How anyone, including the England managment consider going into a test match in England with out Woakes in the team really blows my mind.
Because, in terms of quality, he is probably our 3rd/4th bowler atm , pretty simple really.
Sorry, which team leaves out their 3rd/4th best bowler? Espically one that could bat at higher than 8?
The team that has a 4th bowler who bats at 5.
Who doesn't bowl
Is that why he's in the team as an all-rounder?
He isn't, see my previous posts. He is being picked as a batsman who happens to be able to bowl. The fact he should be picked as an all rounder is a diffrent subject, and one we would probably agree on.
If you are going to play Stokes and Ali, then there is absolutely no point in playing 4 bowlers ahead of them. As I said before, historically the 5th bowler only gets to bowl an average of 8-10 overs per innings, and more realistically, more recently , gets to bowl zero overs. So therefore you have a choice of 3 from Jimmy,Archer(when fit),Broad and Woakes. My choice to drop out would be Woakes.
I totally agree with your first point but England have turned the strength of having 3 all rounders into a weakness by effectively having them bat in the top 6, then due to lack of proper batsmen picked more bowlers and wicket keepers.
Stokes has effectively been batting at 5 and part of a 6 or some times 7 man attack. He is an all rounder but isn't being picked as one for what ever reason.
The problem with the all rounders is that none of them are good enough with the bat at the moment to be top 5, we have a team of very good number 7s!
Bairstow averages with the bat 36, Buttler 36, Stokes 34 and Ali 30.
Looking up some former lower middle order players for comparison, Matt Prior averaged 40, Bell 43, Collingwood 41, Flintoff 32
I think Ian Bell was a very good top 5 batsman, Matt Prior was good with the bat, but most of the time he played, we had a decent top 5, I think our lower middle order have to come in at 40-4 at times, if they were coming in at 300-4 with tiring bowlers, they would be much better
Archer needs to be selected if he is fit .. the other quicks, as good as they are, will not be able to put the fear of god into the sandpaper boys .. would like to see them reduced to sawdust
I think that the selectors are not sure that Archer is 100 per cent fit - therefore the best option is let him recover for another 10 days and get him fully fired up for the next 4 games.
Archer needs to be selected if he is fit .. the other quicks, as good as they are, will not be able to put the fear of god into the sandpaper boys .. would like to see them reduced to sawdust
I think that the selectors are not sure that Archer is 100 per cent fit - therefore the best option is let him recover for another 10 days and get him fully fired up for the next 4 games.
Archer may not be full fit. Woakes is on his home ground and took 6 wickets in his last innings. Can see why he was picked.
That said, if Jof is fit for the second test and Woakes plays well at Edgbaston I'd have both in the line-up wouldn't bother with a spinner.
Archer needs to be selected if he is fit .. the other quicks, as good as they are, will not be able to put the fear of god into the sandpaper boys .. would like to see them reduced to sawdust
I think that the selectors are not sure that Archer is 100 per cent fit - therefore the best option is let him recover for another 10 days and get him fully fired up for the next 4 games.
Archer may not be full fit. Woakes is on his home ground and took 6 wickets in his last innings. Can see why he was picked.
That said, if Jof is fit for the second test and Woakes plays well at Edgbaston I'd have both in the line-up wouldn't bother with a spinner.
Archer needs to be selected if he is fit .. the other quicks, as good as they are, will not be able to put the fear of god into the sandpaper boys .. would like to see them reduced to sawdust
I think that the selectors are not sure that Archer is 100 per cent fit - therefore the best option is let him recover for another 10 days and get him fully fired up for the next 4 games.
Archer may not be full fit. Woakes is on his home ground and took 6 wickets in his last innings. Can see why he was picked.
That said, if Jof is fit for the second test and Woakes plays well at Edgbaston I'd have both in the line-up wouldn't bother with a spinner.
Does that mean you'd drop Ali?
I wouldn't drop someone for the second test before the first test has even taken place. If I said that and Mo took two 5fers I'd look like a right idiot.
But I would've preferred to of seen a bowling attack of Jof, Woakes, Stokes, Jimmy & Broad for this first test as I don't think any of our spinners are in good form going into the series.
However, if Jof hasn't been selected because he's not fit, then that's fair enough, Mo should be in the side. But if Woakes has been picked over Jof because of his recent performance and the fact he's playing on his home ground I think we've missed an opportunity to have both in the side, without sacrificing Stokes, Jimmy or Broad.
5 right arm seamers doesn't sound a very varied attack though, even if Archer brings express pace. Denly and Root can both bowl reasonably though, if we need a few overs, even if Denly's bowling has rather gone backwards from last season.
One of my mates playing cricket for Roffey 1s, apparently Archer is going to play for Horsham against them this Saturday to get match fit.... I do not envy the Roffey's openers! I'd go into bat wearing a full bubble-wrap suit!
How anyone, including the England managment consider going into a test match in England with out Woakes in the team really blows my mind.
Because, in terms of quality, he is probably our 3rd/4th bowler atm , pretty simple really.
