RugbyRebels

Digby wrote:I'd much rather have been bowling

have to see what happens really, but given the rate of scoring 6 an over, not a bad call.

It swings a bit of emotion to England, but given the grinding nature of the earlier play it hasn't made much actual difference.

I'll be very interested to see what happens if we do skittle them cheap, Broad hates the follow on, but we could lose a lot of time tomorrow. Nonsense speculation given the wicket count, but I do wonder what the plans are right now

Digby wrote:It swings a bit of emotion to England, but given the grinding nature of the earlier play it hasn't made much actual difference.

I'll be very interested to see what happens if we do skittle them cheap, Broad hates the follow on, but we could lose a lot of time tomorrow. Nonsense speculation given the wicket count, but I do wonder what the plans are right now

I think a good old hit out when the oppo are tired does wonders for the hitters, and it cost 30 mins max, and left 16 overs ish which is a decent stint. Marginal call as always. Our attack looks a bit pop gun but we'll see.

Sam Curran is massively underrated, IMO. Yes, he's not lightning quick, but he's accurate, almost always gets movement, and he makes things happen. Plus, he's a change of pace to unsettle batsmen who are in the groove at 90mph. We've got a few good bowlers right now, but he's someone I'd try to keep in the XI.

Puja

Puja wrote:Sam Curran is massively underrated, IMO. Yes, he's not lightning quick, but he's accurate, almost always gets movement, and he makes things happen. Plus, he's a change of pace to unsettle batsmen who are in the groove at 90mph. We've got a few good bowlers right now, but he's someone I'd try to keep in the XI.

Puja

How is he 'massively underrated'? He is in the test team as of now, and a contracted player. Underrated by who? He averages 27 with the bat, and 31 with the ball after 17 tests- he's getting a pretty fair go I'd say.

Quite interesting comparing he and Woakes, as they are sort of competing for the same spot- Curran has similar averages in tests and first class, whereas Woakes has excellent all rounder stats in first class, whilst merely decent in tests.

But on Curran (or Woakes), when you have a top all rounder in Stokes, not sure you need a fourth seamer in Curran/Woakes, assuming you have three proven seamers (and in Anderson, Broad, Archer and Wood, you really do) its a tricky call.

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:Sam Curran is massively underrated, IMO. Yes, he's not lightning quick, but he's accurate, almost always gets movement, and he makes things happen. Plus, he's a change of pace to unsettle batsmen who are in the groove at 90mph. We've got a few good bowlers right now, but he's someone I'd try to keep in the XI.

Puja

How is he 'massively underrated'? He is in the test team as of now, and a contracted player. Underrated by who? He averages 27 with the bat, and 31 with the ball after 17 tests- he's getting a pretty fair go I'd say.

Quite interesting comparing he and Woakes, as they are sort of competing for the same spot- Curran has similar averages in tests and first class, whereas Woakes has excellent all rounder stats in first class, whilst merely decent in tests.

But on Curran (or Woakes), when you have a top all rounder in Stokes, not sure you need a fourth seamer in Curran/Woakes, assuming you have three proven seamers (and in Anderson, Broad, Archer and Wood, you really do) its a tricky call.

Sorry, to be clear - massively underrated by fans. I'd say mildly underrated by the selectors - personally I'd have a 4-man bowling attack of Stokes, Curran, Anderson, plus one of Broad/Archer/Wood, with the proviso that Curran would be swappable in case of particular tracks (a subcontinent pitch needing a second spinner or a hard pitch rewarding another paceman, etc). I value him higher than having another paceman and I think he's got the biggest potential to take over from Jimmy if we invest in him.

I'm not sure about your "three proven seamers" category. Broad, yes definitely, but he is on the wane. Archer is an utter weapon at his best, but doesn't produce that best often enough in Test cricket. Wood puzzles me as he's a good player, but goes missing on occasions, and he doesn't offer much with an older ball (which means he's got to open the bowling or nothing). Archer and Wood might have better averages than Curran, but I would question how much of that is due to new ball bowling at new batsmen. Curran bowls a lot of tireless work and often is the man to get out a set batsman. Plus, I think having him in would also free Stokes a bit more to be an attacking option with the ball.

