RugbyRebels

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote: You just seem to be ignoring that the gamble has been in circumstances that all the people (eg Alec Stewart) who know Roy's game said wouldn't suit him. They've asked him to open against a Dukes ball, against one of the best seam attacks in the world, on pitches that favour bowling- when all his red ball cricket has been in the middle order. That is a heap of reasons why it hasn't (yet) transferred.

No idea on the red ball question- but the point is that he has shown himself capable of a decent average in red ball cricket over 80 games. An average that has seen others get a shot in test cricket.

Heh, while looking for his recent stats, I blundered across a pre-Ashes article where Stewart was quoted as saying he expected Roy to be in the top 3 scorers in the series if he was picked as opener. Aged poorly that one!

I get that he is out of position and opening is a very different kettle of fish to being middle-order. However, he was parachuted in because we needed an opener. If we had been searching for a no 5, I'm not sure he would've been in the discussion.

Puja

Not what Stewart said last night on telly .

Denly is an opener, odd how he was parachuted into 4 really. Roy was parachuted in because he looked total class in ODI, and worth a punt, Why they didn't punt them the other way round is a mystery.

I'll have to see whether I can find the article again -it's quite amusing with the benefit of hindsight and probably more so if he's started "always saying" the opposite.

TBF, an England opener and an England no 4 are largely interchangeable in terms of the amount of an opening bowler's spells they face. It's like the difference between 12 and 13.

Puja

Stewart probably did think that all along, whilst also making sure he was supporting a Surrey player playing for England, akin to Ashton saying sure he could play left wing. Though I don't know he'd have expected Roy's scores to all be quite this low

I think you are all being very unfair to Roy. He was England’s second highest scorer in the first innings.

Mellsblue wrote:I think you are all being very unfair to Roy. He was England’s second highest scorer in the first innings.

Denly should feel safe - he was the team's top scorer in that innings.

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:
Heh, while looking for his recent stats, I blundered across a pre-Ashes article where Stewart was quoted as saying he expected Roy to be in the top 3 scorers in the series if he was picked as opener. Aged poorly that one!

I get that he is out of position and opening is a very different kettle of fish to being middle-order. However, he was parachuted in because we needed an opener. If we had been searching for a no 5, I'm not sure he would've been in the discussion.

Puja

Not what Stewart said last night on telly .

Denly is an opener, odd how he was parachuted into 4 really. Roy was parachuted in because he looked total class in ODI, and worth a punt, Why they didn't punt them the other way round is a mystery.

I'll have to see whether I can find the article again -it's quite amusing with the benefit of hindsight and probably more so if he's started "always saying" the opposite.

TBF, an England opener and an England no 4 are largely interchangeable in terms of the amount of an opening bowler's spells they face. It's like the difference between 12 and 13.

Puja

Using Diggers' joke writer doesn't help the cause.

Somebody had to step up to the plate and give Jim Davidson a job, though really there's no need for jokes when it comes to the English batting lineup, as with Trump the actuality of it exceeds any attempt to mock it

Jimmy out.

Full steam ahead with Woakes, Broad and Jofra as the quicks with Stokes as 4th seamer.

Big D wrote:Jimmy out.

Full steam ahead with Woakes, Broad and Jofra as the quicks with Stokes as 4th seamer.

yep, maybe just as well, but sad for Jimmy, as suspect he may well think of retiring now; been nice for him to have gone out with an Ashes win.

Stokes might object to being called the 4th seamer after that 24 over stint he bowled at Headingley, when he was quicker and more hostile than both Woakes and Broad (but that really is how he should be used given how vital his batting is)

Banquo wrote:

Big D wrote:Jimmy out.

Full steam ahead with Woakes, Broad and Jofra as the quicks with Stokes as 4th seamer.

yep, maybe just as well, but sad for Jimmy, as suspect he may well think of retiring now; been nice for him to have gone out with an Ashes win.

Stokes might object to being called the 4th seamer after that 24 over stint he bowled at Headingley, when he was quicker and more hostile than both Woakes and Broad (but that really is how he should be used given how vital his batting is)

When he does that every game, he can take umbrage with being called 4th seamer. Some of the spells he's chucked down this series have been a bit more on the average side.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Big D wrote:Jimmy out.

Full steam ahead with Woakes, Broad and Jofra as the quicks with Stokes as 4th seamer.

yep, maybe just as well, but sad for Jimmy, as suspect he may well think of retiring now; been nice for him to have gone out with an Ashes win.

