Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Options

England Cricket 2025

18284868788

Comments

  • CHG said:
    Woakes looks like he has bowled his last ball of the series. 
    Genuinely wonder if it might be his last as an England player - he's 36, might not go to the Ashes away, and then it will likely be considered a new cycle etc.
  • edited August 1
    CHG said:
    Woakes looks like he has bowled his last ball of the series. 
    I'm not sure that he'll be able to bat either. 
    Who's the substitute that we are going to bring on to bowl......like India did with Pant ?
  • what's the ruling substitute wise for Woakes (sorry if already mentioned cba to trwal through thread) 
  • CHG said:
    Woakes looks like he has bowled his last ball of the series. 
    I'm not sure that he'll be able to bat either. 
    Who's the substitute that we are going to bring on to bowl......like India did with Pant ?
    India didn't bring on a substitute to bowl instead of Pant, as you know
  • what's the ruling substitute wise for Woakes (sorry if already mentioned cba to trwal through thread) 
    Someone can field for him but that's it
  • What we need to do is to swap Craig Overton on for Jamie Overton, so that the Overtons can bowl all day from one end. Nobody will notice  ;)
  • edited August 1
    It's been quite a topic of conversation of late. Stokes is very against the idea, but depending on the result of the test, it may lead to more open thinking.

    Even the conversation, Ben Stokes said, was “ridiculous”. Injury substitutes, he argued, should not be a part of cricket.
  • The problem with substituting bowlers, is that it negates the effects of tired legs, which is a major part of the game.

    In the first innings you concede 500 runs. One of your knackered bowlers then pulls a muscle batting, and in the 2nd innings you then swap in a new bowler with fresh legs, that's a useful advantage.
  • If England had picked a spinner or just about any professional quick who isn't Jamie Overton, this wouldn't be a potentially game-losing blow 
  • I'm with Stokes on this one, how do you prove that an injury ocurred in the game? We know that most pro athletes play through some form of pain/injury the majority of the time so some form of scan won't really cut it. Plus as Killer says, part of test cricket is the test it takes on your body
  • Sponsored links:


  • The only conversation this should spark is that diving to save one run is unnecessary bravado 
  • Leuth said:
    If England had picked a spinner or just about any professional quick who isn't Jamie Overton, this wouldn't be a potentially game-losing blow 
    If Jamie Overton is in Australia this winter it better be to play in the BBL. 
  • MarcusH26 said:
    Leuth said:
    If England had picked a spinner or just about any professional quick who isn't Jamie Overton, this wouldn't be a potentially game-losing blow 
    If Jamie Overton is in Australia this winter it better be to play in the BBL. 
    Cant see it .  Suspect it will be Atkinson, Archer, Wood, Tongue , Woakes , Potts and then a couple of wildcards like Hill and Baker .  
  • Leuth said:
    The only conversation this should spark is that diving to save one run is unnecessary bravado 
    Saving one run at a time by diving can mount up. There have been Tests that have been won by less than half a dozen runs.

    That said, Woakes is such an honest cricketer that he is the type to dive and risk injury in situations where there is an absolute minimal chance of stopping the ball from crossing the line. It's a fine balance but fast bowlers tend to be at the upper end of the scale so far as weight and momentum are concerned and they are probably the most vulnerable for those reasons. They are also the ones that probably practice diving the least - keepers, in particular, are taught how to dive and roll in order not to damage their shoulders so that's three in our side straightaway albeit one of them, Pope, has a history of injury doing so. 
  • Effectively, Bethell is now going to perform Dawson's role in the last Test of holding an end up. It will be an interesting learning curve and if he can pick up one or two wickets too so much the better. I appreciate that @leuth will probably say that Rehan Ahmed should have played. Perhaps he should have but there are two reasons why he was never going to.

    The first is because Bethell has had to wait four Tests to get his chance and this regime won't worry about using someone they don't fancy in that respect but not a player that they are desperate to get into the side. Ridiculously, Bethell has played just one CC match this season and I'm really not sure that is the right prep for a Test international especially an all rounder. The other reason they don't want to pick Rehan is the worry that he won't be able to keep India quiet during periods when there is no spin something Dawson can do. In a few years time I can see both Bethell (providing he proves that he can operate at Test level) and Rehan in the top six which would then mean that we can play four seamers or three plus a specialist spinner if the wicket is a "turner". Ironically, Dawson is the bowler we are going to miss given the injury to Woakes.   
  • No way will Bethell be able to do the Dawson role, bowling 30 overs in a day and keeping it tight at one end, while the seamers operate at the other. He has 12 first class wickets at 70, with an economy rate of 3.95. 
  • Leuth said:
    The only conversation this should spark is that diving to save one run is unnecessary bravado 
    Saving one run at a time by diving can mount up. There have been Tests that have been won by less than half a dozen runs.