Sorry, which team leaves out their 3rd/4th best bowler? Espically one that could bat at higher than 8?
The team that has a 4th bowler who bats at 5.
Who doesn't bowl
Is that why he's in the team as an all-rounder?
He isn't, see my previous posts. He is being picked as a batsman who happens to be able to bowl. The fact he should be picked as an all rounder is a diffrent subject, and one we would probably agree on.
If you are going to play Stokes and Ali, then there is absolutely no point in playing 4 bowlers ahead of them. As I said before, historically the 5th bowler only gets to bowl an average of 8-10 overs per innings, and more realistically, more recently , gets to bowl zero overs. So therefore you have a choice of 3 from Jimmy,Archer(when fit),Broad and Woakes. My choice to drop out would be Woakes.
I totally agree with your first point but England have turned the strength of having 3 all rounders into a weakness by effectively having them bat in the top 6, then due to lack of proper batsmen picked more bowlers and wicket keepers.
Stokes has effectively been batting at 5 and part of a 6 or some times 7 man attack. He is an all rounder but isn't being picked as one for what ever reason.
The problem with the all rounders is that none of them are good enough with the bat at the moment to be top 5, we have a team of very good number 7s!
Bairstow averages with the bat 36, Buttler 36, Stokes 34 and Ali 30.
Looking up some former lower middle order players for comparison, Matt Prior averaged 40, Bell 43, Collingwood 41, Flintoff 32
Don't forget that Chris Woakes has a batting average in the middle order (ie numbers 4-7) of 60.5 with a highest score of 137*. And he's almost certainly not going to bat in the top 7.
Archer needs to be selected if he is fit .. the other quicks, as good as they are, will not be able to put the fear of god into the sandpaper boys .. would like to see them reduced to sawdust
I think that the selectors are not sure that Archer is 100 per cent fit - therefore the best option is let him recover for another 10 days and get him fully fired up for the next 4 games.
They know that Archer isn't 100% fit, and with Anderson not a 100% they went for Jimmy instead of the debutant. The last seamer spot had to be between the two recently injured pair.
Archer needs to be selected if he is fit .. the other quicks, as good as they are, will not be able to put the fear of god into the sandpaper boys .. would like to see them reduced to sawdust
I think that the selectors are not sure that Archer is 100 per cent fit - therefore the best option is let him recover for another 10 days and get him fully fired up for the next 4 games.
They know that Archer isn't 100% fit, and with Anderson not a 100% they went for Jimmy instead of the debutant. The last seamer spot had to be between the two recently injured pair.
Are you suggesting it was a straight choice between Archer and Anderson? If so... blimey!
according to the BBC, Buttler is keeping wicket, batting at 5 with Bairstow at 7 .. surely not
I would find that strange but did wonder why both Bairstow and Buttler were named as keepers when the squad was announced. If Bairstow fails at 7 it leaves the door open for the best keeper of them all (with a decent Test average too) to come in as a straight replacement in that position with Buttler reverting to batting and fielding.
Archer needs to be selected if he is fit .. the other quicks, as good as they are, will not be able to put the fear of god into the sandpaper boys .. would like to see them reduced to sawdust
I think that the selectors are not sure that Archer is 100 per cent fit - therefore the best option is let him recover for another 10 days and get him fully fired up for the next 4 games.
They know that Archer isn't 100% fit, and with Anderson not a 100% they went for Jimmy instead of the debutant. The last seamer spot had to be between the two recently injured pair.
Are you suggesting it was a straight choice between Archer and Anderson? If so... blimey!
I think that we may see the selectors perming any 3 from 4 throughout the series with Woakes, Broad, Anderson and Archer all missing at least one Test. Horses for courses with Woakes playing in the first two at least - his home ground followed by the one where he has been most successful.
Archer needs to be selected if he is fit .. the other quicks, as good as they are, will not be able to put the fear of god into the sandpaper boys .. would like to see them reduced to sawdust
I think that the selectors are not sure that Archer is 100 per cent fit - therefore the best option is let him recover for another 10 days and get him fully fired up for the next 4 games.
They know that Archer isn't 100% fit, and with Anderson not a 100% they went for Jimmy instead of the debutant. The last seamer spot had to be between the two recently injured pair.
Are you suggesting it was a straight choice between Archer and Anderson? If so... blimey!
I think that we may see the selectors perming any 3 from 4 throughout the series with Woakes, Broad, Anderson and Archer all missing at least one Test. Horses for courses with Woakes playing in the first two at least - his home ground followed by the one where he has been most successful.
shot from the blue .. I wonder if Anderson will fail a fitness test tomorrow morning allowing Archer to play .. just supposing
according to the BBC, Buttler is keeping wicket, batting at 5 with Bairstow at 7 .. surely not
Another "committee" choice where none of them agree and end with a rubbish compromise that doesn't solve anything.
It's getting beyond a joke, if it's true, but wouldn't supprise me in the slightest. Weak leadership.
