The Stokes and Woakes Thread

[Scaly piscine]

What? In a team with Anderson and Broad, he somehow managed to be better than one or both of them.

I suggest you actually look at the matches...

 

[Daemon]

I can't believe Howe actually trawled through the archives #lolyoukid

 

[MW1304]

I suggest you actually look at the matches...

Oh right so you're talking about one or two games? I mean I don't agree with that at all, having watched the games, but regardless it isn't as relevant to whether someone should be picked for a side as, say, being two of the best seamers in the world for years. In the context of the discussion that was such a nonsense statement.

He was contesting for fourth seamer at the time. Dropping him for his batting was absolutely fine, and looks even better in hindsight once you see the vast improvement in his batting since said dropping.

 

[mackembhoy]

You're assigning way too much to batting order. Ultimately, batting badly is defined by scoring no runs.

He also wasn't dropped for Jordan who was already in the side for the SL series. He was dropped for Woakes.

Woakes and Jordan came in for Stokes and Plunkett after the lords debacle against India. So he was dropped for one of 2 inferior players at the time

Plunkett didn't bowl well, stokes did. But he got a pair batting at 8/9. As the fourth seamer he did nothing wrong in those first 2 games.

He was playing as a bowler and his batting shouldn't have come into it. You don't play a number 4 at 9 and expect him to play like a number 4, especially a player told to have a bit more licence with it.

 

[mackembhoy]

You seem to be obsessed with Stokes' dropping early in his career, I've seen you mention it a lot, but I'm not sure why you quantify it as being 'messed around'. The truth is he was batting appallingly at the time. Almost literally could not buy a run. Since he was being picked as the fourth seamer and they were still having teething problems with the batting order, it was perfectly reasonable to drop him. He certainly wasn't deserving of the no. 6 position that he's now made his own.

It isn't like he was just slogging down at 8, he was getting out before he'd even got set. Who's to say his immense success since his recall wasn't actually helped by the experience, rather than it messing with him as you claim?

Plus, as Howe's said, he wasn't even dropped for Jordan. And Jordan bowled pretty well against an admittedly shot Indian line up.

The above to you too. Jordan didn't bowl well, your memory must be failing you he got wickets going at 4 an over. The most filthy of which came at the oval, his match best of 7/50 doesn't tell a story at all most were got with absolute pies and poor batting.

Boosted his average with that 4/18 in the second innings. Couldn't believe he'd came out of that with 4 fer deserved maybe 1 of them. Stokes got put down on the road at trent bridge a few times and a couple when he bowled beautifully at lords. Especially the second innings.

Paul Farbrace is the man who deserves all the credit for stokes improvement. Stokes was already good he just gave him the confidence to go do his thing. Rather than use him as a fourth seamer and expect miracles batting a 9. He got 3 ducks in a row, had he been batting 6 then yeah acceptable to drop, a bowler getting 3 ducks in a row isn't unheard of.

 

[marc71178]

Bloody hell, I never thought I'd see someone with a bigger chip on his shoulder then Scaly.

 

[Furball]

He has 'bhoy' in his user name, the chip on their shoulder is genetic.

 

[91Jmay]

Both of them now average more with bat than ball. If they maintain that (with Woakes staying sub 30 with ball and hopefully Stokes north of 40 with bat) will give us a hell of a competative advantage.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Add in the fact Moeen is tightening his figures up too and that is a serious amount of depth from 5-8 including Bairstow.

 

[harsh.ag]

In a sense, this English side is close to the shape the South African 1970 side would have taken in the 70s:

- A strong opener and a strong middle order bat (Barry and Pollock :: Cook and Root)
- Three all rounders (Barlow, Rice, and Procter :: Ali, Stokes, and Woakes) to prop up the batting
- A couple of great pacemen (Jimmy and Broad :: Pollock and van der Bijl) though van der Bijl was considerably younger than these guys and never played tests

 

[honestbharani]

Just tells us what the cricket world missed out

 

[vic_orthdox]

Stokes shouldn't have ever been picked at 8.

 

[CricAddict]

Kirsten Gibbs Cullinan Cronje Kallis Boucher Pollock Symcox Adams Donald Fanie
Cook Haseeb Root Duckett Stokes Bairstow Woakes Moeen Rashid Anderson Broad

Mcmillan/Klusenar and Plunkett can be equivalent subs. Not very similar but close. Great allround teams.

 

[91Jmay]

We are a few levels below them currently. If Hameed/Duckett can fulfil their promise in 2 years time could be an interesting comparison though.

 

[weldone]

In a sense, this English side is close to the shape the South African 1970 side would have taken in the 70s:

- A strong opener and a strong middle order bat (Barry and Pollock :: Cook and Root)
- Three all rounders (Barlow, Rice, and Procter :: Ali, Stokes, and Woakes) to prop up the batting
- A couple of great pacemen (Jimmy and Broad :: Pollock and van der Bijl) though van der Bijl was considerably younger than these guys and never played tests

Uh, you deserve a ban for comparing Cook to Barry.

 

[Howe_zat]

Kirsten Gibbs Cullinan Cronje Kallis Boucher Pollock Symcox Adams Donald Fanie
Cook Haseeb Root Duckett Stokes Bairstow Woakes Moeen Rashid Anderson Broad

Mcmillan/Klusenar and Plunkett can be equivalent subs. Not very similar but close. Great allround teams.

Think Stokes and Woakes will be extremely falttered by that, though not as much as Cullinan

 

[mr_mister]

Bairstow/Lindsay is another good comparison IMO