*Official* England Tour of West Indies 2019

[Moonsorrow999]

Wood’s record in ODIs is awful, would he get in any other side in the world? I thought Willey and Curran were much improved, they must be woeful if they can’t get in over him.

 

[Woodster]

Wood’s record in ODIs is awful, would he get in any other side in the world? I thought Willey and Curran were much improved, they must be woeful if they can’t get in over him.

Yes his record isn’t impressive, he just offers something different to the attack, with six proper bowlers in the side you can afford a bit of a wildcard and someone different in terms of pace. Olly Stone would probably be a better bet or Joffra Archer, but both currently unavailable.

 

[Moonsorrow999]

Yes his record isn’t impressive, he just offers something different to the attack, with six proper bowlers in the side you can afford a bit of a wildcard and someone different in terms of pace. Olly Stone would probably be a better bet or Joffra Archer, but both currently unavailable.

What does he offer? A little bit extra pace when he hasn’t bowled a ball for 18 months but then reverts to the mid 80s bowler and gets tonked.

Variety is fine but you don’t need to add right arm **** to the pile. Stats wise he wouldn’t get in any other side in the world.

Surely an extra batsman and tell Stokes to get fit or protect him better.

 

[Starfighter]

Yes his record isn’t impressive, he just offers something different to the attack, with six proper bowlers in the side you can afford a bit of a wildcard and someone different in terms of pace. Olly Stone would probably be a better bet or Joffra Archer, but both currently unavailable.

'Offering something different' is a poor selection strategy especially when that 'difference' is one of the worst ODI bowlers of all time. Just pick your best bowlers.

 

[Woodster]

What does he offer? A little bit extra pace when he hasn’t bowled a ball for 18 months but then reverts to the mid 80s bowler and gets tonked.

Variety is fine but you don’t need to add right arm **** to the pile. Stats wise he wouldn’t get in any other side in the world.

Surely an extra batsman and tell Stokes to get fit or protect him better.

If her’s bowler mid 80’s, I agree, he’s not the man to select, we have other options that do that and do it better. He needs to play cricket, this a World Cup selection, if he doesn’t go particularly well Ian the Caribbean but the overs playing the game enhances his chances of regularly hitting 90mph later in the summer then it’s worth picking him.

I’m not suggesting pace is everything, but with six bowlers we can pick a bowler that is different and can take wickets in those middle overs and offer a different form of attack. At this point Wood is that man, but maybe better options are Stone and Archer, think I’ve already said that.

'Offering something different' is a poor selection strategy especially when that 'difference' is one of the worst ODI bowlers of all time. Just pick your best bowlers.

Why is that poor selection strategy ? I agree that can’t be the only criteria, obviously, but teams do it all the time, and rightly so. Whether that’s picking a left-handed batsman if you don’t have any, whether that’s picking a more attacking batsman if your order is more one-paced, a leg-spinner if you already have an offie but need another spinner. Your best XI doesn’t always make the best team, it’s about balance, options and trying to ensure most bases are covered.

 

[Moonsorrow999]

That just simply makes no sense. If Willey or Curran comes in and takes 1-40 every game and looks really average - that’s still better than Wood.

 

[Woodster]

That just simply makes no sense. If Willey or Curran comes in and takes 1-40 every game and looks really average - that’s still better than Wood.

I don’t think the England management are hoping Wood takes 0-49 off seven every game. I’d happily take Wood grabbing 3-60 off his 10 rather than Willey or Curran taking 1-40, for example. We have the luxury of having 6 specialist bowlers (including Stokes), one of them should be something different to the standard medium-fast bowlers we pick and we can pick a left-armed of the requisite standard aswell, that’d also be advantageous. If Wood isn’t up to it then we have the likes of Stone and Archer pushing hard to play a similar role. Why does that simply make no sense ?

 

[Starfighter]

Why is that poor selection strategy ? I agree that can’t be the only criteria, obviously, but teams do it all the time, and rightly so. Whether that’s picking a left-handed batsman if you don’t have any, whether that’s picking a more attacking batsman if your order is more one-paced, a leg-spinner if you already have an offie but need another spinner. Your best XI doesn’t always make the best team, it’s about balance, options and trying to ensure most bases are covered.

Well I'm struggling to think of teams putting out their strongest XIs who have random batsmen or bowlers because they're 'different' rather than because they believe they have the ability, so I don't think teams do it all the time. India might be picking Khaleel Ahmed now because they're experimenting but you won't see him playing in the WC without a stack of injuries. Australia didn't pick Bevan all those years because he was a leftie, but because he was bloody good. Picking players because 'difference' is something done when there is no clear option for a role/position, and/or only when players are closely matched. Wood is clearly worse than Willey or Curran.

Could England do with a genuinely fast bowler? Probably. Should they be picking Wood for ODIs on that criterion alone? No.

