So how will they afford central contracts etc without sky money ? how many counties will go bust without the additional funds from ECB via the SKY deal ?
Have England announced Bayliss replacement for after the Ashes yet.His departure was announced months ago & I saw today that he's agreed to take over at Sunrisers in the IPL, but I don't remember seeing his replacement announced.
I don't even know who the contenders would be. Gillespie? Farbrace?
Theresa May
Met the players at Downing Street on Monday as part of her induction
Have England announced Bayliss replacement for after the Ashes yet.His departure was announced months ago & I saw today that he's agreed to take over at Sunrisers in the IPL, but I don't remember seeing his replacement announced.
I don't even know who the contenders would be. Gillespie? Farbrace?
Theresa May
Met the players at Downing Street on Monday as part of her induction
Have England announced Bayliss replacement for after the Ashes yet.His departure was announced months ago & I saw today that he's agreed to take over at Sunrisers in the IPL, but I don't remember seeing his replacement announced.
I don't even know who the contenders would be. Gillespie? Farbrace?
Theresa May
Met the players at Downing Street on Monday as part of her induction
No Stokes or Buttler? Wondering how 5-6-7 will look in the batting line up.
Roy and Burns opening, Denly 3, Root 4, Bairstow 5, Ali 6 and Curran 7.
Got to Woakes at 7, much better bat than Curran
Test Averages - Woakes 30, Curran 32. Plenty of people feel Curran will be like Stokes, a batsman who can bowl (admittedly think he isn't quite a strong enough batsman for that).
Woakes has a better first class record but has plenty of experience. Much better bat - no chance.
So how will they afford central contracts etc without sky money ? how many counties will go bust without the additional funds from ECB via the SKY deal ?
As I said right at the start I didn't start it and I'm not defending it. I'm simply sharing it as there has been a lot of chat about it on CL.
No Stokes or Buttler? Wondering how 5-6-7 will look in the batting line up.
Roy and Burns opening, Denly 3, Root 4, Bairstow 5, Ali 6 and Curran 7.
Got to Woakes at 7, much better bat than Curran
Test Averages - Woakes 30, Curran 32. Plenty of people feel Curran will be like Stokes, a batsman who can bowl (admittedly think he isn't quite a strong enough batsman for that).
Woakes has a better first class record but has plenty of experience. Much better bat - no chance.
First class batting Tom Curran 1,241 runs at 17.72, highest score 60
Sam Curran 2,309 runs at 29.98, highest score 96
Chris Woakes 5,620 runs at 35.34, highest score 152*, 10 centuries
First class bowling Tom Curran 195 wickets at 28.78, best bowling 7-20
Sam Curran 157 wickets at 28.87, best bowling 7-58
Chris Woakes 474 wickets at 25.69, best bowling 9-36
Tom and Sam Curran are promising players. Neither of them should be picked ahead of a fit Chris Woakes.
But maybe it would be worth re-examining their records some time in the future, if Tom and Sam Curran get as many runs or wickets as Chris Woakes. Between them.
I dont get Canters earlier comment about 6 bowlers plus Root/Denly, as typically in most tests the 5th bowler only gets to bowl less than 10 overs.
To me, this comes back to the old comment about Bairstow going in at 3 (and maybe Buttler or Foakes keeping wicket).
Foakes can't keep wicket, unless he's picked. Would you choose him? If so, which world cup winner would you drop?
Well, i was thinking more along the lines of Bairstow at 3, and Denly dropping out for Foakes to bat at 7 - that way, you have some solidity at 3, plus still Ali at 8, and 5 bowlers (including Stokes) with Root as 6th bowler.
I dont get Canters earlier comment about 6 bowlers plus Root/Denly, as typically in most tests the 5th bowler only gets to bowl less than 10 overs.
To me, this comes back to the old comment about Bairstow going in at 3 (and maybe Buttler or Foakes keeping wicket).
My comment was reported in an article by sky sports as something that came from the England camp. It's because they are treating this as a warm up game and an opportunity it to get overs in the legs rather than as a proper test match.
I dont get Canters earlier comment about 6 bowlers plus Root/Denly, as typically in most tests the 5th bowler only gets to bowl less than 10 overs.
To me, this comes back to the old comment about Bairstow going in at 3 (and maybe Buttler or Foakes keeping wicket).
