***Official*** England in West Indies 2015

[Dan]

Its okay if you want to argue that Stokes doesn't have the skills needed from a number 8, but to say that he shouldn't bat 8 -and that the entire English batting order should rejig itself to fit him in at 6- just because he cant give a **** when he bats at 8 is a piss poor excuse.

Especially from a team that has made a villain of of KP for having an ego. Now you want to send Moeen and Butler -both more proven Test batsmen- to 7/8 because Stokes finds it beneathe him to bat at 8? How is that in any way consistent?

Just keep him out of the side until he's ready to play for the team and not just his prIde IMO.

What?

Stokes is a better batsman at 6. He bats 5ish for Durham, has had all his international success batting in the middle (not lower) order, and isn't nearly as proficient at batting with the tail as either Moeen or Buttler.

It isn't about Stokes' ego, it's about finding the role he's best suited for. In 2009, Flintoff was batting at 6 despite Prior plainly being the better batsman of the two; it's about maximising what you can get out of each batsman to provide the best outcome for the team. Stokes at 6 is better than Stokes at 8 to that end. He's better in that role. The losses from Moeen and Buttler playing 'out of position' are outweighed by the benefits of Stokes playing a role he's better at.

Also lol @ Buttler and Moeen magically becoming proven Test batsmen to suit your argument. Stokes and Moeen basically have the same stats -- averaging 31 after 7 Tests, with one ton each. Moeen's was a better ton in terms of the game situation, Stokes' in terms of bowling attack quality. And I'm sorry, but a few fifties in less than a handful of Tests from Buttler doesn't make him 'proven' (though I'd be very surprised if he didn't become a proven Test batsman).

Stokes certainly isn't a level above them, but it's not like we're shifting Bradman out of position because Shane Watson decided he wants to bat at #3 this week.


tl;dr: if you pick three Test match #7s, someone has to bat out of position and you have to work out how to minimise the losses accrued from that.

 

[Cabinet96]

Stokes has had like 3 innings at 8. I don't understand how we're making major conclusions based on them. Don't see why the difference between him at 6 compared to 8 should be different than for any other batsman.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

It doesn't matter how things should work - I hate to use the "If you've played cricket" line but if you've played cricket at a non-social level walking out at 6 is totally different to 8. The bowlers mindset is totally different, the team morale is different, the expectation on you is different. Can stokes score runs at 8? Sure he can. But it's going to change the way he bats and how he perceives his role in the team. It's down to what England want Stokes to develop into, and batting position is very important to that.

 

[Antihippy]

If you have bowlers who can bat, and seeing that jordan is no mug with the bat and anderson seems like he can hold up an end pretty well, I don't really see much difference in 6, 7, or 8. To me it only matters if you have absolute bunnies for bowlers, which then depends on the batter's ability to accelerate and retain strike. But that's a job a no. 6 should be good at doing as well. That's why Angelo Mathews has been so good down the order.

 

[Dan]

It doesn't matter how things should work - I hate to use the "If you've played cricket" line but if you've played cricket at a non-social level walking out at 6 is totally different to 8. The bowlers mindset is totally different, the team morale is different, the expectation on you is different. Can stokes score runs at 8? Sure he can. But it's going to change the way he bats and how he perceives his role in the team. It's down to what England want Stokes to develop into, and batting position is very important to that.

Yeah, I see Stokes as being the Flintoff of this generation, and England wants him to develop into a New Flintoff IMO (Stokes being better at this stage in his career than Freddie was IMO, but Freddie developing into a ridiculous near-ATG all-rounder by 2005). As such, you have to give him the batting responsibility to say "we want you to be a genuine top 6 batsman as well as our third seamer", rather than "you're the all-rounder who biffs 'em a long way and bowls in the role of an aggressive strike change bowler". The latter just isn't good enough from Stokes, and batting him at 8 as a fourth seamer is only going to put him into that bits-and-pieces role. It'd be a huge waste of his talent.

Batting him at 8, subliminally or not, doesn't give him the responsibility he needs to develop into the player England want him to be. I mean, imagine if Freddie played the 2005 Ashes batting at #8 with a more-than-part-time spin bowling batting all-rounder at 6. He'd have had nowhere near the impact he did.

