I don't think having Stokes in the side would have made the slightest difference to the result.
I [i]think[/i] it might well have made a difference. But we'll never know. 😉
Agreed, he was a prat by allowing himself to become involved, at least Alex Hales had the sense to not throw his fists about, unless he was the one with the bottle? Genuine question.
I think it might well have made a difference. But we'll never know.
Big 1st innings top order runs win test matches for the most part, with Cook and Root out of sorts England were not going win anything.
Big 1st innings top order runs win test matches for the most part,
I disagree a bit, big runs set a platform that bowlers can win games from. No runs, and for sure you'll be battling to save games, but as per the last test big runs mean little if you can't take 20 wickets and our attack hasn't proven its ability to do that apart from a few times and under favourable conditions, like in the pink ball test.
Stokes has the ability to get a key wicket at a key time, like Flintoff adn Botham before him, and I think that's been missing. And where bowlers hunt in packs, if we'd had him to bowl agressively and get those key wickets, Anderson and Broad would have had far better chance of success against new batters rather than plugging away against good batters who are well set on flat pitches.
Stokes has the ability to get a key wicket at a key time, like Flintoff adn Botham before him, and I think that's been missing. And where bowlers hunt in packs, if we'd had him to bowl agressively and get those key wickets, Anderson and Broad would have had far better chance of success against new batters rather than plugging away against good batters who are well set on flat pitches.
not in australian conditions Flintoff for example....
* 23/11/06 1 Brisbane 30-4-99-4 5-2-11-0 0 & 16 0 Lost
* 01/12/06 2 Adelaide 26-5-82-1 9-0-44-2 38* & 2 0 Lost
* 14/12/06 3 Perth 9-2-36-0 19-2-76-0 13 & 51 0 Lost
* 26/12/06 4 Melbourne 22-1-77-3 dnb 13 & 25 0 Lost
* 02/01/07 5 Sydney 17-2-56-1 dnb 89 & 7 0 Lost
botham didn't take a lot of wickets down under either
2/11/82 1 Perth 40-10-121-2 6-1-17-0 12 & 0 0 Draw
26/11/82 2 Brisbane 22-1-105-3 15.5-1-70-0 40 & 15 1 Lost
10/12/82 3 Adelaide 36.5-5-112-4 10-2-45-1 35 & 58 2 Lost
26/12/82 4 Melbourne 18-3-69-1 25.1-4-80-2 27 & 46 0 Won
02/01/83 5 Sydney 30-8-75-4 10-0-35-1 5 & 32 4 Draw
14/11/86 1 Brisbane 16-1-58-2 12-0-34-1 138 & dnb 0 Won
28/11/86 2 Perth 22-4-72-1 7.2-4-13-0 0 & 6 4 Draw
26/12/86 4 Melbourne 16-4-41-5 7-1-19-0 29 & dnb 3 Won
10/01/87 5 Sydney 23-10-42-0 3-0-17-0 16 & 0 3 Lost
even though they won more
The thing with someone like Stokes or Flintoff is that he is the kind of player who [u]could[/u] change a game almost by force of will.
Chuck them the ball when Smith was set for example. It could cost you 25-30 runs in three or four over, but it could also get him out. It would have been nice to have that option because who are we going to chuck the ball to and say 'three overs, bust a gut, but get this bugger out'? Woakes? 😆
We never really got into a position with the bat to allow a Stokes innings to take the game away from them, and he is not as potent with the ball as Flintoff was, so I doubt he would have made a huge difference, but he would have made some difference. What we really needed was some pace and a good spinner.
It's not masses of wickets though, it's that ability to get [u]that[/u] wicket when needed. As Dannyh said, might be 1-20 in 4 overs but if that unjams the games, it's still better than 0-70 in 25 overs
Exactly. The type of player that Stokes typifies is the impact player.
With the bat his principle role is to grind the oppo into the dirt when we already have some runs on the board and the ball isn't doing anything. Chris Cairns and Adam Gilchrist spring to mind here. Occasionally they can also launch a brilliant counter attack - although more often than not it is just another wicket lost.
With the ball it is about getting [u]the[/u] wicket. From nowhere if necessary. Three or four overs, I don't care if you go for thirty, just get Smith out.