YMMV and there are many reasons why I'm not a selector, but it's my take.

Puja

Puja wrote:Archer is an utter weapon
Puja

I know he’s pissed off a few people by breaking the bubble but this seems overly harsh.

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:Sam Curran is massively underrated, IMO. Yes, he's not lightning quick, but he's accurate, almost always gets movement, and he makes things happen. Plus, he's a change of pace to unsettle batsmen who are in the groove at 90mph. We've got a few good bowlers right now, but he's someone I'd try to keep in the XI.

Puja

How is he 'massively underrated'? He is in the test team as of now, and a contracted player. Underrated by who? He averages 27 with the bat, and 31 with the ball after 17 tests- he's getting a pretty fair go I'd say.

Quite interesting comparing he and Woakes, as they are sort of competing for the same spot- Curran has similar averages in tests and first class, whereas Woakes has excellent all rounder stats in first class, whilst merely decent in tests.

But on Curran (or Woakes), when you have a top all rounder in Stokes, not sure you need a fourth seamer in Curran/Woakes, assuming you have three proven seamers (and in Anderson, Broad, Archer and Wood, you really do) its a tricky call.

Sorry, to be clear - massively underrated by fans. I'd say mildly underrated by the selectors - personally I'd have a 4-man bowling attack of Stokes, Curran, Anderson, plus one of Broad/Archer/Wood, with the proviso that Curran would be swappable in case of particular tracks (a subcontinent pitch needing a second spinner or a hard pitch rewarding another paceman, etc). I value him higher than having another paceman and I think he's got the biggest potential to take over from Jimmy if we invest in him.

I'm not sure about your "three proven seamers" category. Broad, yes definitely, but he is on the wane. Archer is an utter weapon at his best, but doesn't produce that best often enough in Test cricket. Wood puzzles me as he's a good player, but goes missing on occasions, and he doesn't offer much with an older ball (which means he's got to open the bowling or nothing). Archer and Wood might have better averages than Curran, but I would question how much of that is due to new ball bowling at new batsmen. Curran bowls a lot of tireless work and often is the man to get out a set batsman. Plus, I think having him in would also free Stokes a bit more to be an attacking option with the ball.

YMMV and there are many reasons why I'm not a selector, but it's my take.

Puja

Broad has been our best bowler statistically in the last year- even at 33 he is head and shoulders above Curran. Archer is a bowler no batsman would choose to face over curran. Wood is more of an enigma I grant you. All are quality new ball bowlers. Curran is a handy third or fourth seamer- I like him, but he' s a bowling all rounder until and if he gets a yard of pace- even Jimmy at 38 is at least 3-4 mph quicker, and Curran is quite short so doesnt bowl a heavy ball. Still young so may find summat.. my mileage does indeed vary.

Unlucky this morning so far, but shipping runs. Should have opened with Curran

Seamers have bowled too many bad balls.

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote: How is he 'massively underrated'? He is in the test team as of now, and a contracted player. Underrated by who? He averages 27 with the bat, and 31 with the ball after 17 tests- he's getting a pretty fair go I'd say.

Quite interesting comparing he and Woakes, as they are sort of competing for the same spot- Curran has similar averages in tests and first class, whereas Woakes has excellent all rounder stats in first class, whilst merely decent in tests.

But on Curran (or Woakes), when you have a top all rounder in Stokes, not sure you need a fourth seamer in Curran/Woakes, assuming you have three proven seamers (and in Anderson, Broad, Archer and Wood, you really do) its a tricky call.

Sorry, to be clear - massively underrated by fans. I'd say mildly underrated by the selectors - personally I'd have a 4-man bowling attack of Stokes, Curran, Anderson, plus one of Broad/Archer/Wood, with the proviso that Curran would be swappable in case of particular tracks (a subcontinent pitch needing a second spinner or a hard pitch rewarding another paceman, etc). I value him higher than having another paceman and I think he's got the biggest potential to take over from Jimmy if we invest in him.

