I wouldn't pick him ahead of Anderson, Broad or Stokes. And, with those three in the team, Woakes offers far more than Wood.
I think there are circumstances where Wood would be in front of Anderson,Broad and Woakes, in that he provides something the other three dont have - out and out pace - so, if you going to play 2/3 spinners then the other 2/3 for me would be Stokes (given) and Wood , with perm one from the other three.
cant believe that anyone would consider that Foakes should be a better option than Buttler- especially as a batter.
Well to be honest I don't think Buttler has it between the ears to bat at test level. Much like Hales doesn't. Very good one day player and good county players but never a test batsman.
But if you look at what I've said I never said I prefer him as a batsman. I prefer him as a keeper. And his exceptional keeping will save us more runs than his batting will cost us.
cant believe that anyone would consider that Foakes should be a better option than Buttler- especially as a batter.
Buttler is a mediocre keeper though, England pushed him to leave Somerset as he wasn't playing as a keeper there, but since then he's done done nothing to disprove the feeling that he's a brilliant white ball batsman and adequate white ball keeper, bit nowhere near good enough to keep wicket in red ball cricket
Im not asking him to keep wicket, JB's got the job- but to suggest that Foakes is a better Test batter...nah- not even close.
I haven't said that anywhere. I've simply said he should be in the squad as second keeper ahead of Buttler. As that's what he's there to do. Keep.
On a winter tour like this (and India), the keeping skills needed are different and much harder than keeping to seamers at Headingley in June. A keeper missing a stumping of Kohli could be very expensive
I wouldn't pick him ahead of Anderson, Broad or Stokes. And, with those three in the team, Woakes offers far more than Wood.
I think there are circumstances where Wood would be in front of Anderson,Broad and Woakes, in that he provides something the other three dont have - out and out pace - so, if you going to play 2/3 spinners then the other 2/3 for me would be Stokes (given) and Wood , with perm one from the other three.
WE are in exactly the sort of situation now where we need someone like Wood. BanglaDEsh are not getting any probs playing Broad or Woakes - they're not quick enough, whereas Wood would have them jumping - in the same way that Oz would bring in Johnson or SA would bring on Morkel/Steyn
So sad. People ITK (including MIchael Holding) have been saying for some time that he needs to modify his action to prolong his career- he does put an awful lot of energy into such a short run-up- and , if i remember correctly, has never played more than 3 consecutive matches without getting injured. Then again, look at what happened when they tried to change Jimmy's action !
As pointed out by Sky, the recent change in DRS, where not so much of the ball has to be hitting for the decision to be given to the bowler, meant that the first LBW call could be reversed.
The second LBW was only out because, despite the batsman was clearly outside the line, it was only an afterthought to play a shot.
And for those, like me, who were unaware of the changes, here they are in black and white: By how much has the zone increased?
Previously, for not-out decisions to be overturned, more than half the ball needed to hit the pad in line with a zone between the middle of off stump and the middle of leg stump, and from the bottom of the bails downwards. Now, the zone is between the outside of off stump and the outside of leg stump. The bottom-of-the bails limit has not changed.
And previously, for not-out decisions to be overturned, the ball-tracking projection needed to show more than half the ball hitting the stumps between the middle of off stump and the middle of leg stump, and from the bottom of the bails downwards. Now, the zone is from the outside of off stump and the outside of leg stump. The bottom-of-the-bails limit has not changed.
The increase in the width of the zone is about 3.8 centimetres: half a stump's width (1.9 centimetres) on either side.
How will this impact the game?
Under the previous DRS conditions, for a not-out lbw decision to be overturned, the ball needed to have hit the pad well in line with the stumps and the projection needed to show the ball pretty much crashing into the stumps. Now, for such decisions to be overturned, more than half the ball still needs to hit the pad in line with the stumps, but not as much as before, and more than half the ball still needs to hit the stumps, but not as centrally as before.
