, and Yasir had a decent economy rate as their attacking leggie. Buttler and Woakes were excellent- hitting boundaries early on (some from decent balls as well) and then just rotating the strike as Azhar started to panic a bit.

Abbas could do the job of a holding bowler, but he's on a very full length for a holding bowler, I think he's looking to pick up wickets more than lock down an end, and even if he locks down an end he still needs help from his bowling partner. Doesn't seem to be a new thing that Pakistan are a little too aggressive in their style, it's what's so often made them a great team to watch, and such a frustrating team to coach

His run rate is miserly in all tests, so does the job anyway; like Hoggard, also takes wickets. So you were making the point that they needed a holding bowler like Hoggard or Giles, and they had one. How he was used is another matter, and you now seem to be saying they needed two holding bowlers ; on a serious note, as I said before, the other two seamers are relatively new to test cricket, and as such did pretty well, as did Shah. I think the skipper missed some tricks more than their attack bowled poorly.

I think there's a difference in how you go about holding, you might choose to try and protect your wicket but there are runs there when the bowler is fuller and/or more at the stumps. Once the ball's that little bit shorter unless you're willing, and able, to drive or clip a ball on the up there's less chance to even look for a run unless it's a ball off line/length. Maybe I'm remembering too much what I struggled against at (much) lower levels, but it seems different to me, and the thinking isn't all mine anyway, it's a fair chunk of McGraths take on how you control a game as a bowler

And it does more generally look at issue for Pakistan as bowling unit, they're excellent as an attacking unit but they've some areas to work on when it comes to containing. They look good enough to learn, it depends if they want to, and what they do regarding the 2nd leggie, there seems little point in a 2nd leggie who only bowls 10 overs on a spinning wicket

[Puja]

Crawley seems logical and it’s only the same imbalance but without the quality Stokes brings.

Not sure about bowling changes- depends on how they see the pitch. Pakistan won’t be worried about any spin bowlers we can field though Rashid has been looking tasty- is he in the bubble?

If we do drop Anderson for Curran, then that would stiffen the tail a bit as well. With Broad back in form, you could argue that we'd bat all the way down to 11.

Puja

Pop gun Sam? Depends on conditions but I’d rather Wood than another bits and pieces all rounder

Contrary to Beefeater's belief, there's more than sheer physical statistics to international sport. Wood might bowl faster, but Curran's a better bowler. Not to mention the point raised earlier in the thread about a left arm bowler creating more opportunities for the right arm attack by keeping the batsmen from getting in a groove.

Puja

[Banquo]

If we do drop Anderson for Curran, then that would stiffen the tail a bit as well. With Broad back in form, you could argue that we'd bat all the way down to 11.

Puja

Pop gun Sam? Depends on conditions but I’d rather Wood than another bits and pieces all rounder

Contrary to Beefeater's belief, there's more than sheer physical statistics to international sport. Wood might bowl faster, but Curran's a better bowler. Not to mention the point raised earlier in the thread about a left arm bowler creating more opportunities for the right arm attack by keeping the batsmen from getting in a groove.

Puja

I was mildly pulling your chain, but replacing Anderson with Curran (a handy 4th seamer), even a less than prime Anderson, seems hardly likely to worry Pakistan. Whereas a couple of their batsman have definitely shown a weakness against fast short bowling.
By the way. Wood and Curran's test bowling records are quite similar, but Wood has a much better 1st class record with the ball.

[Banquo]

Abbas could do the job of a holding bowler, but he's on a very full length for a holding bowler, I think he's looking to pick up wickets more than lock down an end, and even if he locks down an end he still needs help from his bowling partner. Doesn't seem to be a new thing that Pakistan are a little too aggressive in their style, it's what's so often made them a great team to watch, and such a frustrating team to coach

His run rate is miserly in all tests, so does the job anyway; like Hoggard, also takes wickets. So you were making the point that they needed a holding bowler like Hoggard or Giles, and they had one. How he was used is another matter, and you now seem to be saying they needed two holding bowlers ; on a serious note, as I said before, the other two seamers are relatively new to test cricket, and as such did pretty well, as did Shah. I think the skipper missed some tricks more than their attack bowled poorly.

