RugbyRebels

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.

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.

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

Puja

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

fivepointer wrote:I like Butler but the stats dont lie.
He has scored one 50 in his last 21 innings. Has only one test hundred and his average has been falling since late 2018.
I dont blame him for getting out yesterday in a dash for quick runs, but all too often he gets out in very soft ways when looking reasonably set.
His keeping is generally very reliable.
The batting must be an issue with Foakes in the wings.

Banquo wrote:Broad in one of those moods, good stuff.