-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
*Official* Warm up Matches Discussion
- Thread starter James
- Start date
fredfertang
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Most of them from Kegga it would seem - wac he is
Howe_zat
Audio File
This 'can't start against spin' thing is looking more and more like tosh, at least in this country.
Scaly piscine
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Hopefully Stokes has done enough to push up the Test bowlers pecking order - if he was playing he'd be down at 8 probably.
Should be ahead of Woakes now, probably behind Rankin I guess. I guess either/both of them may scrape into the squad for the final Test.
Should be ahead of Woakes now, probably behind Rankin I guess. I guess either/both of them may scrape into the squad for the final Test.
grecian
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Are you seriously saying Stokes should be considered primarily as a bowler now? The man has only just started bowling regularly and has had serious injury problems when he does bowl a bit. I've said for a while he'll end up being a bowler that bats, but he's got to be doing a damn sight better than bowling twenty overs a first-class match before that. Currently 5th in bowling averages for Durham.
Anyway, Plunkers, I was his biggest detractor on here for a while. Yet I'm not going to let my bias go on to his new life.
He always was a frustrating bundle, he bowled at good pace and he swung it, but he was so ridiculously inaccurate, which for a bowler of his type was just not the point, you need to build pressure and keep plugging on the same line. People look at his record in Tests and may think it's just bad, but he was bowling in choice conditions at times, still never had the consistency to produce.
Yet hey, people are saying he's more accurate now, and as we know with bowlers of these type, Jimmeh and Vernon, they can improve later on. So if he has things under control I'm willing to see how he goes, certainly seems okay in Limited-over stuff, which we're pretty desperate at in the time being.
Burgey
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Sounds like the Abbott-led Liberal Party's view of modern Australia.
Burgey
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Fapping material if there ever was any.oh my god guys
Scaly piscine
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
He's averaging 23 overs a match for Durham, and he's a first/second change bowler. Durham bowl teams out pretty quickly and tend to spread the load thinly, so his figures are as expected. It's the pace he can generate that makes him high up the pecking order. He bowls with pace and a decent average. Usually people have one or the other in County Cricket. Obviously Stokes also has the batting ability and top notch fielding.
grecian
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
It's been over a very limited period though. He bowls pretty quickly, but honestly I'd rather Mark Wood played as a bowler for England, Stokes has not proved he can consistently operate a workload. Again I think the guys a talent, but honestly if he was a Surrey player and was picked as a bowler on such limited returns you would fume, hasn't even taken a 100(yeah I know a bit cheap, but still) first-class wickets.
Plenty of bowlers have more pace, Meaker and Dernbach for two.
grecian
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Hey I'm one of the few people that think Scaly isn't an awful poster, he makes me chuckle in fact, so I treat him like any other one. Not like a rabid North-east insanitly-biased scabrous scrabble-addled person of ****ed-up partizan zealous cantankerous.
Anywat who are you?
Last edited:
theegyptian
International Vice-Captain
Stokes is a massive prospect. He could easily be a lot better than Flintoff(not that Flintoff was that great) but there are a load of similarities also.
I really feel like he has the potential to bat 6 and also be a third/fourth seamer. His bowling is really improving. I don't think he has outstanding pace but he can bowl hostile spells and more importantly he swings the ball conventionally and reverse. I don't want to or think he should become an out and out bowler because his batting has the potential to be very good also.
At the moment his batting is average and he has a couple of technical things as well as a confidence issue from not scoring many runs for a couple of years.
I don't think England should think of playing him as a bowler (say batting 8) because if he gets it right he will be England's most important player for the next 10-15 years batting at 6. Treat him and play him as a bowler and you limit his future potential. I also agree with grecian that at the moment he isn't good enough as a bowler alone - Durham manage his workload and that's correct given he bats in the top 5 - If he didn't bat he'd probably open the bowling . I think probably leave him another year or so and hope his batting does develop a bit more and then select him at 6.