Stokes might object to being called the 4th seamer after that 24 over stint he bowled at Headingley, when he was quicker and more hostile than both Woakes and Broad (but that really is how he should be used given how vital his batting is)

When he does that every game, he can take umbrage with being called 4th seamer. Some of the spells he's chucked down this series have been a bit more on the average side.

Puja

Including in the first innings. But his magnficent spell Friday evening and Saturday morning should not be overlooked in the winning of that test match; a fourth seamer is normally a steady eddie option, or more rarely a strike option in bursts (in fairness, his role normally)- in that spell he managed to combine being tight with runs and genuine hostility. In particular he could look at Woakes and say, come on mate, step up; he has a better strike rate overall than Woakes, too.

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote: yep, maybe just as well, but sad for Jimmy, as suspect he may well think of retiring now; been nice for him to have gone out with an Ashes win.

Stokes might object to being called the 4th seamer after that 24 over stint he bowled at Headingley, when he was quicker and more hostile than both Woakes and Broad (but that really is how he should be used given how vital his batting is)

When he does that every game, he can take umbrage with being called 4th seamer. Some of the spells he's chucked down this series have been a bit more on the average side.

Puja

Including in the first innings. But his magnficent spell Friday evening and Saturday morning should not be overlooked in the winning of that test match; a fourth seamer is normally a steady eddie option, or more rarely a strike option in bursts (in fairness, his role normally)- in that spell he managed to combine being tight with runs and genuine hostility. In particular he could look at Woakes and say, come on mate, step up; he has a better strike rate overall than Woakes, too.

Well, Stokes is normally a strike bowler option in tests, or that has been his role. But as he adapted his game for the ODIs, becoming an economical bowler, he could do the same in tests, too. But I would keep him as a strike bowler.

He's best when there is pressure on him, so bowl him at set partnerships and he can eke things out of the pitch other bowlers can't.

He's a very good 4th seamer. I just wish Woakes was consistently better, I've always thought him a bit meh. His form for a couple of years made everyone think he'd turned the corner, but perhaps it was just form and he's dropping back to the norm again.

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:
When he does that every game, he can take umbrage with being called 4th seamer. Some of the spells he's chucked down this series have been a bit more on the average side.

Puja

Including in the first innings. But his magnficent spell Friday evening and Saturday morning should not be overlooked in the winning of that test match; a fourth seamer is normally a steady eddie option, or more rarely a strike option in bursts (in fairness, his role normally)- in that spell he managed to combine being tight with runs and genuine hostility. In particular he could look at Woakes and say, come on mate, step up; he has a better strike rate overall than Woakes, too.

Well, Stokes is normally a strike bowler option in tests, or that has been his role. But as he adapted his game for the ODIs, becoming an economical bowler, he could do the same in tests, too. But I would keep him as a strike bowler.

He's best when there is pressure on him, so bowl him at set partnerships and he can eke things out of the pitch other bowlers can't.

He's a very good 4th seamer. I just wish Woakes was consistently better, I've always thought him a bit meh. His form for a couple of years made everyone think he'd turned the corner, but perhaps it was just form and he's dropping back to the norm again.

which is what I said
Indeed, looking at when we have been under pressure, he has been the one who has taken wickets and turned in the most overs- mind Woakes does have a knee injury. Stokes has actually bowled more overs than Woakes- economy isn't normally his thing, even in ODIS (where Woakes has an excellent and far better record than Stokes, whereas at test level, they are similar).

Banquo wrote:

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote: Including in the first innings. But his magnficent spell Friday evening and Saturday morning should not be overlooked in the winning of that test match; a fourth seamer is normally a steady eddie option, or more rarely a strike option in bursts (in fairness, his role normally)- in that spell he managed to combine being tight with runs and genuine hostility. In particular he could look at Woakes and say, come on mate, step up; he has a better strike rate overall than Woakes, too.

Well, Stokes is normally a strike bowler option in tests, or that has been his role. But as he adapted his game for the ODIs, becoming an economical bowler, he could do the same in tests, too. But I would keep him as a strike bowler.

He's best when there is pressure on him, so bowl him at set partnerships and he can eke things out of the pitch other bowlers can't.

He's a very good 4th seamer. I just wish Woakes was consistently better, I've always thought him a bit meh. His form for a couple of years made everyone think he'd turned the corner, but perhaps it was just form and he's dropping back to the norm again.

which is what I said
Indeed, looking at when we have been under pressure, he has been the one who has taken wickets and turned in the most overs- mind Woakes does have a knee injury. Stokes has actually bowled more overs than Woakes- economy isn't normally his thing, even in ODIS (where Woakes has an excellent and far better record than Stokes, whereas at test level, they are similar).