I don't agree that telling the captain he has to bat in an un-preferred position, telling a player who is determined to keep wicket that he's not going to and not selecting England's World Cup winning strike bowler that he's not playing is "weak leadership". You might not agree with those decisions; but making them is far from weak.
according to the BBC, Buttler is keeping wicket, batting at 5 with Bairstow at 7 .. surely not
Another "committee" choice where none of them agree and end with a rubbish compromise that doesn't solve anything.
It's getting beyond a joke, if it's true, but wouldn't supprise me in the slightest. Weak leadership.
I don't agree that telling the captain he has to bat in an un-preferred position, telling a player who is determined to keep wicket that he's not going to and not selecting England's World Cup winning strike bowler that he's not playing is "weak leadership". You might not agree with those decisions; but making them is far from weak.
2 players want to keep wicket and one of the 4 seamers had to be left out so they had no choice. Not selecting Archer was the easiest decision they could make.
according to the BBC, Buttler is keeping wicket, batting at 5 with Bairstow at 7 .. surely not
Another "committee" choice where none of them agree and end with a rubbish compromise that doesn't solve anything.
It's getting beyond a joke, if it's true, but wouldn't supprise me in the slightest. Weak leadership.
I don't agree that telling the captain he has to bat in an un-preferred position, telling a player who is determined to keep wicket that he's not going to and not selecting England's World Cup winning strike bowler that he's not playing is "weak leadership". You might not agree with those decisions; but making them is far from weak.
I love the fact you can be arsed to go on a number of diffrent threads and intentionally twist peoples words in the pursuit of a few lols. Takes trolling to a whole new level and you actually must invest the best part of a working week doing so.
Root batting at 3 is the right thing, but just swapping him with Denly isn't the answer, it's a compromise.
Picking a specialist batsman at 7 behind an batting all rounder that is worth his place in the team as a bowler but is so out of form with the bat he looks like a tail ender is a compromise. Pushing Buttler up the order and giving him the gloves is a compromise.
Archer isn't fit, if he is would you leave out England's best new ball bowler in the world cup or either of England's leading 2 wicket takers?
The first 2 are weak leadership. The last one is if you think he is fit then again its weak, just say he isn't picked.
Edit: I know Ali is down to bat at 8 but my point about Bairstow is still valid.
Archer is a massive risk anyway, even without fitness issues as he has so little red ball experience, indeed hasn't he not played a red ball match since last year?
Archer needs to be selected if he is fit .. the other quicks, as good as they are, will not be able to put the fear of god into the sandpaper boys .. would like to see them reduced to sawdust
I think that the selectors are not sure that Archer is 100 per cent fit - therefore the best option is let him recover for another 10 days and get him fully fired up for the next 4 games.
They know that Archer isn't 100% fit, and with Anderson not a 100% they went for Jimmy instead of the debutant. The last seamer spot had to be between the two recently injured pair.
Are you suggesting it was a straight choice between Archer and Anderson? If so... Blimey
On this occasion I don't see the joke ?
Broad and Woakes are fit, Hopefully Stokes is fit to bowl as many overs as needed. The last seamer choice was between Archer and Anderson, the injured bowlers who I said couldn't both be picked last week as One breaking down in a test is careless, two would be incompetent.
Comments
I think Ian Bell was a very good top 5 batsman, Matt Prior was good with the bat, but most of the time he played, we had a decent top 5, I think our lower middle order have to come in at 40-4 at times, if they were coming in at 300-4 with tiring bowlers, they would be much better
That said, if Jof is fit for the second test and Woakes plays well at Edgbaston I'd have both in the line-up wouldn't bother with a spinner.
But I would've preferred to of seen a bowling attack of Jof, Woakes, Stokes, Jimmy & Broad for this first test as I don't think any of our spinners are in good form going into the series.
However, if Jof hasn't been selected because he's not fit, then that's fair enough, Mo should be in the side. But if Woakes has been picked over Jof because of his recent performance and the fact he's playing on his home ground I think we've missed an opportunity to have both in the side, without sacrificing Stokes, Jimmy or Broad.
i think whoever we play gives us a strong bowling attack on home soil, that of course is not the concern.
It's getting beyond a joke, if it's true, but wouldn't supprise me in the slightest. Weak leadership.
Lyons has lost every Test he's played at Edgbaston. Moeen has won every Test he's played at Edgbaston, including one MoM performance.
Root batting at 3 is the right thing, but just swapping him with Denly isn't the answer, it's a compromise.
Picking a specialist batsman at 7 behind an batting all rounder that is worth his place in the team as a bowler but is so out of form with the bat he looks like a tail ender is a compromise. Pushing Buttler up the order and giving him the gloves is a compromise.
Archer isn't fit, if he is would you leave out England's best new ball bowler in the world cup or either of England's leading 2 wicket takers?
The first 2 are weak leadership. The last one is if you think he is fit then again its weak, just say he isn't picked.
Edit: I know Ali is down to bat at 8 but my point about Bairstow is still valid.
Broad and Woakes are fit,
Hopefully Stokes is fit to bowl as many overs as needed. The last seamer choice was between Archer and Anderson, the
injured bowlers who I said couldn't both be picked last week as One breaking down in a test is careless, two would be incompetent.