I think there's a difference in how you go about holding, you might choose to try and protect your wicket but there are runs there when the bowler is fuller and/or more at the stumps. Once the ball's that little bit shorter unless you're willing, and able, to drive or clip a ball on the up there's less chance to even look for a run unless it's a ball off line/length. Maybe I'm remembering too much what I struggled against at (much) lower levels, but it seems different to me, and the thinking isn't all mine anyway, it's a fair chunk of McGraths take on how you control a game as a bowler

And it does more generally look at issue for Pakistan as bowling unit, they're excellent as an attacking unit but they've some areas to work on when it comes to containing. They look good enough to learn, it depends if they want to, and what they do regarding the 2nd leggie, there seems little point in a 2nd leggie who only bowls 10 overs on a spinning wicket

To me, Abbas seems the very definition of a holding bowler- great line and length, bit of movement with the new ball; he pulls his length back in his second and third spells. Goes for less than 3 runs an over, and also has a very good strike rate- almost identical to McGrath in fact, albeit many fewer tests. You still claiming Abbas is not a holding bowler, because without the new ball he seems to be, and ships few runs when taking it? You referenced Hoggard, who was essentially a swing bowler pitching full with the new ball....and it shows in his economy rate.

[Puja]

Pop gun Sam? Depends on conditions but I’d rather Wood than another bits and pieces all rounder

Contrary to Beefeater's belief, there's more than sheer physical statistics to international sport. Wood might bowl faster, but Curran's a better bowler. Not to mention the point raised earlier in the thread about a left arm bowler creating more opportunities for the right arm attack by keeping the batsmen from getting in a groove.

Puja

I was mildly pulling your chain, but replacing Anderson with Curran (a handy 4th seamer), even a less than prime Anderson, seems hardly likely to worry Pakistan. Whereas a couple of their batsman have definitely shown a weakness against fast short bowling.
By the way. Wood and Curran's test bowling records are quite similar, but Wood has a much better 1st class record with the ball.

Fair play - you got me!

I was thinking more rest and rotation for Anderson, rather than replacing on quality. Apart from anything else, I want to see Archer given the new ball and see whether he can do more there, cause we're not getting enough out of him by using him as first change.

Puja

[Banquo]

Contrary to Beefeater's belief, there's more than sheer physical statistics to international sport. Wood might bowl faster, but Curran's a better bowler. Not to mention the point raised earlier in the thread about a left arm bowler creating more opportunities for the right arm attack by keeping the batsmen from getting in a groove.

Puja

I was mildly pulling your chain, but replacing Anderson with Curran (a handy 4th seamer), even a less than prime Anderson, seems hardly likely to worry Pakistan. Whereas a couple of their batsman have definitely shown a weakness against fast short bowling.
By the way. Wood and Curran's test bowling records are quite similar, but Wood has a much better 1st class record with the ball.

Fair play - you got me!

I was thinking more rest and rotation for Anderson, rather than replacing on quality. Apart from anything else, I want to see Archer given the new ball and see whether he can do more there, cause we're not getting enough out of him by using him as first change.

Puja

Simon Hughes was writing about Archer and saying its more about him finding his rhythm to get back up to 90+mph, and less experienced rhythm bowlers struggle sometimes to know how to get their form back- he's really inexperienced still. He opened in NZ to little effect, too. In fairness, his return in the last test wasn't too shabby, even if his lackadaisical approach on the 4th morning was irritating. He may also still be a little out of sorts after his breach of the rules.

[Galfon]

Like to see Archer and Curran continue their development, but horses for courses.
..Jordan Cox (19) just passed 150 for Kent in the Bustlin' Bob trophy - already u-19 player, wicky too...

[Big D]

Wouldnt rule Ollie Robinson. There's a reason he was brought into the bubble.

Selectors were concerned about something.

[Big D]

Pop gun Sam? Depends on conditions but I’d rather Wood than another bits and pieces all rounder

Contrary to Beefeater's belief, there's more than sheer physical statistics to international sport. Wood might bowl faster, but Curran's a better bowler. Not to mention the point raised earlier in the thread about a left arm bowler creating more opportunities for the right arm attack by keeping the batsmen from getting in a groove.

Puja

I was mildly pulling your chain, but replacing Anderson with Curran (a handy 4th seamer), even a less than prime Anderson, seems hardly likely to worry Pakistan. Whereas a couple of their batsman have definitely shown a weakness against fast short bowling.
By the way. Wood and Curran's test bowling records are quite similar, but Wood has a much better 1st class record with the ball.

It isn't quite as easy a substitution as that though.

Anderson would be replaced by Woakes or Archer with the new ball and the Anderson replacement 2nd change.

Anderson has bowled better than his recent stats suggest but 20 innings is a decent sample size to have 10 innings of no wickets and 4 or so of only 1.

With the news of Stokes heading off I think the point about pace is a good one and probably leads aways from Curran and Robinson.

Reading a bit about Robinson, average of 18 over the last two seasons might merit a go to be fair.

[Banquo]

Contrary to Beefeater's belief, there's more than sheer physical statistics to international sport. Wood might bowl faster, but Curran's a better bowler. Not to mention the point raised earlier in the thread about a left arm bowler creating more opportunities for the right arm attack by keeping the batsmen from getting in a groove.

