Pandya vs CdG vs Holder vs Stokes vs Holder vs Chris Morris vs Marsh and whoever else

[Mr Miyagi]

Yeah I think Miyagi's got that one backwards

Tests: Stokes >>>>> CdG
LO: Stokes >> CdG

Stokes' superiority is much more pronounced in Tests IMO

Well, I don't mind if people think Stokes is a superior test cricketer to CdG. (This is very ironic considering their origins).

But at the end of the day, CdG is averaging more with the bat (38 vs 35) than Stokes, and less with the ball than Stokes (29 vs 34).

http://www.espncricinfo.com/newzealand/content/player/55395.html

http://www.espncricinfo.com/england/content/player/311158.html

You want to say despite this that Stokes is the better test player. That doesn't make you stupid. There's a whole lot going on in those averages.

But CdG did play a hand with the bat in NZ beating England. He did open the bowling against SA with success. He did bowl Pakistan out for a win. And I am very happy with him as a NZC test player, and really not feeling the loss of Stokes AT ALL, in tests. In fact, I am very very happy with CdG and think Hesson really got this right out of left field. How many more seasons we get, is unknown. But my god I am enjoying the success of CdG in tests.

In pyjamas, I think CdG has some ground to catch up on Stokes. Quite a lot. Despite their averages. CdG only seems to know how to bowl length well, great for tests, he is getting punished in ODI and T20 for it. Stokes at least has wide Yorkers to make him a viable option, despite Braithwaite.

CdG batting in odi and t20 is hamstrung by his past disability with wrist spin. I hope he rectifies this soon, because he isn't as good as his averages suggest in these formats till he sorts this out. He has padded his batting stats in losses. I think right now, Stokes offers more in pyjamas, in whites, I'm taking CdG.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Well, I don't mind if people think Stokes is a superior test cricketer to CdG. (This is very ironic considering their origins).

But at the end of the day, CdG is averaging more with the bat than Stokes, and less with the ball than Stokes.

You want to say despite this that Stokes is the better test player. That doesn't make you stupid. There's a whole lot going on in those averages.

ok?

 

[mr_mister]

CDG's test stats look great but he's only played ten tests. Don't see him averaging 38 with the bat after 25+ tests. His average with the ball may stay around 29 though, or even get lower

 

[Daemon]

I think Stokes is clearly the better player in both formats. The stats don't show it yet but they will eventually, unless something changes drastically over the next couple of years.

CdG should end up the better bowler in Tests though imo.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

CdG really is more of a batsman than a bowler, which is why so many NZC pundits struggled with his early selection (especially when he opened the bowling vs SA). So the chances of him keeping a sub 30 bowling average are not the best. But he just kept silencing all the critics repeatedly till they stopped criticising his selection. And in his last test, he went a long way to NZ saving it with the bat instead of his normal boundary hitting, so he is regularly surprising people.

His bowling average has been increasing steadily from his early Pak game, but, so has his batting average too. CdG offers little threat unless the ball nibbles or swings around (NZ use a kookaburra), but he does keep a tidy line and length.

I expect more runs from him at home this year with the bat with SL and Bangla touring but S Khan in UAE will be a big challenge for him should he play. He or Southee may well make way for a second spinner (Wagner and Boult play). This may depend on whether the spinners are Todd Astle and Santner, or spinners with less batting prowess.

 

[mr_mister]

Interesting. His batting technique looked a little clunky which is why I thought he was a bowler who could bat

 

[Flem274*]

Colin's got a good technique and a terrible brain. He'll happily play the perfect lofted cover drive straight to the man in the deep on 35.

Though his batting effort against England suggests he's taking test cricket more seriously than domestic when NZ need wickets in hand.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Interesting. His batting technique looked a little clunky which is why I thought he was a bowler who could bat

Yeah, he's clunky, but the basics are there. He's very strong and powerful, can hit a massive ball, and that seemingly influences his cricket in a poor way in that he will take the bowler and field on when it isn't necessarily the best percentage option.

Great when NZ is on top and he's looking for quick runs or in a position to launch a counter attack (like he did vs the WI after Ross and Nicholls got a score together), bit of a concern in a dog fight with backs against the wall, though.

Still I look forward to his batting displays in tests when NZ has the upperhand, because he will typically look to entertain and pepper the long on, mid wicket and square-leg boundaries for 4 or 6 (Really is a continuation in some ways of those demonstrations that BMac or CCairns used to put on).

