• 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*** India in England 2014

Scaly piscine

Scaly piscine

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Viscount Tom said:
Made worse by the fact that the fringe bowlers were the best bowlers.
Click to expand...
Exactly. If Broad had performed as Stokes has in his matches so far he would never in a million years have been dropped. Because Stokes so far has outperformed Broad in the matches they've both played in. Despite the fact Broad gets the plum conditions to bowl in. Stokes was basically the best player in Australia and was arguably the best bowler in the last match.

That's what pisses me off, when England pick someone new to side what exactly do they expect? The thinking must be that unless they perform ridiculously well that they're going to be dropped. Because that's how it keeps working out. The seniors playing to a similar or worse standard over a long period are safe.

On what planet is that the right approach? If you select new players surely the intention is to give them a sustained run unless they obviously look out of their depth.
 
King Pietersen

King Pietersen

International Captain
Stokes should clearly have played ahead of Jordan in this match, for his bowling, but Stokes has been picked as an all-rounder. An all-rounder with 6 ducks in 10 innings, he's looking all at sea with the bat, and looks completely out of his depth, and a century in Australia 7 months ago doesn't prove otherwise.
 
Last edited:
R

Raffski

School Boy/Girl Captain
King Pietersen said:
Stokes should clearly have played ahead of Jordan in this match, for his bowling, but Stokes has been picked as an all-rounder. An all-rounder with 6 ducks in 10 innings, he's looking all at sea with the bat, and looks completely out of his depth, and a century in Australia 7 months ago doesn't prove otherwise.
Click to expand...
He's in terrible form with the bat true but I think he still merits selection on his bowling- it's not like he's been batting 6 anyway. Picking Jordan over him is just wrong.
 
wpdavid

wpdavid

Hall of Fame Member
Raffski said:
He's (Stokes) in terrible form with the bat true but I think he still merits selection on his bowling- it's not like he's been batting 6 anyway. Picking Jordan over him is just wrong.
Click to expand...
Yup, and he'd be batting at 9 or 10 in this line-up, so his batting form would be irrelevant.
 
NUFAN

NUFAN

Y no Afghanistan flag
I didn't think that Jordan was THAT horrible, apart from his first over of the day. In saying that, I felt as though Plunkett was also just starting to understand how to be an effective Test match bowler in the last innings of the second Test, so I'm hoping he gets a recall. Jono would have loved that shot.
 
King Pietersen

King Pietersen

International Captain
Plunkett would still be playing if it wasn't for an injury. Expecting him to be back for the next Test.

No fracture/break for Belleh. Good news.
 
9

91Jmay

International Coach
Poor shot from Kohli. Just hung his bat out there, well done Jimmy. Get Sharma here and we have a big chance.
 
cnerd123

cnerd123

likes this
Kohli and Pujara had disappointed so far - 5 innings each of looking good and not carrying on.

Rohit needs to score. The irony, had India picked Ashwin they may not have conceded 569 and needed Rohit's runs anyways
 
Daemon

Daemon

Request Your Custom Title Now!
**** Jono seriously. Why the **** did he have to turn up in England for this series. ****.
 
Goughy

Goughy

Hall of Fame Member
Prince EWS said:
He doesn't really. He does well but not exactly "great"; certainly not consistently anyway. The thing about him is that he's so inconsistent -- not from over to over so much as day to day or match to match. When he's on, he's Test standard IMO, but the technical faults in his action and especially his approach to the crease make him awful when he's not on.

If he was in good rhythm in the lead up to this match I could understand his selection to some extent but it doesn't really look like that's the case unless the pressure has evaporated that rhythm immediately. IMO, England have just decided that the bowling performance in the second Test was unacceptable and that they needed to swap the fringe players in the squad around as a result to 'send a message' or whatever, which is always an infinitely worse selection policy than actually picking your best players.
Click to expand...
He is inconsistent and England have always had a history of inconsistent. Devon Malcolm, Andy Caddick and Phil DeFreitas could all be worse than terrible. However when they were good Devon bowled at 95 mph, Caddick got the ball to bounce and swing at right angles and DeFreitas bowled like Hadlee. Jordan offers none of that upside.

I cant think of a single interesting or valuable thing he offers at this level.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top