Puja

I was mildly pulling your chain, but replacing Anderson with Curran (a handy 4th seamer), even a less than prime Anderson, seems hardly likely to worry Pakistan. Whereas a couple of their batsman have definitely shown a weakness against fast short bowling.
By the way. Wood and Curran's test bowling records are quite similar, but Wood has a much better 1st class record with the ball.

It isn't quite as easy a substitution as that though.

Anderson would be replaced by Woakes or Archer with the new ball and the Anderson replacement 2nd change.

Anderson has bowled better than his recent stats suggest but 20 innings is a decent sample size to have 10 innings of no wickets and 4 or so of only 1.

With the news of Stokes heading off I think the point about pace is a good one and probably leads aways from Curran and Robinson.

Reading a bit about Robinson, average of 18 over the last two seasons might merit a go to be fair.

Really ? - though even the reductive comment highlights the drop in overall quality if you made that swap as suggested by Puja ...alongside the point about pace.....

[fivepointer]

Nice piece lauding the virtues of Chris Woakes.

https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id ... ris-woakes

[Banquo]

Nice piece lauding the virtues of Chris Woakes.

https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id ... ris-woakes

Yes, he's great in England, has done better than I'd thought he would.

[fivepointer]

His stats are really pretty good.
His wickets come at 28.83 and he has a strike rate of 56.91.
For comparison, Anderson is 26.98 with a s/r of 56.49. Broad is 27.80 with a s/r of 56.48
He's very under rated player, who has seldom been given any kind of run in the side.
We are lucky to have him.

[Banquo]

His stats are really pretty good.
His wickets come at 28.83 and he has a strike rate of 56.91.
For comparison, Anderson is 26.98 with a s/r of 56.49. Broad is 27.80 with a s/r of 56.48
He's very under rated player, who has seldom been given any kind of run in the side.
We are lucky to have him.

His record overseas is however what has lead to the fourth sentence. He's not had a run in the side because of Broad, Anderson and Stokes, who are all world class, thems the breaks unfortunately, plus his bowling has come on massively at this level in the last 3 years. Not so underrated given his caps and ODI picks.

[Stom]

His stats are really pretty good.
His wickets come at 28.83 and he has a strike rate of 56.91.
For comparison, Anderson is 26.98 with a s/r of 56.49. Broad is 27.80 with a s/r of 56.48
He's very under rated player, who has seldom been given any kind of run in the side.
We are lucky to have him.

Because his stats abroad are so bad.

[Puja]

His stats are really pretty good.
His wickets come at 28.83 and he has a strike rate of 56.91.
For comparison, Anderson is 26.98 with a s/r of 56.49. Broad is 27.80 with a s/r of 56.48
He's very under rated player, who has seldom been given any kind of run in the side.
We are lucky to have him.

Because his stats abroad are so bad.

I think the answer to that is that we've got to learn to accept him for what he is. We have a culture in England (across all sports) of having the First Choice Team, that plays every game they're available for and that dropping someone is a condemnation. Let's start picking horses for courses - if it's Melbourne pitch, take Mark Wood and Archer, if it's a green Manchester pitch with a cloudy sky, pick Woakes and Curran. Same with the batsmen - if there is someone who does a really good job in English or Australian conditions, but can't play subcontinent spin, don't lambast them for not being able to play in all fields - leave them out of that squad and bring them back in for the next set of tests.

Puja

[Big D]

I was mildly pulling your chain, but replacing Anderson with Curran (a handy 4th seamer), even a less than prime Anderson, seems hardly likely to worry Pakistan. Whereas a couple of their batsman have definitely shown a weakness against fast short bowling.
By the way. Wood and Curran's test bowling records are quite similar, but Wood has a much better 1st class record with the ball.

It isn't quite as easy a substitution as that though.

Anderson would be replaced by Woakes or Archer with the new ball and the Anderson replacement 2nd change.

Anderson has bowled better than his recent stats suggest but 20 innings is a decent sample size to have 10 innings of no wickets and 4 or so of only 1.

With the news of Stokes heading off I think the point about pace is a good one and probably leads aways from Curran and Robinson.

Reading a bit about Robinson, average of 18 over the last two seasons might merit a go to be fair.

Really ? - though even the reductive comment highlights the drop in overall quality if you made that swap as suggested by Puja ...alongside the point about pace.....

I had talked myself out of Curran and into Wood by the end of my post.

But even then on recent evidence it isn't a stretch to say Woakes and Curran would yield more wickets than Anderson and Woakes.