I don’t think the England management are hoping Wood takes 0-49 off seven every game. I’d happily take Wood grabbing 3-60 off his 10 rather than Willey or Curran taking 1-40, for example. We have the luxury of having 6 specialist bowlers (including Stokes), one of them should be something different to the standard medium-fast bowlers we pick and we can pick a left-armed of the requisite standard aswell, that’d also be advantageous. If Wood isn’t up to it then we have the likes of Stone and Archer pushing hard to play a similar role. Why does that simply make no sense ?

See above. Picking failures because they're different is rubbish.

 

[Moonsorrow999]

I don’t think the England management are hoping Wood takes 0-49 off seven every game. I’d happily take Wood grabbing 3-60 off his 10 rather than Willey or Curran taking 1-40, for example. We have the luxury of having 6 specialist bowlers (including Stokes), one of them should be something different to the standard medium-fast bowlers we pick and we can pick a left-armed of the requisite standard aswell, that’d also be advantageous. If Wood isn’t up to it then we have the likes of Stone and Archer pushing hard to play a similar role. Why does that simply make no sense ?

Clearly Wood doesn’t get 3-60 otherwise his average wouldn’t be 50. I’d understand if it was 35 but man... 50!

 

[Woodster]

Well I'm struggling to think of teams putting out their strongest XIs who have random batsmen or bowlers because they're 'different' rather than because they believe they have the ability, so I don't think teams do it all the time. India might be picking Khaleel Ahmed now because they're experimenting but you won't see him playing in the WC without a stack of injuries. Australia didn't pick Bevan all those years because he was a leftie, but because he was bloody good. Picking players because 'difference' is something done when there is no clear option for a role/position, and then only when players are closely matched. Wood is clearly worse than Willey or Curran.

Could England do with a genuinely fast bowler? Probably. Should they be picking Wood for ODIs on that criterion alone? No.


See above. Picking failures because they're different is rubbish.

Ok, so let’s just clarify, people are not selected just for being a ‘different’ option, without having the ability or selectors believing they have the ability to play at that level. If you think teams don’t try and get variety into their side and don’t hold discussions based on what else a certain player will bring to their side that they don’t currently have, then I think you are very sadly mistaken.

Your example of Bevan is quite frankly ludicrous, Michael Bevan was one of the finest one-day players of his time!! If he offered nothing particularly different to his side he would still be picked because he was a fantastic one-day player ?? No idea what your point is there.

 

[Woodster]

Clearly Wood doesn’t get 3-60 otherwise his average wouldn’t be 50. I’d understand if it was 35 but man... 50!

Yes, I agree. Hence I think Stone and Archer are probably better options for that role.

 

[Moonsorrow999]

Ok, so let’s just clarify, people are not selected just for being a ‘different’ option, without having the ability or selectors believing they have the ability to play at that level. If you think teams don’t try and get variety into their side and don’t hold discussions based on what else a certain player will bring to their side that they don’t currently have, then I think you are very sadly mistaken.

Your example of Bevan is quite frankly ludicrous, Michael Bevan was one of the finest one-day players of his time!! If he offered nothing particularly different to his side he would still be picked because he was a fantastic one-day player ?? No idea what your point is there.

If your best friend Wood carries on he will average more with the ball then Bevan did with the bat! If he already doesn’t..

 

[Woodster]

If your best friend Wood carries on he will average more with the ball then Bevan did with the bat! If he already doesn’t..

My best friend Wood ? My goodness. I’m presuming you’ve not really read any of my previous posts properly. Fair enough.

 

[Starfighter]

Ok, so let’s just clarify, people are not selected just for being a ‘different’ option, without having the ability or selectors believing they have the ability to play at that level. If you think teams don’t try and get variety into their side and don’t hold discussions based on what else a certain player will bring to their side that they don’t currently have, then I think you are very sadly mistaken.

Except Wood has never, ever shown indications that he will succeed at ODIs. He has only taken 4 wickets in an innings once in 86 list A matches. Either 35 matches is not enough to show ability or the selectors are wrong. Just because they are paid does not make them correct. Please, if you think that teams try to select for variety then name a World Cup winning or otherwise very strong ODI side that has a player clearly selected in the same role over one of similar or better ability due to their pure variety. Just because people talk about it doesn't mean it is actually the best strategy.

Your example of Bevan is quite frankly ludicrous, Michael Bevan was one of the finest one-day players of his time!! If he offered nothing particularly different to his side he would still be picked because he was a fantastic one-day player ?? No idea what your point is there.

Point is the fact his handedness didn't factor into his selection.

My best friend Wood ? My goodness. I’m presuming you’ve not really read any of my previous posts properly. Fair enough.

Your posts have completely and utterly failed to make a point for selecting significantly worse players for variety or show strong teams regularly doing this. Next.

 

[Woodster]

Except Wood has never, ever shown indications that he will succeed at ODIs. He has only taken 4 wickets in an innings once in 86 list A matches. Either 35 matches is not enough to show ability or the selectors are wrong. Just because they are paid does not make them correct. Please, if you think that teams try to select for variety then name a World Cup winning or otherwise very strong ODI side that has a player clearly selected in the same role over one of similar or better ability due to their pure variety. Just because people talk about it doesn't mean it is actually the best strategy.