 

[cnerd123]

Nah I don't buy that. I could easily counter-argue by hypothesizing that a proud aggressive player could take being put at number 8 as a reason to prove the selectors and wrong and show that he should be batting higher up..

Likewise I could argue that pushing either Moeen or Butler at 8 could ruin them much the same way you claim it would ruins Stokes. If being made to bat at 8 will **** up your future as a Test batsman, then why doom one of these two more talented batsmen to that future?

Comparing Stokes to Freddie of 2005 is so off the mark. He had well established himself as a Test-standard (or near Test-standard) number 6 by then. It wasn't a case of "Hey, we're gonna toss you into this important position, even though you showed a horrible attitude batting lower down, so now be responsible and do it well".

Stokes at 6 is better than Stokes at 8, yes, but that's not because he lacks technique, but because he, apparently, finds it beneath him and doesn't apply himself. That's an awful attitude and an awful reason. Why would you keep a player in a side who would find any role beneath him? Why put up with that ego? Especially after such a dramatic sacking of KP for much the same reasons..

Either way your argument doesn't work for me. If Stokes is good enough for 6 he is good enough for 8. If he can't score runs at 8 -no matter what reason- then he isn't a Test standard number 6. Yes the conditions, bowler's mindset, team morale is all different - but if anything it's harder at 6, not easier. If it was harder at 8 team's would put their better batsmen there.

The expectations put on him is a good point and is the main point for me. England need to make sure that putting Stokes at 8 doesn't mean they expect him to be a useless tailend slogger. They should make it very clear that scoring runs is part of his job, and he should aim to be the best 8 there has ever been in Test cricket. As OS pointed out, look at how guys like Vettori and Imran owned that position and made their wickets so valuable. Gilchrist was way too good to be batting at 7 in Tests but he killed it and made it a wicket to fear. There is no reason why England shouldn't expect that out of Stokes. Instead you want them to be all apologetic for his failure. "Yo, we know you played some careless shots and look like you don't give a **** at 8, and we just want to say that's our fault, you have now proven to us that you deserve to be batting at 6 in Tests above Moeen and Jos based on those performances".

"Oh he isn't scoring runs because he is batting too low down" is an awful argument and I'll never subscribe to that, sorry. Only works for an opener batting out of place or a guy like Lyon/Agar batting at 11 and being stranded not out all the time.

 

[theegyptian]

Stokes at 8 was more of an issue in ODI cricket than test. When he batted at 8 last year in test cricket he wasn't in great knick and probably shouldn't have been playing at all. In ODI cricket it was a complete waste batting him at 8 because he has the capability of playing a match winning innnings from the top order (however infrequently) and is a bad slogger so not suited well to the 8 role. If he was going to bat 8 in ODI cricket they shouldn't select him- Pick the better bowler.

Moving back to these tests Buttler should be batting the lowest of the 3. There isn't much between the cases of Stokes and Ali so I wouldn't mind whether they were 6 or 7 but for this test I would go 6. Stokes 7. Ali 8. Buttler just because Stokes has the batting practice over Ali.

Buttler at 8 because he has batted the lowest of the three throughout his first class career. He still struggles with the tempo of batting in first class cricket - and in my eyes is the worst of the batsmen in this format. Batting lower should help determining the tempo of his innings and allow him to play closest in approach to his best format 50 overs cricket.



Stokes is primarily a batsman and also to my mind the likeliest to succeed in test cricket of the 3- so that's another reason to bat him higher than the other two.

Buttler I still worry about. He is an average keeper and struggles with the tempo of his innings under normal match conditions. Plus I really think he's gonna be found out outside offstump where he just hangs the bat out without no footwork. I shouldn't complain though as he's done well to this point with the bat and there is no viable replacement at present. He's well suited to coming in when England are way ahead in matches and pushing home the advantage (which has been nearly all of his innnings so far) but he'll need to play other types of innings if he wants to succeed in the long term. Batting him at 8 protects some of his shortcomings.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Nah I don't buy that. I could easily counter-argue by hypothesizing that a proud aggressive player could take being put at number 8 as a reason to prove the selectors and wrong and show that he should be batting higher up..