It's a very recent thing in ODIs for Stokes. He said it himself recently and his figures in the WC back it up (to an extent). Remember, those middle orders are tough for bowlers. Not as bad as the death, when Archer was generally excellent, but tough. He did a good job in a new(ish) role.

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Stom wrote:
Well, Stokes is normally a strike bowler option in tests, or that has been his role. But as he adapted his game for the ODIs, becoming an economical bowler, he could do the same in tests, too. But I would keep him as a strike bowler.

He's best when there is pressure on him, so bowl him at set partnerships and he can eke things out of the pitch other bowlers can't.

He's a very good 4th seamer. I just wish Woakes was consistently better, I've always thought him a bit meh. His form for a couple of years made everyone think he'd turned the corner, but perhaps it was just form and he's dropping back to the norm again.

which is what I said
Indeed, looking at when we have been under pressure, he has been the one who has taken wickets and turned in the most overs- mind Woakes does have a knee injury. Stokes has actually bowled more overs than Woakes- economy isn't normally his thing, even in ODIS (where Woakes has an excellent and far better record than Stokes, whereas at test level, they are similar).

It's a very recent thing in ODIs for Stokes. He said it himself recently and his figures in the WC back it up (to an extent). Remember, those middle orders are tough for bowlers. Not as bad as the death, when Archer was generally excellent, but tough. He did a good job in a new(ish) role.

Noted - Stokes was the second best economy rate for us, though used less and more selectively than the other seamers. Mind, very hard to judge stats over time in ODI's as the game has changed hugely in the last couple of years (the middle overs have become much more 'explosive', rather than accumulating), and we've been a big part of that.

Banquo wrote:

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote: which is what I said
Indeed, looking at when we have been under pressure, he has been the one who has taken wickets and turned in the most overs- mind Woakes does have a knee injury. Stokes has actually bowled more overs than Woakes- economy isn't normally his thing, even in ODIS (where Woakes has an excellent and far better record than Stokes, whereas at test level, they are similar).

It's a very recent thing in ODIs for Stokes. He said it himself recently and his figures in the WC back it up (to an extent). Remember, those middle orders are tough for bowlers. Not as bad as the death, when Archer was generally excellent, but tough. He did a good job in a new(ish) role.

Noted - Stokes was the second best economy rate for us, though used less and more selectively than the other seamers. Mind, very hard to judge stats over time in ODI's as the game has changed hugely in the last couple of years (the middle overs have become much more 'explosive', rather than accumulating), and we've been a big part of that.

Yeah, sorry, that wasn't well said.

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Stom wrote:
It's a very recent thing in ODIs for Stokes. He said it himself recently and his figures in the WC back it up (to an extent). Remember, those middle orders are tough for bowlers. Not as bad as the death, when Archer was generally excellent, but tough. He did a good job in a new(ish) role.

Noted - Stokes was the second best economy rate for us, though used less and more selectively than the other seamers. Mind, very hard to judge stats over time in ODI's as the game has changed hugely in the last couple of years (the middle overs have become much more 'explosive', rather than accumulating), and we've been a big part of that.

Yeah, sorry, that wasn't well said.

No, in fairness its quite a nuanced point; the middle overs have historically been a bit of an easier gig for bowlers, with batsmen just accumulating; the powerplays at the beginning and end of the innings (balanced a bit by a new ball at the start) have been where bowlers took the biggest hammering. Now the batsmen are at them nearly all the time if wickets don't fall.

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote: yep, maybe just as well, but sad for Jimmy, as suspect he may well think of retiring now; been nice for him to have gone out with an Ashes win.

Stokes might object to being called the 4th seamer after that 24 over stint he bowled at Headingley, when he was quicker and more hostile than both Woakes and Broad (but that really is how he should be used given how vital his batting is)

When he does that every game, he can take umbrage with being called 4th seamer. Some of the spells he's chucked down this series have been a bit more on the average side.

Puja

Including in the first innings. But his magnficent spell Friday evening and Saturday morning should not be overlooked in the winning of that test match; a fourth seamer is normally a steady eddie option, or more rarely a strike option in bursts (in fairness, his role normally)- in that spell he managed to combine being tight with runs and genuine hostility. In particular he could look at Woakes and say, come on mate, step up; he has a better strike rate overall than Woakes, too.

I only use 4th seamer in the context is often the 4th seamer to bowl. But in an attack with an ageing Broad and explosive Archer new to tests he will probably have to get used to picking up more overs/longer spells for a little while.