Foakes can't keep wicket, unless he's picked. Would you choose him? If so, which world cup winner would you drop?
None of them. Drop Burns and as Root refuses to bat at 3, use our WC winning openers of Roy and Bairstow followed by Denly, Root, Stokes, Buttler, Foakes, Ali, Woakes, Archer and Anderson.
We might be 100-0 off 10. Or 4-2. But then nothing has really changed if we are the latter.
I dont get Canters earlier comment about 6 bowlers plus Root/Denly, as typically in most tests the 5th bowler only gets to bowl less than 10 overs.
To me, this comes back to the old comment about Bairstow going in at 3 (and maybe Buttler or Foakes keeping wicket).
My comment was reported in an article by sky sports as something that came from the England camp. It's because they are treating this as a warm up game and an opportunity it to get overs in the legs rather than as a proper test match.
Ah, you're talking about the Ireland game.
I dont get Canters earlier comment about 6 bowlers plus Root/Denly, as typically in most tests the 5th bowler only gets to bowl less than 10 overs.
To me, this comes back to the old comment about Bairstow going in at 3 (and maybe Buttler or Foakes keeping wicket).
My comment was reported in an article by sky sports as something that came from the England camp. It's because they are treating this as a warm up game and an opportunity it to get overs in the legs rather than as a proper test match.
Ah, you're talking about the Ireland game.
Yes was replying to comments about the squad for the Ireland game.
I dont get Canters earlier comment about 6 bowlers plus Root/Denly, as typically in most tests the 5th bowler only gets to bowl less than 10 overs.
To me, this comes back to the old comment about Bairstow going in at 3 (and maybe Buttler or Foakes keeping wicket).
Foakes can't keep wicket, unless he's picked. Would you choose him? If so, which world cup winner would you drop?
Well, i was thinking more along the lines of Bairstow at 3, and Denly dropping out for Foakes to bat at 7 - that way, you have some solidity at 3, plus still Ali at 8, and 5 bowlers (including Stokes) with Root as 6th bowler.
Well I can certainly see the attraction of dropping someone who made 88 runs in his last Test match, batting at 3, to secure a win, and replacing him with someone who scored 48, batting at 8 in his last Test match, which we lost, just in order to ensure we can accommodate the urgent requirement for a third wicket-keeper batsman.
I dont get Canters earlier comment about 6 bowlers plus Root/Denly, as typically in most tests the 5th bowler only gets to bowl less than 10 overs.
To me, this comes back to the old comment about Bairstow going in at 3 (and maybe Buttler or Foakes keeping wicket).
Foakes can't keep wicket, unless he's picked. Would you choose him? If so, which world cup winner would you drop?
Well, i was thinking more along the lines of Bairstow at 3, and Denly dropping out for Foakes to bat at 7 - that way, you have some solidity at 3, plus still Ali at 8, and 5 bowlers (including Stokes) with Root as 6th bowler.
Well I can certainly see the attraction of dropping someone who made 88 runs in his last Test match, batting at 3, to secure a win, and replacing him with someone who scored 48, batting at 8 in his last Test match, which we lost, just in order to ensure we can accommodate the urgent requirement for a third wicket-keeper batsman.
(Actually, I'll be honest, I can't).
Or the other way to look at it is dropping someone with a Test average of 28 with someone who has a Test average of 41.
I dont get Canters earlier comment about 6 bowlers plus Root/Denly, as typically in most tests the 5th bowler only gets to bowl less than 10 overs.
To me, this comes back to the old comment about Bairstow going in at 3 (and maybe Buttler or Foakes keeping wicket).
Foakes can't keep wicket, unless he's picked. Would you choose him? If so, which world cup winner would you drop?
None of them. Drop Burns and as Root refuses to bat at 3, use our WC winning openers of Roy and Bairstow followed by Denly, Root, Stokes, Buttler, Foakes, Ali, Woakes, Archer and Anderson.
We might be 100-0 off 10. Or 4-2. But then nothing has really changed if we are the latter.
You definitely think we are more likely to bowl Australia out twice by having three wicket-keepers than fielding our greatest-ever new ball bowling partnership?
Have England announced Bayliss replacement for after the Ashes yet.His departure was announced months ago & I saw today that he's agreed to take over at Sunrisers in the IPL, but I don't remember seeing his replacement announced.