Likewise I could argue that pushing either Moeen or Butler at 8 could ruin them much the same way you claim it would ruins Stokes. If being made to bat at 8 will **** up your future as a Test batsman, then why doom one of these two more talented batsmen to that future?

Comparing Stokes to Freddie of 2005 is so off the mark. He had well established himself as a Test-standard (or near Test-standard) number 6 by then. It wasn't a case of "Hey, we're gonna toss you into this important position, even though you showed a horrible attitude batting lower down, so now be responsible and do it well".

Stokes at 6 is better than Stokes at 8, yes, but that's not because he lacks technique, but because he, apparently, finds it beneath him and doesn't apply himself. That's an awful attitude and an awful reason. Why would you keep a player in a side who would find any role beneath him? Why put up with that ego? Especially after such a dramatic sacking of KP for much the same reasons..

Either way your argument doesn't work for me. If Stokes is good enough for 6 he is good enough for 8. If he can't score runs at 8 -no matter what reason- then he isn't a Test standard number 6. Yes the conditions, bowler's mindset, team morale is all different - but if anything it's harder at 6, not easier. If it was harder at 8 team's would put their better batsmen there.

The expectations put on him is a good point and is the main point for me. England need to make sure that putting Stokes at 8 doesn't mean they expect him to be a useless tailend slogger. They should make it very clear that scoring runs is part of his job, and he should aim to be the best 8 there has ever been in Test cricket. As OS pointed out, look at how guys like Vettori and Imran owned that position and made their wickets so valuable. Gilchrist was way too good to be batting at 7 in Tests but he killed it and made it a wicket to fear. There is no reason why England shouldn't expect that out of Stokes. Instead you want them to be all apologetic for his failure. "Yo, we know you played some careless shots and look like you don't give a **** at 8, and we just want to say that's our fault, you have now proven to us that you deserve to be batting at 6 in Tests above Moeen and Jos based on those performances".

"Oh he isn't scoring runs because he is batting too low down" is an awful argument and I'll never subscribe to that, sorry. Only works for an opener batting out of place or a guy like Lyon/Agar batting at 11 and being stranded not out all the time.

why don't teams just reverse the batting order? It'll only make a difference if they're pussies

 

[cnerd123]

I don't get your point but okay.

Better batsmen bat higher up. That's why they don't reverse orders, and that's why this reasoning that somehow Stokes can't score runs cause he is batting too low and that is somehow harder is silly. If being at 8 was harder than being at 6 then sides would do exactly as you suggest and reverse their batting orders.

Can't score at 8 means you can't score at 6. He needs to work his way back up the order IMO.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

But if you want him in the team as a batting allrounder who bats in the top 7, you bat him in the top 7. If team balance means he can't bat in the top 7 then he doesn't fit the team composition.

 

[randycricfreak]

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cricket-chat/66470-cricket-web-net-fantasy-test-draft.html

Sign up for this fantasy draft,where you could pick the likes of Marshall,Ambrose,Wasim,Sachin in your team! We have 4 more spots to be filled.If interested please do comment on this thread with your preferred team name.At the end a voting procedure will select the prune th no.of players to 8 and finally a final to pick who the best manager is.Mark my words it will be an amazing draft experience.For more info do visit this thread!

 

[cnerd123]

But if you want him in the team as a batting allrounder who bats in the top 7, you bat him in the top 7. If team balance means he can't bat in the top 7 then he doesn't fit the team composition.

Yea thats fine.

I just don't think he should bat 6 and push Butler/Moeen down to 7/8.

 

[GotSpin]

Not relevant. His dismissal in the 2nd innings was completely unacceptable.

Cant drop him though. Besides his first innings Century and tremendous potential there árent many options i dont think.

Maybe the coaching staff can beat him up With socks full of pennys after a net session.

 

[vic_orthdox]

This discussion is the wrong way around.

It's the message you are sending him. You can't keep on flipping between him being a six who bowls as the fifth bowler, and then make him a bowling all-rounder. It's not about the mental ability of batting at 6 vs 8, it's the consistent pathway that you need to set him to make him the best player he can be.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Cant drop him though. Besides his first innings Century and tremendous potential there árent many options i dont think.

Maybe the coaching staff can beat him up With socks full of pennys after a net session.