The likes of Woakes typify the competent all rounder. Reliable, unspectacular. Teams have to have a mix of 'boring' and 'flair'. The very best players pack both into one man, otherwise it is about mix of players. If we had been getting runs on the board, the likes of Moeen would have had a better tour.
at least Alex Hales had the sense to not throw his fists about, unless he was the one with the bottle? Genuine question.
I'm late to this thread and I'm sure it has been mentioned before, but Hales was an even bigger jeb end kicking a guy in the head when he was on the floor then ran away before coming back to loiter. Class guy
Clearly I haven't furnished myself with the finer details of the fracas. I seem to recall that the ECB didn't impose a ban for him, so they obviously reward certain behaviours more than others.
think we have the definitive definition of "clutching at straws" 🙄
I don't think so, I think we've both said he may have made a difference but I am still convinced we'd have lost the series. Just maybe not as pathetically as we have.
You can't be saying that a current England side without Stokes is better than one with him?
It was always going to be tough and losing Stokes didn't help. He was one misdemeanor away from missing a test anyway but the circumstances and subsequent disruption must have been huge for the team mentally, more than the fact he was missing physically... though the team wouldn't be worse for having him, true.
Breaking News....
Woakes out Crane in for him so probably 2 spinners with Ali been given a chance (or we don't have another bowler who they want there) So assume that is Curran still in there for Overton too?
Confirmation
http://www.cricket.com.au/news/mason-crane-leg-spinner-test-debut-england-ashes-sydney-scg-chris-woakes-injured/2018-01-03
and Starc to replace Bird
http://www.cricket.com.au/news/mitchell-starc-returns-test-squad-jackson-bird-dropped-australia-ashes-england-scg-fifth-test-sydney/2018-01-03
So no double spinner for Australia
Back to the Anderson vs Bird thing, I think we have a winner:
Bird: 0-108 off 30ov
Anderson: 4-107 off 59ov
😆
And I hope Crane is better than his stats. A FC bowling average of 44 is more than a little worrying when it's against Warner, Smith and a few others who like to swing the bat.
That's quite a tail we have now - it doesn't seem all that long ago people were talking about how deep England batted.
Jaffa
So far, so good at 24-0; stoneman on 20 so another quick start by him - let's hope it continues.
Why oh why did you post that
122-3 all got starts all got out 400 is the target if your going to win
That's quite a tail we have now - it doesn't seem all that long ago people were talking about how deep England batted.
Most of the locals I speak to are still scared of Broad with the bat, so having him at 10 has certainly added an air of depth to the order. On his day they'd be right, but it's very rarely his day with the bat these days.
However, you put an 'ideal' lineup of:
1) Cook
2) Stoneman
3) Vince / Malan
4) Root
5) Stokes
6) Bairstow
7) Ali
8 ) Toby RJ / Woakes / Overton
9) Wood
10) Broad
11) Anderson
and that's a fairly formidable batting lineup if they all play to their potential. It also gives you four fm bowlers, one f, a spinner and two part timers if you have Malan over Vince.
It's a wonderful whatif, I suppose, but injury, indiscipline, and abject form seems to have robbed us of most of it.
The moment I turn the radio on...!
Argh
Root you brainless ****ing nobhead. Straight into the trap, exposes another batter to 15 balls at the end of our day, 4 times this series now.
Bairstow on review.........
tiny nick (phew)
a simple trap for root. I shouted at the telly
also showed a revealing stat - top 6 world batters currently (Root is 6) all convert 50's to 100's at 40+%, Smith is #2 and 51%, Kohli #1 @ 57%
Root - 26.5% - gives it away too often.
Think I'll go back to bed.
FFS. sums up the series. its almost funny
Johnny would be entirely in his rights to insert that shiny new bat into Joe Root
FFS
Looked ok when I left the radio in the car, now at my desk it's a disaster (again).
<sigh> so now they're into that tail I mentioned. I think Ali currently counts as "tail".