But like Flem says, he displayed an ability to rein in his game against England when the dice were down against NZL, and found a way to bat time somewhat successfully. So he may have further dimensions at intl to his batting game than just being a carefree biffer with the bat.

 

[Dan]

So when people say that his batting has always been good but he needed to work on his bowling, they seriously believed that if had some sort of injury that prevented him from bowling, that'd be better than if he wasn't allowed to bat?

Because this astounds me. If the point was that he was being selected primarily as a bowler, and that his batting was good enough to bat 7 as a bowling allrounder but he needed to produce more in his primary role to be a particularly good player then cool, I agree. But if the idea was that his primary role was actually batting and he needed to bowl better to justify his spot as a batting allrounder, that seems bat**** insane to me. It's never been even remotely true IMO.

I think part of this stems from him bowling to about a fourth seamer level when, in the bowling all-rounder role, he really need to be up at about third seamer level. Meanwhile his batting is serviceable for a #7 (better than serviceable in the context of the 'Windies, but anyway), when realistically all he needs to be is a good #8.

So I can kind of see the 'needs to work on his bowling' comment, because his batting is the stronger discipline relative to his role. If his role shifted to a batting all-rounder, then it kinda flips.

If we invented a role for a #7 who is the fourth seamer, he's set. But that role rarely exists in Test sides, because the fourth seamer aspect gets swapped out for 'can catch with gloves on' instead.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

I think part of this stems from him bowling to about a fourth seamer level when, in the bowling all-rounder role, he really need to be up at about third seamer level. Meanwhile his batting is serviceable for a #7 (better than serviceable in the context of the 'Windies, but anyway), when realistically all he needs to be is a good #8.

So I can kind of see the 'needs to work on his bowling' comment, because his batting is the stronger discipline relative to his role. If his role shifted to a batting all-rounder, then it kinda flips.

If we invented a role for a #7 who is the fourth seamer, he's set. But that role rarely exists in Test sides, because the fourth seamer aspect gets swapped out for 'can catch with gloves on' instead.

It is becoming more common now though as teams move away from role based selection to a team of XI selection. While Stokes and MMarsh very much play predominantly at 6 (even Bairstow could displace Ben here), NZ has given up on CdG or Santner at 6 and moved Watling to there (the right decision imo).

Australia does not even bother with a second allrounder but there are hopes that Pat Cummins keeps becoming a better bat, whereas WI have 2 (Chase and Holder, but have at times gone with a bowler heavy attack with Holder at 7 of late, plus Cummins, Bishoo, Gabriel and Roach with Chase), NZ like to have 2 (CdG/Anderson and Santner/Astle but will play Sodhi if both latter injured), Eng has 2 often with Ali and Stokes.

So there are not ubiquitous roles applying to all the teams. In fact, they're made up roles between 6 and 8 these days from team to team - which is the way it should be imo. There is no absolute norm these days imo. It is like a return to the old days, 4 bowlers or 5, 0 allrounders, 1 allrounder or 2. It all depends on the talent available and the strategy.

What you say about Holder is true, but WI are playing Roston Chase, who's form aint the best of late. But even when playing 8, this meant that Holder was still often the 4th seamer, with a weak 5th bowling spinner in the side batting 6.

It just isn't possible with all the different teams "roles" to be perfect apples with apples and oranges with oranges. The teams and their selectors keep mixing it up (as they should, best XI for the pitch and opposition should play in my opinion).

But we can all identify these players strengths and weaknesses. Whether they bat 6, 7 or 8, in their last game, they're all doing similar jobs for their teams. More is expected of Holder the bowler than Marsh for a host of reasons, but that said, more is expected of Marsh's batting than Holder. Why? Because Lyon is a much better bowler and weaker batsman compared to Chase.

People could include Ashwin and Jadeja in the debate if they so wished. But they're so different being the primary bowlers at home where their batting is almost a lovely bonus.

For the record, I much prefer Sanga's team of XI selection than "role" selection. The available talent imo is a much better way to pick the best XI imo than pigeon holing players into pre-defined roles, which may further exacerbate their limitations and not give the selectors the best team to win games with.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

CDG is a bit like a late career Botham (but with better stats): a swing bowler who often looks innocuous as he gets wickets with pies but can also open or bowl first change and nibble it around usefully, and a technically sound batsman with immense power who can play but throws it away too much.

 

[Prince EWS]

I think part of this stems from him bowling to about a fourth seamer level when, in the bowling all-rounder role, he really need to be up at about third seamer level. Meanwhile his batting is serviceable for a #7 (better than serviceable in the context of the 'Windies, but anyway), when realistically all he needs to be is a good #8.

