yeah i agree, theyre ****ed
Australia would never replace a no 3 with an all rounder. Unless his name was Watson.
There was no easy decision. It's not like sticking woakes or bresnan at 6 where they've never even batted in the top 6 or not until very recently at domestic level. Stokes isn't an international number 6 at preseent but he has batted in the top order throughout his career for his county and his aspirations are primarily as a batsman. The bowling has been pretty lousy too and been criticized so maybe England thought they needed to strengthen their bowling just as well. The fact is over the last few years it's only really been Cook, KP and Bell of the batsmen who have won test matches for England.
They had a tough decision to make and there was no easy selection to be made given the situation. Now whether poor decisions in the leadup to the series and in the past 24 or whatever months led to this tough decision can definitely be debated but on the day there was no easy team selection.
I would always play 6 bats so my issue with Stokes and Watson is wether they can hold their spot on weight of runs alone. If Stokes kicks on then its good for him and the balance of the team. But if he doesn't then you get the Watson thing where because they can be a handy 5th bowler they get held to a different standard.
I know Ballance isn't experienced but he is the reserve bat so he should get a game before the tour is out. If he's not good enough then he shouldn't be touring.
I agree in principal that on the face of it the decision didn't seem very logical. Given Prior and form of the tail it would seem insane to further weaken the batting.
I think I have a slightly different view to you and some others about 6th batsmen or allrounder. I don't think they need to hold their place on the weight of their runs alone. You play an allrounder and you're betting on keeping the opposition to a lower score than they would have against 4 straight bowlers. You also are lessening the burden on the other bowlers potentially prolonging their career(just speculation). Stokes and Watson aren't the Mark Ealham or Shaun Young type allrounders who are going to have no impact in either discipline. They both at domestic level bat in the top 6 and are 3rd or 4th seamers.
To me Watson as average as his batting is is still an important and worthy player in the Australian team. His bowling gives control, allows rest to the other seamers, and means 4 seamers can be used utilised early in the match when there is no spin. I also don't think Australia have any massively better batsmen than Watson who aren't in the test team. Some marginally better yes and if Watson can't bowl he shouldn't play - but not massively better to counter the advantage of his bowling. His batting has never really prospered and that to some extent will be down to his own negligence but also playing in a struggling australia team and being moved constantly around the order.
England have given plenty of blokes a go at 6 and as the third seamer over the last couple of years and sticked rigidly to their 6 batsmen/keeper/ 4 bowlers policy but they found no-one in either position and struggled. Stokes has a load of talent and although he doesn't fit directly into their proven tactic they decided to back the player rather than the tactic.
I don't think many of us had Swann down to go. Think this strengthens Stokes hand long term as we will need 5 bowlers and he is ideal for 6 or 7 and 4th seamer depending who the keeper is.
Obviously losing a player like Swann means there is one less good player competing for positions so that strengthens Stokes position and England will give Stokes plenty of time to develop given his potential and his recent performance.
But if anything in the short term Stokes playing is more of a worry today than he was yesterday imo or at least there were more reasons to play Stokes yesterday than today. I don't think there is anyway they will drop him though.
Stokes getting in the team may by some strange way help Woakes find a long term position in the team. There's definitely a need to have a strong wkbatsmen and/or tail if you have Stokes at 6. There aren't particularly many good young bowlers coming through who can hold a bat at present. David Willey would be the only one but neither suit is that strong yet.
A totally awful but plentiful resources team- Cook, Root, Borthwick, Ali, Kieswetter, Stokes, C Overton, C Woakes, Bresnan, Willey, Broad. Thakor, Dawson, and Ansari in reserve Everyone bats and only Cook doesn't bowl.
Damn it I think Stokes being in the team is also going to prolong Bresnan being in the team which is bad news for me.
What's worse than having one crap allrounder? Having a team of them
Really hope England give Steve Finn more of a go.
They've managed him awfully in the last few years, preferring to play defensive cricket, when if they had used him well as an attacking Johnson type option, they may have been even more dominant over the past 3-4 years.
He has all the attributes and has done a good job so far in his test career.
Hope they learn something from how Clarke has used Johnson- just let him strive for wickets and to not worry about runs. He could be a gem.
Hope he's not too disillusioned by how he's managed, and can learn to bowl to his strengths.
I can't help but feel as though the legacy of this tour will last well into the future. Trott gone, Swann gone, Prior as good as gone with KP and Anderson both on relatively shaky ground, it is almost a given that the England squad for the next Ashes tour will be considerably more different than Australia's. That being said, only time will tell whether or not this will be a 'rebirth' or not.
England's dead. Dead.
wpd I think the quality is there just most of it is in the 18-22 age bracket and that means this next ashes in 2015 will come too soon for them. The worry is the 23-28 age group seems poor so we have no real replacements for anyone at the moment.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)