I don't even know who the contenders would be. Gillespie? Farbrace?
No Stokes or Buttler? Wondering how 5-6-7 will look in the batting line up.
Roy and Burns opening, Denly 3, Root 4, Bairstow 5, Ali 6 and Curran 7.
Got to Woakes at 7, much better bat than Curran
Test Averages - Woakes 30, Curran 32. Plenty of people feel Curran will be like Stokes, a batsman who can bowl (admittedly think he isn't quite a strong enough batsman for that).
Woakes has a better first class record but has plenty of experience. Much better bat - no chance.
First class batting Tom Curran 1,241 runs at 17.72, highest score 60
Sam Curran 2,309 runs at 29.98, highest score 96
Chris Woakes 5,620 runs at 35.34, highest score 152*, 10 centuries
First class bowling Tom Curran 195 wickets at 28.78, best bowling 7-20
Sam Curran 157 wickets at 28.87, best bowling 7-58
Chris Woakes 474 wickets at 25.69, best bowling 9-36
Tom and Sam Curran are promising players. Neither of them should be picked ahead of a fit Chris Woakes.
But maybe it would be worth re-examining their records some time in the future, if Tom and Sam Curran get as many runs or wickets as Chris Woakes. Between them.
I never said anything about picking either of them above Woakes. When I picked my team I put Sam Curran above Woakes in the batting order. It's close but for me Woakes is the better bowler. I see Curran batting at 6 in the future as a 4th seamer, whereas Woakes is more of a third choice seamer. So for me, I would ask Woakes to concentrate on his bowling, whereas Curran will do a bit of both, like Stokes.
Comparing first class runs is pointless, Woakes is 30 and Curran is 21. Woakes has played three times as many tests but has reached 50 on 5 occasions, Curran on 3, Woakes only just about has double the amount of test runs. I would bet my house that when Curran has played 26 tests, he will have more fifties than Woakes and as many hundreds by then.
No Stokes or Buttler? Wondering how 5-6-7 will look in the batting line up.
Roy and Burns opening, Denly 3, Root 4, Bairstow 5, Ali 6 and Curran 7.
Got to Woakes at 7, much better bat than Curran
Test Averages - Woakes 30, Curran 32. Plenty of people feel Curran will be like Stokes, a batsman who can bowl (admittedly think he isn't quite a strong enough batsman for that).
Woakes has a better first class record but has plenty of experience. Much better bat - no chance.
First class batting Tom Curran 1,241 runs at 17.72, highest score 60
Sam Curran 2,309 runs at 29.98, highest score 96
Chris Woakes 5,620 runs at 35.34, highest score 152*, 10 centuries
First class bowling Tom Curran 195 wickets at 28.78, best bowling 7-20
Sam Curran 157 wickets at 28.87, best bowling 7-58
Chris Woakes 474 wickets at 25.69, best bowling 9-36
Tom and Sam Curran are promising players. Neither of them should be picked ahead of a fit Chris Woakes.
But maybe it would be worth re-examining their records some time in the future, if Tom and Sam Curran get as many runs or wickets as Chris Woakes. Between them.
I never said anything about picking either of them above Woakes. When I picked my team I put Sam Curran above Woakes in the batting order. It's close but for me Woakes is the better bowler. I see Curran batting at 6 in the future as a 4th seamer, whereas Woakes is more of a third choice seamer. So for me, I would ask Woakes to concentrate on his bowling, whereas Curran will do a bit of both, like Stokes.
Comparing first class runs is pointless, Woakes is 30 and Curran is 21. Woakes has played three times as many tests but has reached 50 on 5 occasions, Curran on 3, Woakes only just about has double the amount of test runs. I would bet my house that when Curran has played 26 tests, he will have more fifties than Woakes and as many hundreds by then.
Why would you pick an "all-rounder" who isn't as good as Stokes with the bat or Woakes with the ball, if you're going to pick those two, too? An "all-rounder" who rarely bowls is too much of a luxury to have in a team with those two.
Why would you pick an "all-rounder" who isn't as good as Stokes with the bat or Woakes with the ball, if you're going to pick those two, too? An "all-rounder" who rarely bowls is too much of a luxury to have in a team with those two.