He was obviously taking the piss. If every newbie who played a poor shot was dropped instantly, we'd have about half as many great batsmen.

 

[GotSpin]

He was obviously taking the piss. If every newbie who played a poor shot was dropped instantly, we'd have about half as many great batsmen.

Oh damnit...

 

[Dan]

Likewise I could argue that pushing either Moeen or Butler at 8 could ruin them much the same way you claim it would ruins Stokes. If being made to bat at 8 will **** up your future as a Test batsman, then why doom one of these two more talented batsmen to that future?

I never suggested that batting at 8 will **** you up. I said that Stokes isn't suited to #8. Big difference. I think Buttler can do the job at 8 fine, and Moeen will be equally as good at 7 as he is at 6. Buttler's Test technique isn't there yet, but he can bat with the tail relatively well and start bombing sixes as he runs out of partners. Moeen has proven he can work with the tail quite well too, and at 7 he'd still have Buttler after him to support him in a match changing innings. I don't think Stokes has that ability with the tail compared to the other two, so by moving him up you actually get a net increase IMO.

Look at New Zealand. BJ Watling is far and away a better batsman than Corey Anderson or Jimmy Neesham, yet they bat at six ahead of him because McHesson realise that Watling is an ATG at working the tail. What I'm suggesting is essentially the same thing that NZ do now -- an inferior batsman bats higher up the order because the team gets more out of its resources that way. If Mitchell Santner develops into NZ's lead spinner, they'll even have their own Moeen Ali to come into calculations (3x Test #7s in the 6-8 zone).

Comparing Stokes to Freddie of 2005 is so off the mark. He had well established himself as a Test-standard (or near Test-standard) number 6 by then. It wasn't a case of "Hey, we're gonna toss you into this important position, even though you showed a horrible attitude batting lower down, so now be responsible and do it well".
[...]
Either way your argument doesn't work for me. If Stokes is good enough for 6 he is good enough for 8. If he can't score runs at 8 -no matter what reason- then he isn't a Test standard number 6. Yes the conditions, bowler's mindset, team morale is all different - but if anything it's harder at 6, not easier. If it was harder at 8 team's would put their better batsmen there.

The Flintoff '05 comparison was more in terms of role than quality or settledness -- Stokes and Freddie are playing the exact same role: turn matches with the bat from the lower middle order, and be a strike seamer. And both of them, for legitimate reasons, should be batting at #6 rather than #8. I don't think it needs to be said that Flintoff is better at both, he's nearly an ATG ffs, but England wants to develop Stokes into that same role. So you play him in that role rather than pissing around and sending him mixed messages by flipping him between 6 and 8 on a whim.

It isn't about difficulty of making runs. It's about the role you give him and how to get the most out of all your batsmen.

The expectations put on him is a good point and is the main point for me. England need to make sure that putting Stokes at 8 doesn't mean they expect him to be a useless tailend slogger. They should make it very clear that scoring runs is part of his job, and he should aim to be the best 8 there has ever been in Test cricket. As OS pointed out, look at how guys like Vettori and Imran owned that position and made their wickets so valuable. Gilchrist was way too good to be batting at 7 in Tests but he killed it and made it a wicket to fear. There is no reason why England shouldn't expect that out of Stokes. Instead you want them to be all apologetic for his failure. "Yo, we know you played some careless shots and look like you don't give a **** at 8, and we just want to say that's our fault, you have now proven to us that you deserve to be batting at 6 in Tests above Moeen and Jos based on those performances".

Stokes has a hundred at the WACA against Mitchell Johnson when Johnson was in the middle of arguably the scariest single-series performance of all-time. The only English century in that series. The guy can play, and he's proven he can play. Moving him to 8 in the first place was a bizarre move. I'll concede that it's valid to think that Moeen is equally proven at Test level, but FMD Buttler's nowhere near that. And I'm a massive Buttler fan.

 

[Spikey]

just drop the ****er

 

[Antihippy]

The more pertinent question with the england team I feel is if they stick with Jordan or go with someone that doesn't keep spraying it down the legside.

 

[grecian]

The more pertinent question with the england team I feel is if they stick with Jordan or go with someone that doesn't keep spraying it down the legside.

Yes, I'd bring in Ali for Tredwell, and Wood for Jordan next match.