I'm not sure about your "three proven seamers" category. Broad, yes definitely, but he is on the wane. Archer is an utter weapon at his best, but doesn't produce that best often enough in Test cricket. Wood puzzles me as he's a good player, but goes missing on occasions, and he doesn't offer much with an older ball (which means he's got to open the bowling or nothing). Archer and Wood might have better averages than Curran, but I would question how much of that is due to new ball bowling at new batsmen. Curran bowls a lot of tireless work and often is the man to get out a set batsman. Plus, I think having him in would also free Stokes a bit more to be an attacking option with the ball.

YMMV and there are many reasons why I'm not a selector, but it's my take.

Puja

Broad has been our best bowler statistically in the last year- even at 33 he is head and shoulders above Curran. Archer is a bowler no batsman would choose to face over curran. Wood is more of an enigma I grant you. All are quality new ball bowlers. Curran is a handy third or fourth seamer- I like him, but he' s a bowling all rounder until and if he gets a yard of pace- even Jimmy at 38 is at least 3-4 mph quicker, and Curran is quite short so doesnt bowl a heavy ball. Still young so may find summat.. my mileage does indeed vary.

I tend to agree, though I don’t think Curran needs to find much to be very good. He does get the back moving, he has good technique with the bat, and he has managed to add a bit of pace. So I think he has a lot of scope for improvement.

I’d send him to intensity pace training asks let him develop for another year before bringing him back when Anderson retires.

Nobody has really found the right length, especially Bess. Not always easy to find and settle into the right length for a wicket, and these bowlers are short match practice, but it's hard to see how this lot turn around and take another 10 even if we somehow skittle them now

New ball breathing life back into the game, some minor assistance from Broad in the process

I think it's not necessarily a bad thing to have missed the follow-on. Stokes is definitely sore and it would not hurt to give him more time to recover. Open with Buttler and Burns (maybe even promote Curran and Broad up a few notches in the order to chuck the bat at things), treat it like a T20 and see if we can add another 120-odd runs quick-smart to give ourselves as many overs as possible to knock them over.

Puja

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:
Sorry, to be clear - massively underrated by fans. I'd say mildly underrated by the selectors - personally I'd have a 4-man bowling attack of Stokes, Curran, Anderson, plus one of Broad/Archer/Wood, with the proviso that Curran would be swappable in case of particular tracks (a subcontinent pitch needing a second spinner or a hard pitch rewarding another paceman, etc). I value him higher than having another paceman and I think he's got the biggest potential to take over from Jimmy if we invest in him.

I'm not sure about your "three proven seamers" category. Broad, yes definitely, but he is on the wane. Archer is an utter weapon at his best, but doesn't produce that best often enough in Test cricket. Wood puzzles me as he's a good player, but goes missing on occasions, and he doesn't offer much with an older ball (which means he's got to open the bowling or nothing). Archer and Wood might have better averages than Curran, but I would question how much of that is due to new ball bowling at new batsmen. Curran bowls a lot of tireless work and often is the man to get out a set batsman. Plus, I think having him in would also free Stokes a bit more to be an attacking option with the ball.

YMMV and there are many reasons why I'm not a selector, but it's my take.

Puja

Broad has been our best bowler statistically in the last year- even at 33 he is head and shoulders above Curran. Archer is a bowler no batsman would choose to face over curran. Wood is more of an enigma I grant you. All are quality new ball bowlers. Curran is a handy third or fourth seamer- I like him, but he' s a bowling all rounder until and if he gets a yard of pace- even Jimmy at 38 is at least 3-4 mph quicker, and Curran is quite short so doesnt bowl a heavy ball. Still young so may find summat.. my mileage does indeed vary.

I tend to agree, though I don’t think Curran needs to find much to be very good. He does get the back moving, he has good technique with the bat, and he has managed to add a bit of pace. So I think he has a lot of scope for improvement.

I’d send him to intensity pace training asks let him develop for another year before bringing him back when Anderson retires.

He's still only around 80-82 mph and is quite small, so not sure how that will happen tbh- and even then, he may lose the ability to swing it.

