England Cricket 2024

Gravesend_Addick said:

Never mind next week's test, I think Stokes could well be out for the entire summer

I hope it's not as bad as it looks

Addick Addict said:

Addick Addict said:

billysboots said:

If Stokes doesn't make it then could it be a Jordan Cox debut ?

By all accounts he has been practising his seam up bowling. Ignoring that, it would mean our bowling is, once again, one short in which case we might not play him and see Smith move to 6 and Woakes to 7 - albeit that we would have quite a tail. There really aren't many authentic all rounders around.

England have opted to move Smith and Woakes up one and bring Potts in as the extra seamer:

Dan Lawrence, Ben Duckett, Ollie Pope (captain), Joe Root, Harry Brook (vice-captain), Jamie Smith (wicketkeeper), Chris Woakes, Gus Atkinson, Matthew Potts, Mark Wood and Shoaib Bashir

Addick Addict said:

Rothko said:

Addick Addict said:

Chizz said:

Todds_right_hook said:

Chizz said:

It's ridiculous that a player is forced to play in an ECB match. There's the risk that he might get injured. It's totally the ECB's fault when a player playing in one of their matches gets injured. Totally. They should feel ashamed of themselves. 

I mean, why would they ask a cricketer to play cricket? Can't they see how dangerous and risky it is?

We're now having to go into a Test series with Sri Lanka with a player missing, because he got injured playing cricket. Let's hope his injury heals in time for this winter's tours. Because broken fingers can take a long to to fix properly. 

What would your view be if Lloyd jones got injured playing against Bromley in the pizza cup? Is it a case of a footballer playing football or should he be rested for cup games?

I don't think it's a great analogy. But, since you've asked, professional sportsmen and women get injured. It's literally an occupational hazard. So, my first reaction would be to be disappointed that he's injured; my second would be to consider who might fill his place in the next match; my third would be to wait and wonder how long he'd be likely to be out for; my fifth night be to consider whether it would have been better for him to miss the Bromley game, at the risk that he might get injured during the following game, thereby causing bigger problems. And then several more reactions, the last being to wonder how much blame could be attached to the ECB. 

I know that others would have a different order of reactions. 

Somewhere along the line, though, I'd know that sportsmen get injured and, as we Charlton fans know, it's not just during matches. 

A more realistic analogy would be for the Football Association to contractually oblige the England captain, who recently came back from a serious injury, to play in the Carabao Cup for the FA's franchise team. A week before an international. Only for him to sustain another injury in that match.

The implications in the case of Stokes, isn't just for him or the England team but for those that have paid serious money to watch him represent his country over the course of up to 15 days in 3 Tests where he would have had an opportunity with both bat and ball to entertain those paying a lot of money to see him. All for what? 4 runs and 0-49 in 3 matches. 

Training sessions are managed. Matches cannot be simply because every sinew is stretched in a competitive environment. That is why the ECB dictate if and when their contracted players can play for their counties - and that is usually only for match fitness and to for the purpose of finding form. That is a necessity and is managed. Bowlers and seamers especially are treated differently to batters. Yes Stokes did it batting but with his frail body, he was even more likely to injure himself with the ball. He's the only one of the five seamers used in the recent series against the West Indies to play in the Hundred.

Stokes retired from international white ball cricket and could not be persuaded to play in the T20 WC because he wanted to have that much needed operation and regain full fitness. Had this been the Vitality Blast, with Stokes' history of injury and recent workload and having not bowled to that extent for years, there is no way on earth that the ECB would have sanctioned him playing this close to another Test series as evidenced by the fact that he has not played in the Blast for over three years and has only made eight appearances in that competition in the last eight years. Stokes does not do domestic competitions unless he really has to. Just three CC matches in the last two years and they were at the beginning of this season to get him match fit for the international summer.   

So why was the 33 year old made to do play? Because, of course, the flagging Hundred has to be made attractive to the public by having England's superhero play. Someone at the ECB then, amazingly, had a "lightbulb moment" and immediately pulled out both Chris Woakes and Jofra Archer, having previously announced that they would both be partaking this week, to protect them from injury. As I've said already, the phrase "horse and bolted" springs to mind. 

If he had pinged his hamstring in a second XI game at Jesmond that would be ok, in your world. 

The last time that Stokes played a 2nd XI game was over 10 years ago on 10th June 2014 so I'm not sure that argument really holds. The only reason he would be doing so is to get match fit. The same reason Stokes played three CC matches for Durham following his knee op. He wasn't playing in The Hundred for match fitness. The same reason he hasn't played a Blast game for Durham for three years and only eight games in eight years in total. 

Unfortunately, it means that those that pay hundreds of pounds to watch the England captain play, including those that would like their kids see him making a meaningful contribution to a game of Test cricket, won't be doing so. He was playing to appease the ECB who are desperate to sell off the Hundred franchises so much so that, despite a minority 49% stake, the new owners will be allowed to re-name the franchises. The Ambani family which owns Mumbai Indians already own teams in three other T20 leagues – MI Cape Town, MI New York and MI Emirates – and buying into the Hundred franchise based at Lord’s is their next target with the proposal that they become MI London. 

That's in my world and the world of reality. But if you feel that any of what I've said isn't factually correct please do tell me which part is wrong.