I don't think Woakes is all that, but it should be recognised he is a good bowler in English conditions. Stokes doesn't. Although a small sample size and probably influenced by the odd game, he averages 22 at home with a 43 S/R which is pretty good. Where as Stokes is consistent home and away, Woakes has been rotten away (wouldn't use him in SA). Also worth noting that Woakes probably should have rested after the WC. I'd hope he will be better for a few days off.

Stokes has it in him to be a very dangerous and consistent bowler but at the moment he is an occasionally dangerous inconsistent bowler. He is bloody exciting to watch.

Big D wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:
When he does that every game, he can take umbrage with being called 4th seamer. Some of the spells he's chucked down this series have been a bit more on the average side.

Puja

Including in the first innings. But his magnficent spell Friday evening and Saturday morning should not be overlooked in the winning of that test match; a fourth seamer is normally a steady eddie option, or more rarely a strike option in bursts (in fairness, his role normally)- in that spell he managed to combine being tight with runs and genuine hostility. In particular he could look at Woakes and say, come on mate, step up; he has a better strike rate overall than Woakes, too.

I only use 4th seamer in the context is often the 4th seamer to bowl. But in an attack with an ageing Broad and explosive Archer new to tests he will probably have to get used to picking up more overs/longer spells for a little while.

I don't think Woakes is all that, but it should be recognised he is a good bowler in English conditions. Stokes doesn't. Although a small sample size and probably influenced by the odd game, he averages 22 at home with a 43 S/R which is pretty good. Where as Stokes is consistent home and away, Woakes has been rotten away (wouldn't use him in SA). Also worth noting that Woakes probably should have rested after the WC. I'd hope he will be better for a few days off.

Stokes has it in him to be a very dangerous and consistent bowler but at the moment he is an occasionally dangerous inconsistent bowler. He is bloody exciting to watch.

The spell he bowled in the last test was Flintoff-esque, but fair enough.

Roy still in the mix with Pope overlooked - possible option to tinker with order as suggested earlier.
If they play Woakes he needs to bowl more else thay may as well pick Curran who may get decent swing in the Autumnal air and will offer a bit more with the bat.
Overton there as cover one feels.

Banquo wrote:

Big D wrote:

Banquo wrote: Including in the first innings. But his magnficent spell Friday evening and Saturday morning should not be overlooked in the winning of that test match; a fourth seamer is normally a steady eddie option, or more rarely a strike option in bursts (in fairness, his role normally)- in that spell he managed to combine being tight with runs and genuine hostility. In particular he could look at Woakes and say, come on mate, step up; he has a better strike rate overall than Woakes, too.

I only use 4th seamer in the context is often the 4th seamer to bowl. But in an attack with an ageing Broad and explosive Archer new to tests he will probably have to get used to picking up more overs/longer spells for a little while.

I don't think Woakes is all that, but it should be recognised he is a good bowler in English conditions. Stokes doesn't. Although a small sample size and probably influenced by the odd game, he averages 22 at home with a 43 S/R which is pretty good. Where as Stokes is consistent home and away, Woakes has been rotten away (wouldn't use him in SA). Also worth noting that Woakes probably should have rested after the WC. I'd hope he will be better for a few days off.

Stokes has it in him to be a very dangerous and consistent bowler but at the moment he is an occasionally dangerous inconsistent bowler. He is bloody exciting to watch.

The spell he bowled in the last test was Flintoff-esque, but fair enough.

There's a random "Stokes doesn't" in there and I have no idea what I meant.

That spell was excellent, hopefully he will do it more often.

Woakes definitely needs to step up. As Galfon says Curran may be an option as something different.

Galfon wrote:Roy still in the mix with Pope overlooked - possible option to tinker with order as suggested earlier.
If they play Woakes he needs to bowl more else thay may as well pick Curran who may get decent swing in the Autumnal air and will offer a bit more with the bat.
Overton there as cover one feels.

Whilst Curran has the potential to develop, Woakes is having a bit of a batting blip but is a much better batsman as it stands- f/c average of 34 with 10 tons inc a test century. He is carrying a knee injury which is limiting his bowling, and rightly calls into question his place- however, need to fair about relative abilities.

Here's one for you. The shot Root got out to Lyon with in the 2nd innings is one he was practising in the nets earlier that morning, so he specifically went out there looking to play that shot.

Denly will open, Roy at 4.
Manchester weather is Septembery at the moment, so both will need their best jumpers.

Galfon wrote:Denly will open, Roy at 4.
Manchester weather is Septembery at the moment, so both will need their best jumpers.

Feels a bit like rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic.

Overton replaces Woakes