[quote=zokes ]Most of the locals I speak to are still scared of Broad with the bat
They've not seen him bat much recently. I'd like to think his most recent knock showed a turn around, but he was still mostly just throwing the bat and got lucky. He's a long way from the batsman he was when he could justify a number 8 berth - he looks a couple of places too high at 9 based on other recent form! (yeah I know you said that already, just agreeing)
However, you put an 'ideal' lineup of:
1) Cook
2) Stoneman
3) Vince / Malan
4) Root
5) Stokes
6) Bairstow
7) Ali
8 ) Toby RJ / Woakes / Overton
9) Wood
10) Broad
11) Anderson
I should think the ideal line up would include both Vince and Malan (if you're choosing only one, then on current form there's no contest, TBH we're still looking for a solid number 3), with Stokes and Bairstow batting 6/7. I'm not sure we need 4 other quicks with Stokes in the side. Ali drops to 8, which however much he might prefer batting higher is probably where he's batted best.
To be honest, unless we’re somewhere where spin is imperative, I’d drop Ali and keep Vince and Malan. He’d do well terrorising the club level to get his mojo back before a bout of F.C. to earn his place back.
My reasoning for this is that Wood has to be picked given his speed. Stokes has to be for both ball and bat. But, whilst I’m assuming Broad’s star is back on the rise, and Anderson continues to be the first name on the team sheet, we need a slot for the next crew. TRJ was very unfortunate not to be fit, and Woakes and Overton, if a little unspectacular have worked bloody hard and taken some key wickets.
Vince will always sell his wicket cheaply IMO. I'd play Foakes as keeper and move Bairstow up the order. Malan is promising and Stoneman deserves a bit longer. TRJ would probably come back in when fit, in English conditions anyway. Moeen needs to rediscover his mojo. Pick Crane where conditions permit.
Cook
Stoneman
Root
Malan
Bairstow
Stokes
Foakes
Woakes
Broad
TRJ
Anderson
What's not to love about Stokes, Foakes and Woakes?
Nah beat them at their own games...
Smith
Warner
Smith
Warner
Smith
Smith
Bairstow
Starc
Starc
Starc
Lyon
Stokes, Foakes and Woakes?
Almost as good as “Lilley, bowled Willey, caught Dilley”
Though I preferred “the batsman’s Holding, the bowler’s Willey”
Stoneman - aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!
Vince - aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!
Root - aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!
England on this tour - aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!
It's the hope that really gets you in the end, though.
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!
[img] 
[/img]
the trouble with England is they play English conditions test cricket everywhere..... doesn't matter if we only get 300 as long as we get them quickly Anderson will bowl 'em out for 200 with the ball hooping about all over the place (we've seen them struggle in the UK in good conditions too). The kookaburra ball doesn't swing as much so you need at least 500 if not more to win batting first and a good spinner.
^^Gatting has let himself go a bit. ^^
It will soon be over, will miss TMS but just want the tests to end
We have one dayers to go, T20 and then some tests in NZ....
[quote=zokes ]My reasoning for this is that Wood has to be picked given his speed. Stokes has to be for both ball and bat. But, whilst I’m assuming Broad’s star is back on the rise, and Anderson continues to be the first name on the team sheet, we need a slot for the next crew. TRJ was very unfortunate not to be fit, and Woakes and Overton, if a little unspectacular have worked bloody hard and taken some key wickets.
I think Wood hasn't been picked because of his perceived fragility and lack of suitability to the longer form of the game - he didn't play much FC cricket last season. I suppose your 5 pace bowler attack does allow you to play a luxury bowler though. Just not sure given recent form that we can afford that luxury when we desperately need to shore up the batting. At least with proper batsmen to 7 (assuming Stokes counts as that rather than just an impact player), Ali at 8 and a number 8 at 9 we can afford to have a few failures - otherwise we're reliant on Ali firing in most matches, whoever is at 8 being more reliable and Broad chipping in more often than he does.
Almost as good as “Lilley, bowled Willey, caught Dilley”Though I preferred “the batsman’s Holding, the bowler’s Willey”
The former is the other way round, catcher Willey. The latter sadly is a myth.
I personally think that in the days of more 20/20 and proposals for 4 days tests , we should cherish every chance we get to watch Test Cricket.
However its not easy saying that right now after recent showings in Aus!