[Digby]

His run rate is miserly in all tests, so does the job anyway; like Hoggard, also takes wickets. So you were making the point that they needed a holding bowler like Hoggard or Giles, and they had one. How he was used is another matter, and you now seem to be saying they needed two holding bowlers ; on a serious note, as I said before, the other two seamers are relatively new to test cricket, and as such did pretty well, as did Shah. I think the skipper missed some tricks more than their attack bowled poorly.

I think there's a difference in how you go about holding, you might choose to try and protect your wicket but there are runs there when the bowler is fuller and/or more at the stumps. Once the ball's that little bit shorter unless you're willing, and able, to drive or clip a ball on the up there's less chance to even look for a run unless it's a ball off line/length. Maybe I'm remembering too much what I struggled against at (much) lower levels, but it seems different to me, and the thinking isn't all mine anyway, it's a fair chunk of McGraths take on how you control a game as a bowler

And it does more generally look at issue for Pakistan as bowling unit, they're excellent as an attacking unit but they've some areas to work on when it comes to containing. They look good enough to learn, it depends if they want to, and what they do regarding the 2nd leggie, there seems little point in a 2nd leggie who only bowls 10 overs on a spinning wicket

To me, Abbas seems the very definition of a holding bowler- great line and length, bit of movement with the new ball; he pulls his length back in his second and third spells. Goes for less than 3 runs an over, and also has a very good strike rate- almost identical to McGrath in fact, albeit many fewer tests. You still claiming Abbas is not a holding bowler, because without the new ball he seems to be, and ships few runs when taking it? You referenced Hoggard, who was essentially a swing bowler pitching full with the new ball....and it shows in his economy rate.

If he's pulling his length back I'm not paying enough attention.

Hoggy mayn't have been as good a bowler, but he spent many sessions sweeping the floor, the term Vaughan gave him for those repeat spells when Hoggy wasn't to do anything but keep it steady and tidy, and leave the wicket taking to more explosive talents.

In addition to wondering if Abbas really does pull his length back, especially when his pitch maps show so many pitched up on a good length, I wonder what he does with his field. Test cricket isn't flooded with bowlers who almost do better for defensive fields and aggressive bowling, Murali for sure would be one but he'd stand out whatever. In many ways I don't mind Pakistan over attack, it does make them a more exciting side to watch, and I'm not too worried if they don't get their win rates up, I just think it would help them if they could, and there are better ways to go about it than 5 men on the boundary

[Banquo]

It isn't quite as easy a substitution as that though.

Anderson would be replaced by Woakes or Archer with the new ball and the Anderson replacement 2nd change.

Anderson has bowled better than his recent stats suggest but 20 innings is a decent sample size to have 10 innings of no wickets and 4 or so of only 1.

With the news of Stokes heading off I think the point about pace is a good one and probably leads aways from Curran and Robinson.

Reading a bit about Robinson, average of 18 over the last two seasons might merit a go to be fair.

Really ? - though even the reductive comment highlights the drop in overall quality if you made that swap as suggested by Puja ...alongside the point about pace.....

I had talked myself out of Curran and into Wood by the end of my post.

But even then on recent evidence it isn't a stretch to say Woakes and Curran would yield more wickets than Anderson and Woakes.

Hmmm....

[Big D]

Really ? - though even the reductive comment highlights the drop in overall quality if you made that swap as suggested by Puja ...alongside the point about pace.....

I had talked myself out of Curran and into Wood by the end of my post.

But even then on recent evidence it isn't a stretch to say Woakes and Curran would yield more wickets than Anderson and Woakes.

Hmmm....

In the purely hypothetical scenario above in 10 of the last 20 innings Woakes and Curran would have to yield an additional 1 wicket above Woakes current output. Curran has only gone wicketless in England twice in his short career.

This isn't Anderson v Curran/Wood/AN Other and who is the better bowler over their career. That's clearly Anderson.

England need to take 20 wickets, and just now they have a new ball bowler regularly picking up 0 wickets in an innings.

That being said let's hope Anderson rips through them if selected.

[Banquo]

I had talked myself out of Curran and into Wood by the end of my post.

But even then on recent evidence it isn't a stretch to say Woakes and Curran would yield more wickets than Anderson and Woakes.

Hmmm....

In the purely hypothetical scenario above in 10 of the last 20 innings Woakes and Curran would have to yield an additional 1 wicket above Woakes current output. Curran has only gone wicketless in England twice in his short career.

This isn't Anderson v Curran/Wood/AN Other and who is the better bowler over their career. That's clearly Anderson.

England need to take 20 wickets, and just now they have a new ball bowler regularly picking up 0 wickets in an innings.

That being said let's hope Anderson rips through them if selected.

Fair enough , I just go back to what would Pakistan prefer.