    That said, Woakes is such an honest cricketer that he is the type to dive and risk injury in situations where there is an absolute minimal chance of stopping the ball from crossing the line. It's a fine balance but fast bowlers tend to be at the upper end of the scale so far as weight and momentum are concerned and they are probably the most vulnerable for those reasons. They are also the ones that probably practice diving the least - keepers, in particular, are taught how to dive and roll in order not to damage their shoulders so that's three in our side straightaway albeit one of them, Pope, has a history of injury doing so. 
    It was a freak accident. It wasn't one of those kamikaze dives to save the ball, and he wasn't even running that quickly, or sliding to get the ball. He chased the ball towards the boundary, flicked it back, but somehow landed awkwardly. 

    Overton at the start of the day did a far more dramatic dive to stop the ball, hitting the fence in the process.
  • No way will Bethell be able to do the Dawson role, bowling 30 overs in a day and keeping it tight at one end, while the seamers operate at the other. He has 12 first class wickets at 70, with an economy rate of 3.95. 
    As always, the higher you go the more a bowler is defined by their bad balls rather than their good ones. Unless a spinner has bowled tens of thousands of balls at a high (or happen to be a Shane Warne) the best batters in the world will punish those long hops and half volleys. When, as in Bethell's case, you get to bowl 20 overs for 2 wickets and at 4.50 an over by the time August comes around, as he has in the CC, there is no way that you have learnt your craft. 

    As I've said, Stokes and McCullum have been desperate to get Bethell into the side. They haven't been able to justify, in their heads, dropping Crawley or Pope so this was the ideal opportunity to get him in. I hope that it doesn't seriously backfire because I do wonder where the control is going to come from beyond Atkinson. 
  • fenaddick said:
    what's the ruling substitute wise for Woakes (sorry if already mentioned cba to trwal through thread) 
    Someone can field for him but that's it
    Why ?   Pant got injured & couldn't keep wicket. Woakes got injured and cant bowl. Sub fielders come on to take their place. In Pant's case that meant the sub fielder kept wicket, so in this case our sub fielder can bowl. End of.
  • Leuth said:
    The only conversation this should spark is that diving to save one run is unnecessary bravado 
    I agree. We should go back to earlier times when Compton, Jardine & Gower wouldn't bother running & let the ball go for 4.

  • Sponsored links:


  • wmcf123 said:
    MarcusH26 said:
    Leuth said:
    If England had picked a spinner or just about any professional quick who isn't Jamie Overton, this wouldn't be a potentially game-losing blow 
    If Jamie Overton is in Australia this winter it better be to play in the BBL. 
    Cant see it .  Suspect it will be Atkinson, Archer, Wood, Tongue , Woakes , Potts and then a couple of wildcards like Hill and Baker .  
    A wilder card would be Hilda Baker.
  • edited August 1
    Leuth said:
    The only conversation this should spark is that diving to save one run is unnecessary bravado 
    I agree. We should go back to earlier times when Compton, Jardine & Gower wouldn't bother running & let the ball go for 4.

    Here @golfaddick. Seems like you need a slight refresher:

    https://therulesofcricket.co.uk/the_rules_of_cricket/the_rules_of_cricket_law_2.htm

  • Chizz said:
    Josh Tongue choosing next delivery... 


    He's not choosing his deliveries is he though?
    He genuinely has no control over what happens from his delivery stride onwards
    Pitching it in the batsman's half somewhere between middle and '4th' stump came as such a surprise it foxed Sudharsan and Jadeja.
    With Woakes unavailability India will be rubbing their hands together and looking forward to the most opulent buffet to be served  up by Tongue and Bethell, while Overton, Atkinson and Root desperately try to exercise any control.  England's chances of taking another 14 wickets in this match are miniscule.

    Bringing seam bowlers into a test match with virtually no red ball bowling all season is as irresponsible as it is lunatic.
    All seasoned by Pope's negligible experience as a captain.
    England's chances of avoiding defeat lie largely with the weather plus India's occasional tendency to self-destruct.
  • I can see Tongue getting a 5-fer, and in years to come people will just see the wicket taking deliveries and think this was a brilliant bowling spell  :D
  • Ravi keeps repeating that once again it’s Atkinson with the wicket.
    Great bloke but a very poor commentator.
  • Whatever your view of Bethell’s cricketing abilities think we can all agree he suits the Thorpe headband 
  • edited August 1
    Thank god Bumrah isn’t playing. Facing him on this pitch would be a nightmare.

    Wouldn’t be at all surprised if India are batting again by 5pm!
  • fenaddick said:
    Whatever your view of Bethell’s cricketing abilities think we can all agree he suits the Thorpe headband 
    Not sure the same can be said for Duckett  :D
  • Atkinson looking good. I dont keep up with cricket other than dipping into test matches so with that in mind, why was Atkinson not playing previously in this series?
  • WHAddick said:
    Atkinson looking good. I dont keep up with cricket other than dipping into test matches so with that in mind, why was Atkinson not playing previously in this series?
    Injury
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!