I wasn't impressed with Rohit's captaincy yesterday, the way he managed his bowlers seemed very mechanical when compared to how much Ben Stokes tries to vary things.
For example he started the day with his 2 best seamers, then after drinks brought on his 2 other seamers who bowled until lunch. Then brought back his 2 best seamers after lunch. You can't imagine Stokes not giving his spinner a go until the 38th over when no wickets had fallen for a long period of time.
Watching Cummins and Boland this morning...the only way we're Bazballing this is if every pitch is an absolute road. In which case, how does Smith not get 200 every time? Suddenly, the thought of Rehan Ahmed doesn't seem so stupid
Buzzing that Moeen is back. Perfect for the way we play and he will have so much more freedom under this regime
Agreed that he will be more comfortable in this environment. Trouble is that the Aussies aren't going to fear him as there are no secrets to his game and his record of 20 wickets at 64.65 with the ball and 25.05 with the bat is evidence enough of that. He's never really been able to stem the flow of runs either as his overall ER is 3.61. I would have been tempted to have thrown Rehan Ahmed in as he will go for a few but he is a wicket taking bowler though the assumption in saying that is that Stokes can bowl. Could it be that we are hoping that Stokes will be able to bowl more overs as the series progresses hence Moeen being called in for the first two Tests?
I'm glad that you don't think I'm as stupid as you once did @Leuth. I haven't had to take my shoes and socks off to count all those spinners' wickets on this track either!
The Ashes could well be decided by the balance of the two sides. Green, a 23 year old, with his ability to bowl up to 90mph, gives the Aussies that. Stokes, at almost a decade older and a dodgy knee, almost certainly won't. Add to that they can perm any fit three from four other world class seamers and they have one of the best spinners around too whereas our front line spinner is out for the duration and I'm genuinely concerned that we won't even get the drawn series previously predicted.
The Ashes could well be decided by the balance of the two sides. Green, a 23 year old, with his ability to bowl up to 90mph, gives the Aussies that. Stokes, at almost a decade older and a dodgy knee, almost certainly won't. Add to that they can perm any fit three from four other world class seamers and they have one of the best spinners around too whereas our front line spinner is out for the duration and I'm genuinely concerned that we won't even get the drawn series previously predicted.
The Ashes could well be decided by the balance of the two sides. Green, a 23 year old, with his ability to bowl up to 90mph, gives the Aussies that. Stokes, at almost a decade older and a dodgy knee, almost certainly won't. Add to that they can perm any fit three from four other world class seamers and they have one of the best spinners around too whereas our front line spinner is out for the duration and I'm genuinely concerned that we won't even get the drawn series previously predicted.
Would you choose Green ahead of Stokes?
Absolutely, 100%, with fucking bells on. Silly question tbh
The Ashes could well be decided by the balance of the two sides. Green, a 23 year old, with his ability to bowl up to 90mph, gives the Aussies that. Stokes, at almost a decade older and a dodgy knee, almost certainly won't. Add to that they can perm any fit three from four other world class seamers and they have one of the best spinners around too whereas our front line spinner is out for the duration and I'm genuinely concerned that we won't even get the drawn series previously predicted.
Would you choose Green ahead of Stokes?
Absolutely, 100%, with fucking bells on. Silly question tbh
Interesting. Would you care to summarise why?
I wouldn't, because Stokes is too valuable as an inspirational captain, has scored five times as many runs and seven times as many wickets as Green, is a spectacular fielder when called on, has a spectacular record as captain, is only eight years older than Green, has won everything - ODI World Cup, T20 World Cup, Ashes - and is the team's talisman. Whereas Green (at the time of writing) has a batting average of 6.00 and a bowling average of 37.00 in England.
The Ashes could well be decided by the balance of the two sides. Green, a 23 year old, with his ability to bowl up to 90mph, gives the Aussies that. Stokes, at almost a decade older and a dodgy knee, almost certainly won't. Add to that they can perm any fit three from four other world class seamers and they have one of the best spinners around too whereas our front line spinner is out for the duration and I'm genuinely concerned that we won't even get the drawn series previously predicted.
Would you choose Green ahead of Stokes?
If they were both 23 then it would be a coin toss. Now it's not a contest.
The Ashes could well be decided by the balance of the two sides. Green, a 23 year old, with his ability to bowl up to 90mph, gives the Aussies that. Stokes, at almost a decade older and a dodgy knee, almost certainly won't. Add to that they can perm any fit three from four other world class seamers and they have one of the best spinners around too whereas our front line spinner is out for the duration and I'm genuinely concerned that we won't even get the drawn series previously predicted.
Would you choose Green ahead of Stokes?
Absolutely, 100%, with fucking bells on. Silly question tbh
Interesting. Would you care to summarise why?
I wouldn't, because Stokes is too valuable as an inspirational captain, has scored five times as many runs and seven times as many wickets as Green, is a spectacular fielder when called on, has a spectacular record as captain, is only eight years older than Green, has won everything - ODI World Cup, T20 World Cup, Ashes - and is the team's talisman. Whereas Green (at the time of writing) has a batting average of 6.00 and a bowling average of 37.00 in England.