Why would you pick an "all-rounder" who isn't as good as Stokes with the bat or Woakes with the ball, if you're going to pick those two, too? An "all-rounder" who rarely bowls is too much of a luxury to have in a team with those two.
Who is the all-rounder who rarely bowls?
In this scenario, it's being proposed that Sam Curran would play that role.
Why would you pick an "all-rounder" who isn't as good as Stokes with the bat or Woakes with the ball, if you're going to pick those two, too? An "all-rounder" who rarely bowls is too much of a luxury to have in a team with those two.
Who is the all-rounder who rarely bowls?
In this scenario, it's being proposed that Sam Curran would play that role.
Agreed, and is the reason that Curran wouldn't get into my test team at the minute. But being a 4th choice seamer doesn't have to mean you barely bowl.
But that's why I used the word 'future'. Personally (and it's just an opinion) I cannot see Curran being good enough to be in the top 3 seamers. Therefore, his place in the team would need to be as an all-rounder but a better batsman than bowler, just like Stokes is (especially in our one day success). With the quality of our all rounders it's not inconceivable to see us playing 6 bowlers from 6 to 11 with 4 of them being decent batsman.
I think he bowled very well against South Africa last summer, took 6 wickets for the Lions Against Australia 11 and has been opening the bowling for Surrey recently
Why would you pick an "all-rounder" who isn't as good as Stokes with the bat or Woakes with the ball, if you're going to pick those two, too? An "all-rounder" who rarely bowls is too much of a luxury to have in a team with those two.
Who is the all-rounder who rarely bowls?
In this scenario, it's being proposed that Sam Curran would play that role.
Agreed, and is the reason that Curran wouldn't get into my test team at the minute. But being a 4th choice seamer doesn't have to mean you barely bowl.
But that's why I used the word 'future'. Personally (and it's just an opinion) I cannot see Curran being good enough to be in the top 3 seamers. Therefore, his place in the team would need to be as an all-rounder but a better batsman than bowler, just like Stokes is (especially in our one day success). With the quality of our all rounders it's not inconceivable to see us playing 6 bowlers from 6 to 11 with 4 of them being decent batsman.
I think he's a fantastic cricketer. I am a big fan. Obviously he has a couple of things which are not in his favour, i.e. he's not very tall and he's not very quick. But he gets the ball off the straight. And he looks composed as a batsman.
However...
He's nowhere near good enough to be a third seamer. And, even as a fourth seamer, he'd be taking a better bowler's place. (Imagine if Anderson, Broad, Archer, Wood, Woakes and Stokes were all fit. Would he really strike the selectoros as being our second-best change bowler amongst that lot?)
And he's not a good enough batsman. In the old days (however far you want to go back - Flintoff ... Botham ... Greig ...) a player had to be worth being picked in the team for both disciplines to be considered an all-rounder. For example, at his absolute peak, you could pick Botham as one of six top-order batsmen or one of four front-line bowlers. Sam Curran isn't good enough to be considered an all-rounder.
His batting may develop in future. I hope so. Because he's got a bit of magic about him. But is he ever going to be one of England's top six, best batsmen? I doubt it. And, if hes not going to be considered as an opening bowler, or the first change the captain makes, then he's not an all-rounder.
A bowler who bats a bit is much more useful to a team than a batsman that bowls a bit. Not my words, but those of Richie Benaud. He knew his stuff. Woakes is a bowler who bats a bit. Stokes is a batsman who bowls if it's necessary. We don't need someone who can bat, but only bowls a bit, if we have those two in the team - we would be better off with a "proper" batsman, as opposed to a "potential" batsman.
He'll never be a Flintoff - that's beyond him. But he could be a Collingwood.
The question is, do we need a good batsman who might be needed to bowl a few overs? I think the answer, while Stokes and Woakes can be selected, should be no.
Comments
how many counties will go bust without the additional funds from ECB via the SKY deal ?
Met the players at Downing Street on Monday as part of her induction
Woakes has a better first class record but has plenty of experience. Much better bat - no chance.
Tom Curran
1,241 runs at 17.72, highest score 60
Sam Curran
2,309 runs at 29.98, highest score 96
Chris Woakes
5,620 runs at 35.34, highest score 152*, 10 centuries
First class bowling
Tom Curran
195 wickets at 28.78, best bowling 7-20
Sam Curran
157 wickets at 28.87, best bowling 7-58
Chris Woakes
474 wickets at 25.69, best bowling 9-36
Tom and Sam Curran are promising players. Neither of them should be picked ahead of a fit Chris Woakes.