Point is the fact his handedness didn't factor into his selection.


Your posts have completely and utterly failed to make a point for selecting significantly worse players for variety or show strong teams regularly doing this. Next.

If you think my point is for selecting significantly worse players over someone purely for variety then you’ve clearly misunderstood the nature of my posts.

 

[Woodster]

Except Wood has never, ever shown indications that he will succeed at ODIs. He has only taken 4 wickets in an innings once in 86 list A matches. Either 35 matches is not enough to show ability or the selectors are wrong. Just because they are paid does not make them correct. Please, if you think that teams try to select for variety then name a World Cup winning or otherwise very strong ODI side that has a player clearly selected in the same role over one of similar or better ability due to their pure variety. Just because people talk about it doesn't mean it is actually the best strategy.

Point is the fact his handedness didn't factor into his selection.


Your posts have completely and utterly failed to make a point for selecting significantly worse players for variety or show strong teams regularly doing this. Next.

I mean, if they’re selected for the same role, there isn’t going to be much variety ?? If that role is a left-arm quick, then you’re going to pick the best left-arm quick??

 

[Daemon]

Can’t blame Woodster for supporting his namesake

 

[Woodster]

Can’t blame Woodster for supporting his namesake

The point I’m trying to make isn’t necessarily supportive of Mark Wood, but more a case for including a genuine quick bowler to add variety to our otherwise one-paced attack. With the luxury of Stokes and Ali as genuine all-rounders we have four other bowling spots so can afford the variety.

 

[Starfighter]

If you think my point is for selecting significantly worse players over someone purely for variety then you’ve clearly misunderstood the nature of my posts.

Why is that poor selection strategy ? I agree that can’t be the only criteria, obviously, but teams do it all the time, and rightly so. Whether that’s picking a left-handed batsman if you don’t have any, whether that’s picking a more attacking batsman if your order is more one-paced, a leg-spinner if you already have an offie but need another spinner. Your best XI doesn’t always make the best team, it’s about balance, options and trying to ensure most bases are covered.

You say it yourself. You say to pick players to ensure that a certain variety base is covered even if it means picking worse players. And you still can't bring up any good examples of strong teams doing this, it's just your own cricket headspace.

I mean, if they’re selected for the same role, there isn’t going to be much variety ?? If that role is a left-arm quick, then you’re going to pick the best left-arm quick??

Role in this case (I didn't define previously it to cut down on length but you can have it here) means generalised roles 'opening pace bowler', 'death bowler', 'spinner', 'middle-order batsman' etc. There is no necessary specific role for 'left arm pace bowler', if you as a selector are selecting a team and looking to select a leftie primarily because they're a leftie you're silly.

The point I’m trying to make isn’t necessarily supportive of Mark Wood, but more a case for including a genuine quick bowler to add variety to our otherwise one-paced attack. With the luxury of Stokes and Ali as genuine all-rounders we have four other bowling spots so can afford the variety.

And the point I'm saying is this is bad selection, you should be picking your best bowlers not ones that you will have to prostrate yourself before God to ask for the faintest possibility they will perform (and, to add, trying to make up overs from a oft injured allrounder with a poor economy rate if they don't come off) just for variety's sake. Why are you telling me that you're not arguing what you are arguing?

 

[Woodster]

You say it yourself. You say to pick players to ensure that a certain variety base is covered even if it means picking worse players. And you still can't bring up any good examples of strong teams doing this, it's just your own cricket headspace.


Role in this case (I didn't define previously it to cut down on length but you can have it here) means generalised roles 'opening pace bowler', 'death bowler', 'spinner', 'middle-order batsman' etc. There is no necessary specific role for 'left arm pace bowler', if you as a selector are selecting a team and looking to select a leftie primarily because they're a leftie you're silly.

And the point I'm saying is this is bad selection, you should be picking your best bowlers not ones that you will have to prostrate yourself before God to ask for the faintest possibility they will perform (and, to add, trying to make up overs from a oft injured allrounder with a poor economy rate if they don't come off) just for variety's sake. Why are you telling me that you're not arguing what you are arguing?

There cannot be a significant difference in ability, I’ve said this previously. If you are going to significantly weaken your side by opting for a player based purely on variety then obviously you don’t do it, just didn’t think that needed explaining in greater detail.

As for your roles within the team, if you think players roles are defined in such generic terms such as ‘a spinner’, ‘a middle order batsman’, then I’m not completely convinced I’m the silly one. We’re talking elite level cricket here, not an under 13’s game on a Sunday morning.

I’m not entirely sure what to make of your last point but from what I understand you think your best XI players should be selected regardless of any specific roles set out? What I agree with, is the best XI players for the relevant roles should be selected, I think Mark Wood is probably the best ‘fast’ bowler we have available right now for this series, if he’s bowling at mid 80’s he’s not the best for that role.