Why would you put Green so far ahead of Stokes?
Because I've watched them play cricket recently? Chrissakes
The captaincy thing is the only thing current Stokes has in his favour. It isn't to be underestimated, but even without him I'm sure this team would play the same way and with almost the same confidence
The Ashes could well be decided by the balance of the two sides. Green, a 23 year old, with his ability to bowl up to 90mph, gives the Aussies that. Stokes, at almost a decade older and a dodgy knee, almost certainly won't. Add to that they can perm any fit three from four other world class seamers and they have one of the best spinners around too whereas our front line spinner is out for the duration and I'm genuinely concerned that we won't even get the drawn series previously predicted.
Would you choose Green ahead of Stokes?
If they were both 23 then it would be a coin toss. Now it's not a contest.
The captaincy thing is the only thing current Stokes has in his favour. It isn't to be underestimated, but even without him I'm sure this team would play the same way and with almost the same confidence
Would Stokes get into the current team just as a middle order batsman?
I think the answer is almost certainly no. I certainly wouldn't consider not picking him but it does make the whole thing very difficult.
The Ashes could well be decided by the balance of the two sides. Green, a 23 year old, with his ability to bowl up to 90mph, gives the Aussies that. Stokes, at almost a decade older and a dodgy knee, almost certainly won't. Add to that they can perm any fit three from four other world class seamers and they have one of the best spinners around too whereas our front line spinner is out for the duration and I'm genuinely concerned that we won't even get the drawn series previously predicted.
Would you choose Green ahead of Stokes?
Absolutely, 100%, with fucking bells on. Silly question tbh
Interesting. Would you care to summarise why?
I wouldn't, because Stokes is too valuable as an inspirational captain, has scored five times as many runs and seven times as many wickets as Green, is a spectacular fielder when called on, has a spectacular record as captain, is only eight years older than Green, has won everything - ODI World Cup, T20 World Cup, Ashes - and is the team's talisman. Whereas Green (at the time of writing) has a batting average of 6.00 and a bowling average of 37.00 in England.
Why would you put Green so far ahead of Stokes?
Perhaps because we can't afford to have a Brearley type captain. Brearley wasn't expected to deliver with the ball and the balance is all wrong when Stokes cannot do that. Stokes last 6 Tests since the end of our domestic season - 2 wickets @ 89 apiece and 282 runs scored at an average of 31.33. He bowled one over in the whole of the IPL.
I'm sure you can also do better than to use a sample size of one innings as a comparative too so far as Green is concerned. If England can pick a batsman based on 63 innings at an average of 28.26 then I think we can give Green a bit more of the benefit of the doubt than using that one innings with the bat and half an innings with the ball as defining evidence of his ability in England even if that wicket at 37 is infinitely better than the form Stokes has shown in the last eight months.
The captaincy thing is the only thing current Stokes has in his favour. It isn't to be underestimated, but even without him I'm sure this team would play the same way and with almost the same confidence
Would Stokes get into the current team just as a middle order batsman?
I think the answer is almost certainly no. I certainly wouldn't consider not picking him but it does make the whole thing very difficult.
It's almost like in order to play this way, the skipper himself needs to be completely sacrificial - someone who will lead the way by playing in the most aggressive possible style, so that nobody else can feel bad about fucking up themselves. It's fantastic and it works. It's the argument for keeping him in the team. He doesn't get into our XI right now on a form basis.
Green is a ludicrously good cricketer approaching his peak. You'd kill to have that in the side.
I can see an argument for both, or for Green. Not for Stokes over Green.
Australia really not doing themselves any favours with these no balls. We can only hope that they don't use this experience as a learning curve for the Ashes.
Comments
For example he started the day with his 2 best seamers, then after drinks brought on his 2 other seamers who bowled until lunch. Then brought back his 2 best seamers after lunch. You can't imagine Stokes not giving his spinner a go until the 38th over when no wickets had fallen for a long period of time.
Kohli gets out to a cracker.
I wouldn't, because Stokes is too valuable as an inspirational captain, has scored five times as many runs and seven times as many wickets as Green, is a spectacular fielder when called on, has a spectacular record as captain, is only eight years older than Green, has won everything - ODI World Cup, T20 World Cup, Ashes - and is the team's talisman. Whereas Green (at the time of writing) has a batting average of 6.00 and a bowling average of 37.00 in England.
Why would you put Green so far ahead of Stokes?
I think the answer is almost certainly no. I certainly wouldn't consider not picking him but it does make the whole thing very difficult.
I'm sure you can also do better than to use a sample size of one innings as a comparative too so far as Green is concerned. If England can pick a batsman based on 63 innings at an average of 28.26 then I think we can give Green a bit more of the benefit of the doubt than using that one innings with the bat and half an innings with the ball as defining evidence of his ability in England even if that wicket at 37 is infinitely better than the form Stokes has shown in the last eight months.
Green is a ludicrously good cricketer approaching his peak. You'd kill to have that in the side.
I can see an argument for both, or for Green. Not for Stokes over Green.