Perhaps some folks are swayed by his vital runs in the wins at Edgbaston and Southampton last year; on both occasions rescuing innings in tough circumstances after the top order had failed badly. Agreed that his bowling is at best 4th seamer standard and that's a problem, especially if Stokes is having an off day with the ball. But in terms of overall package, your comparison with the 90s bits and pieces players is rather odd unless I've forgotten similar innings from the likes of Irani, Ealham, Hollioake, Watkinson or whoever else we picked in those days. Not just in terms of the number of runs scored, but more importantly the circumstances in which they were scored. fwiw I don't think Curran's bowling is good enough to be joint 3rd seamer with Stokes, despite his occasional golden arm moments. And unless he's injured, Woakes is unlucky in how he's been treated by Root and unlucky to be dropped.
It was the most glaring selection in the team at least. Butler being kept in favour of Bairstow with Ali returning is also very, very bizarre imo, considering he is just about a no.9 these days. Roy at 3 is equally so.
Woakes has been the biggest disappointment this series. Leading into it he was being considered one of England's key players but he has underperformed hugely with both bat and ball.
Obviously not definitely the case, but I can't help but wonder whether this is to do with his general fitness.
Not sure pairs are the way to go here.
Chiku & Smity only 1 pointNice reading this morning that Australia now have Smith and Cummins as the #1 batsman and #1 bowler which is the first time since 2006 when we had Ponting and McGrath
Can't see the logic here. Smith has managed to get back to no.1 despite playing no Test cricket for 18 months, and he has a home summer coming up as well. Smart money would be on Smith heavily increasing his lead rather than the other way around.
That is how Icc's Logic worked