But maybe it would be worth re-examining their records some time in the future, if Tom and Sam Curran get as many runs or wickets as Chris Woakes. Between them.
Thats serious numbers.
In that case, he deserves his chance.
So, at the moment, whats it likely to be for 1st Ashes Test?
Roy,Burns,Denly,Root,Stokes,Buttler,Bairstow,Ali,Woakes,Archer,Jimmy.?
Have i missed anyone out other than Broad.?
I dont get Canters earlier comment about 6 bowlers plus Root/Denly, as typically in most tests the 5th bowler only gets to bowl less than 10 overs.
To me, this comes back to the old comment about Bairstow going in at 3 (and maybe Buttler or Foakes keeping wicket).
Well, i was thinking more along the lines of Bairstow at 3, and Denly dropping out for Foakes to bat at 7 - that way, you have some solidity at 3, plus still Ali at 8, and 5 bowlers (including Stokes) with Root as 6th bowler.
We might be 100-0 off 10. Or 4-2. But then nothing has really changed if we are the latter.
cantersaddick said: The_President said: So, at the moment, whats it likely to be for 1st Ashes Test?
Roy,Burns,Denly,Root,Stokes,Buttler,Bairstow,Ali,Woakes,Archer,Jimmy.?
Have i missed anyone out other than Broad.?
I dont get Canters earlier comment about 6 bowlers plus Root/Denly, as typically in most tests the 5th bowler only gets to bowl less than 10 overs.
To me, this comes back to the old comment about Bairstow going in at 3 (and maybe Buttler or Foakes keeping wicket).
My comment was reported in an article by sky sports as something that came from the England camp. It's because they are treating this as a warm up game and an opportunity it to get overs in the legs rather than as a proper test match. Ah, you're talking about the Ireland game.
Yes was replying to comments about the squad for the Ireland game.(Actually, I'll be honest, I can't).
Or the other way to look at it is dropping someone with a Test average of 28 with someone who has a Test average of 41.
Comparing first class runs is pointless, Woakes is 30 and Curran is 21. Woakes has played three times as many tests but has reached 50 on 5 occasions, Curran on 3, Woakes only just about has double the amount of test runs. I would bet my house that when Curran has played 26 tests, he will have more fifties than Woakes and as many hundreds by then.
Who is the all-rounder who rarely bowls?
But that's why I used the word 'future'. Personally (and it's just an opinion) I cannot see Curran being good enough to be in the top 3 seamers. Therefore, his place in the team would need to be as an all-rounder but a better batsman than bowler, just like Stokes is (especially in our one day success). With the quality of our all rounders it's not inconceivable to see us playing 6 bowlers from 6 to 11 with 4 of them being decent batsman.
However...
He's nowhere near good enough to be a third seamer. And, even as a fourth seamer, he'd be taking a better bowler's place. (Imagine if Anderson, Broad, Archer, Wood, Woakes and Stokes were all fit. Would he really strike the selectoros as being our second-best change bowler amongst that lot?)
And he's not a good enough batsman. In the old days (however far you want to go back - Flintoff ... Botham ... Greig ...) a player had to be worth being picked in the team for both disciplines to be considered an all-rounder. For example, at his absolute peak, you could pick Botham as one of six top-order batsmen or one of four front-line bowlers. Sam Curran isn't good enough to be considered an all-rounder.
His batting may develop in future. I hope so. Because he's got a bit of magic about him. But is he ever going to be one of England's top six, best batsmen? I doubt it. And, if hes not going to be considered as an opening bowler, or the first change the captain makes, then he's not an all-rounder.
A bowler who bats a bit is much more useful to a team than a batsman that bowls a bit. Not my words, but those of Richie Benaud. He knew his stuff. Woakes is a bowler who bats a bit. Stokes is a batsman who bowls if it's necessary. We don't need someone who can bat, but only bowls a bit, if we have those two in the team - we would be better off with a "proper" batsman, as opposed to a "potential" batsman.
He'll never be a Flintoff - that's beyond him. But he could be a Collingwood.
The question is, do we need a good batsman who might be needed to bowl a few overs? I think the answer, while Stokes and Woakes can be selected, should be no.