The only aspect that was somewhat bizarre this morning was that Sky actually missed covering the first three overs of the day on SS2 - presumably due to the over-running American Football match - and only started showing the game for Stokes winning over. Five minutes later and they would have missed it completely!
I wouldn't pick him ahead of Anderson, Broad or Stokes. And, with those three in the team, Woakes offers far more than Wood.
I think there are circumstances where Wood would be in front of Anderson,Broad and Woakes, in that he provides something the other three dont have - out and out pace - so, if you going to play 2/3 spinners then the other 2/3 for me would be Stokes (given) and Wood , with perm one from the other three.
So you would go into every game without one or both of England's first- and third-greatest wicket-takers ever?
No indication from Trevor Bayliss that Ballance will be dropped. "Like a lot of the others he is working hard at his game".
One other observation - Bangladesh's last four batsmen scored 40 runs in the match whereas ours made 117 (Woakes 55, Rashid 35, Broad 23 and Batty 4). And that was the difference between winning and losing here because, overall, they actually bowled better than we did.
I think Ballance is in the last chance saloon. If he fails twice in the second Test he should be history. The top order need to start firing. Hardly any runs for Cook Duckett and Snail.
I wouldn't pick him ahead of Anderson, Broad or Stokes. And, with those three in the team, Woakes offers far more than Wood.
I think there are circumstances where Wood would be in front of Anderson,Broad and Woakes, in that he provides something the other three dont have - out and out pace - so, if you going to play 2/3 spinners then the other 2/3 for me would be Stokes (given) and Wood , with perm one from the other three.
So you would go into every game without one or both of England's first- and third-greatest wicket-takers ever?
Jimmy's record outside England isn't amazing and his body needs protecting given his age. I don't think it's unreasonable to pick other bowlers ahead of him on tours.
Anyway well done Bangladesh for making this such an exciting Test Match, it's great to see how far they've come.
Comments
With these 2 in its possible. Well played the bangladeshi's
But if you look at what I've said I never said I prefer him as a batsman. I prefer him as a keeper. And his exceptional keeping will save us more runs than his batting will cost us.
Mushfiqur c Ballance b Batty 39
Bangladesh need 57 to win. England need 4 wickets.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/37600952
Then again, look at what happened when they tried to change Jimmy's action !
We win by 22 runs. MOM has to be Stokes.
The second LBW was only out because, despite the batsman was clearly outside the line, it was only an afterthought to play a shot.
Such are the margins of victory and defeat.
By how much has the zone increased?
Previously, for not-out decisions to be overturned, more than half the ball needed to hit the pad in line with a zone between the middle of off stump and the middle of leg stump, and from the bottom of the bails downwards. Now, the zone is between the outside of off stump and the outside of leg stump. The bottom-of-the bails limit has not changed.
And previously, for not-out decisions to be overturned, the ball-tracking projection needed to show more than half the ball hitting the stumps between the middle of off stump and the middle of leg stump, and from the bottom of the bails downwards. Now, the zone is from the outside of off stump and the outside of leg stump. The bottom-of-the-bails limit has not changed.
The increase in the width of the zone is about 3.8 centimetres: half a stump's width (1.9 centimetres) on either side.
How will this impact the game?
Under the previous DRS conditions, for a not-out lbw decision to be overturned, the ball needed to have hit the pad well in line with the stumps and the projection needed to show the ball pretty much crashing into the stumps. Now, for such decisions to be overturned, more than half the ball still needs to hit the pad in line with the stumps, but not as much as before, and more than half the ball still needs to hit the stumps, but not as centrally as before.
So there you have it - who would be an umpire?
One other observation - Bangladesh's last four batsmen scored 40 runs in the match whereas ours made 117 (Woakes 55, Rashid 35, Broad 23 and Batty 4). And that was the difference between winning and losing here because, overall, they actually bowled better than we did.
Anyway well done Bangladesh for making this such an exciting Test Match, it's great to see how far they've come.