Going back to the similiarities between Stokes and Flintoff and it is pretty amazing. Both initially batsmen who bowled a bit (albeit Stokes was a much better batsmen initially). Both as their bodies developed became more reliable with the ball than the bat. Both are nervous against spin but can bash them when confident. Stokes thinks a bit more like a batsmen having batted his whole career basically at 4 and 5 and will grind out the runs initially. Both mavericks with a few discipline problems.
Maybe Stokes will be unfulfilled as a player but he certainly has the talent and I certainly wouldn't rule out him averaging 40 at number 6, and 28 with the ball in test cricket as a 3rd/4th seamer.
I really feel like he has the potential to bat 6 and also be a third/fourth seamer. His bowling is really improving. I don't think he has outstanding pace but he can bowl hostile spells and more importantly he swings the ball conventionally and reverse. I don't want to or think he should become an out and out bowler because his batting has the potential to be very good also.
At the moment his batting is average and he has a couple of technical things as well as a confidence issue from not scoring many runs for a couple of years.
I don't think England should think of playing him as a bowler (say batting 8) because if he gets it right he will be England's most important player for the next 10-15 years batting at 6. Treat him and play him as a bowler and you limit his future potential. I also agree with grecian that at the moment he isn't good enough as a bowler alone - Durham manage his workload and that's correct given he bats in the top 5 - If he didn't bat he'd probably open the bowling . I think probably leave him another year or so and hope his batting does develop a bit more and then select him at 6.
Going back to the similiarities between Stokes and Flintoff and it is pretty amazing. Both initially batsmen who bowled a bit (albeit Stokes was a much better batsmen initially). Both as their bodies developed became more reliable with the ball than the bat. Both are nervous against spin but can bash them when confident. Stokes thinks a bit more like a batsmen having batted his whole career basically at 4 and 5 and will grind out the runs initially. Both mavericks with a few discipline problems.
Maybe Stokes will be unfulfilled as a player but he certainly has the talent and I certainly wouldn't rule out him averaging 40 at number 6, and 28 with the ball in test cricket as a 3rd/4th seamer.
grecian
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Sorry Egyptian mate, that's just a shocking post from the first paragraph on, Flintoff not that great he bowled at 90 miles per hour, and scored hundreds for England, so honestly Stokes is going to better either of those? To be a lot better, he maybe a lot better than Ronnie Irani, but Flintoff, how the **** can you compare?
Last edited:
theegyptian
International Vice-Captain
I'm pretty high on Stokes but he has the ability to be a lot better than Flintoff.
He dominated first division attacks as a 19 year batting in a controlled manner. He's basically struggled with form with the bat ever since that serious finger injury but that can easily happen to youngsters especially playing at CLS.
Flintoff for all that he could reach the occasional high peak was average a lot of the time and didn't have a great output for the effort he put in.
Stokes like Flintoff is a bit of a maverick and has had a few problems but the kid could be very good.
grecian
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Well he could be, (so could many) but to dismiss flintoff's achievements in that way is assinine, IMHO. For about four years he was supreme with bat and ball and raised us to a level we hadn't been for decades. ****ing ridiculous to suggest stokes could easily better that. When he's done so little to suggest it.
theegyptian
International Vice-Captain
yes i mean i've got no idea what's going to happen and what's happening in Stokes head and whether he really wants to be a good player.
I just really think he has potentially everything. Similiar qualities to Flintoff in someone who is a matchwinner and can massively influence a match in a session. I just feel that if everything went right he could do it better. He bowls a fuller length than flintoff and swings the ball(and fyi he has been over 90mph on sky this season), his body is leaner and less thickset than flintoff so he should be less predisposed to injury. 5 first class hundreds before he was 20 shows a genuine batsman and some of those tons were dominant tons.
Like Flintoff he won't be the finished article when he comes into the team and he will struggle especially you'd imagine with the bat but I think England realise that he could give vital balance to the team and give him the time when he gets his chance.