Buttler determined to offer as little value to the Test team as he possibly can.

Puja

If you ask people to go out and slog you've got to accept some errors, that'd happen on 20/20 wickets never mind a worn test match wicket

Puja wrote:Buttler determined to offer as little value to the Test team as he possibly can.

Puja

That's massively , to coin a phrase, over harsh. He's been unselfish for the cause, when under pressure for his place.

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:Buttler determined to offer as little value to the Test team as he possibly can.

Puja

That's massively , to coin a phrase, over harsh. He's been unselfish for the cause, when under pressure for his place.

Indeed. Too funky. Open with stokes and Crawley, by all means. But both stokes and Buttler was too much

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:Buttler determined to offer as little value to the Test team as he possibly can.

Puja

That's massively , to coin a phrase, over harsh. He's been unselfish for the cause, when under pressure for his place.

Indeed. Too funky. Open with stokes and Crawley, by all means. But both stokes and Buttler was too much

yep- it was also fairly obvious that they could score 6 an over without even taking a risk given west indies all went out as boundary riders after the third over.

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:Buttler determined to offer as little value to the Test team as he possibly can.

Puja

That's massively , to coin a phrase, over harsh. He's been unselfish for the cause, when under pressure for his place.

If this was something in isolation, then fair enough, but Buttler's been in terrible nick for the Test side for a while and his keeping is not good enough to justify his place if he's not offering good returns with the bat. This was an opportunity to show value to the team - he didn't take it.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:Buttler determined to offer as little value to the Test team as he possibly can.

Puja

That's massively , to coin a phrase, over harsh. He's been unselfish for the cause, when under pressure for his place.

If this was something in isolation, then fair enough, but Buttler's been in terrible nick for the Test side for a while and his keeping is not good enough to justify his place if he's not offering good returns with the bat. This was an opportunity to show value to the team - he didn't take it.

Puja

Got a 40 in the first dig, and you are having a go as he's just sacrificed himself for quick runs. Harsh, as I said- sending him into open against a red ball was an odd ask.

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote: That's massively , to coin a phrase, over harsh. He's been unselfish for the cause, when under pressure for his place.

If this was something in isolation, then fair enough, but Buttler's been in terrible nick for the Test side for a while and his keeping is not good enough to justify his place if he's not offering good returns with the bat. This was an opportunity to show value to the team - he didn't take it.

Puja

Got a 40 in the first dig, and you are having a go as he's just sacrificed himself for quick runs. Harsh, as I said- sending him into open against a red ball was an odd ask.

I don't know where my brain is - I was certain he'd fallen for 17-odd in the first innings, even to the extent of going to look at the scorecard because I *knew* you were wrong. Complete brainfart - you are absolutely correct that he did deliver in the first innings and I withdraw my complaint.

Puja

Another 5th.day result-in-the-balancer..there will be some cloud over Manc. tomorrow so Eng have real chance.
..Curran offers something different as a bowler and is one of the u-25 group that will need plenty match time to keep Eng developing, given the number of players late 20's and above.Good edge to him tbf.

** Lord Beef of Scunthorpe and Almeria is it ?

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:
If this was something in isolation, then fair enough, but Buttler's been in terrible nick for the Test side for a while and his keeping is not good enough to justify his place if he's not offering good returns with the bat. This was an opportunity to show value to the team - he didn't take it.

Puja

Got a 40 in the first dig, and you are having a go as he's just sacrificed himself for quick runs. Harsh, as I said- sending him into open against a red ball was an odd ask.

I don't know where my brain is - I was certain he'd fallen for 17-odd in the first innings, even to the extent of going to look at the scorecard because I *knew* you were wrong. Complete brainfart - you are absolutely correct that he did deliver in the first innings and I withdraw my complaint.

Puja

And he’s also a very good keeper. This match saw his first dropped catch for ages. Much better than Bairstow, not as good as Foakes.

I know I’d pick Foakes, but he’s in terrible nick, so Buttler is the natural choice, as Bairstow isn’t even half the player he thinks he is.

If we get another few that skid low as Blackwood was unlucky enough to get this would be an easy win