So I can kind of see the 'needs to work on his bowling' comment, because his batting is the stronger discipline relative to his role. If his role shifted to a batting all-rounder, then it kinda flips.

If we invented a role for a #7 who is the fourth seamer, he's set. But that role rarely exists in Test sides, because the fourth seamer aspect gets swapped out for 'can catch with gloves on' instead.

Yeah I agree with all this, but that's why I asked the question. I agree that it's more important that he works on his bowling, but I see comments like "His batting is already very good but he needs to work on his bowling" all the time, to the point where I stared wondering whether people actually thought his batting was better than his bowling in general (crazy), or just in the context of what's required of a bowling allrounder (true).

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Yeah I agree with all this, but that's why I asked the question. I agree that it's more important that he works on his bowling, but I see comments like "His batting is already very good but he needs to work on his bowling" all the time, to the point where I stared wondering whether people actually thought his batting was better than his bowling in general (crazy), or just in the context of what's required of a bowling allrounder (true).

It really isn't as crazy as you may like to believe with S Hope, K Hope and S Hetmeyer ahead of him for the WI batting effort.

I wouldn't even be surprised if he runs down R Chase's batting average in a year or two. Sadly.

Do I think Holder is a better bowler or bat? Tbh, I am undecided till he gets wickets overseas. Seriously.

 

[Prince EWS]

It really isn't as crazy as you may like to belive with S Hope, K Hope and S Hetmeyer ahead of him for the WI batting effort.

I wouldn't even be surprised if he runs down R Chase's batting average in a year or two. Sadly.

See Dan, this is why I asked. People do actually think this.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

See Dan, this is why I asked. People do actually think this.

Indeed. He's a good enough 4th or 5th bowler with his batting, but is he a good enough bowler without his batting?

Sure, he overtook Cummins this home summer, but there's arguably better bowlers not in the regular XI.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/player/677081.html

Just look at batters like K Powell or S Hetmeyer.

K Powell 28
http://www.espncricinfo.com/westindies/content/player/252932.html
S Hetmeyer 26.83
http://www.espncricinfo.com/westindies/content/player/670025.html

K Hope 11. ELEVEN!!

www.espncricinfo.com/westindies/content/player/443150.html

If Holder got an ankle injury before their next test preventing him from bowling, do I believe that Holder could be played as a specialist bat with Chase at 5, Dowrich at 6, him at 7 and 4 bowlers? Sure I do. Would there be a debate. Yes.

Even if S Hope misses out at 31 average.

www.espncricinfo.com/westindies/content/player/581379.html

 

[Fuller Pilch]

[/I].
If we invented a role for a #7 who is the fourth seamer, he's set. But that role rarely exists in Test sides, because the fourth seamer aspect gets swapped out for 'can catch with gloves on' instead.[/QUOTE]

NZ have that role with CDG though (even though he often gets the ball before Wagner) he's still the 4th of the ND seamers. If Shane Dowrich could average high 30s (ibstead of 20s) at 6 they'd be okay

 

[Mr Miyagi]

.
If we invented a role for a #7 who is the fourth seamer, he's set. But that role rarely exists in Test sides, because the fourth seamer aspect gets swapped out for 'can catch with gloves on' instead.

.
NZ have that role with CDG though (even though he often gets the ball before Wagner) he's still the 4th of the ND seamers. If Shane Dowrich could average high 30s (ibstead of 20s) at 6 they'd be okay

Role thinking is anachronistic. It is about XI thinking with 0, 1 or 2 all rounders, and 4 or 5 bowlers these days. I agree.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

CDG is a bit like a late career Botham (but with better stats): a swing bowler who often looks innocuous as he gets wickets with pies but can also open or bowl first change and nibble it around usefully, and a technically sound batsman with immense power who can play but throws it away too much.

Bit better than late career Botham tbf.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

I meant in style of play. Perhaps I should've written mid-career Botham

 

[Bahseph]

Stokes method of playing is just suited to Tests. He is a boundary hitter and a bowler who can get wickets through classical length and swing bowling. In ODIs I haven't seen much of a touch game from him, and due to the lack of variety with the ball he normally gets pummeled. It's the same with CDG.

Now I haven't particularly worked out Pandya yet. He played that great innings in SA and I was mighty impressed. But that's about it. I'd take Stokes any day of the week in a Test.