[Cricket] 4th Test v India

[BensGrandad]

Bairstow to play as a specialist batsmen and both Moeen Ali and Curran recalled in place of Woakes and Pope.

 

[LlcoolJ]

Not sure about dropping Woakes for Moeen. Seems a bit knee jerk off the back of Mo getting 200 and a six fer the other day.

I'm a fan of Moeen but unless the thinking is that we definitely need two spinners, this seems a bit harsh on Woakes.

 

[BensGrandad]

BBC says Woakes injured and in any case I would think that Curran has replaced him like for like and Moeen replaced Pope as a batsman.but he can also bowl.if needed.

 

[knocky1]

Stokes has a dodgy knee that may go and as he is undroppable, unless in court, Ali is bowling cover.

I saw Moeen take 8 Indian wickets at the Bowl 4 years ago when he could bowl. Jordan was electric at first slip. Bell and Balance got centuries.

 

[BensGrandad]

Stokes has a dodgy knee that may go and as he is undroppable, unless in court, Ali is bowling cover.

I saw Moeen take 8 Indian wickets at the Bowl 4 years ago when he could bowl. Jordan was electric at first slip. Bell and Balance got centuries.

I wouldnt say that as Ali is a spin bowler and Curran is the same as Stokes so I would suggest that Curran is replacing Woakes as a batsman fast bowler and if needed compliment Stokes. and Ali is replacing Pope as a batsman but also a spin bowler if extra one needed.

 

[Blues Rock DJ]

Stokes has a dodgy knee that may go and as he is undroppable, unless in court, Ali is bowling cover.

I saw Moeen take 8 Indian wickets at the Bowl 4 years ago when he could bowl. Jordan was electric at first slip. Bell and Balance got centuries.

'Living In The Past' ...............

 

[knocky1]

BBC says Woakes injured and in any case I would think that Curran has replaced him like for like and Moeen replaced Pope as a batsman.but he can also bowl.if needed.

Stokes has a dodgy knee that may go and as he is undroppable, unless in court, Ali is bowling cover.

I saw Moeen take 8 Indian wickets at the Bowl 4 years ago when he could bowl. Jordan was electric at first slip. Bell and Balance got centuries.

I thought that I was in agreement with you.....

I wouldnt say that as Ali is a spin bowler and Curran is the same as Stokes so I would suggest that Curran is replacing Woakes as a batsman fast bowler and if needed compliment Stokes. and Ali is replacing Pope as a batsman but also a spin bowler if extra one needed.

......but maybe not.

 

[BensGrandad]

I thought that I was in agreement with you.....



......but maybe not.

Arguing on the same point it seems the end product being Moeen Ali and Sam Curran called back into the squad.

 

[LlcoolJ]

Mo has 133 test wickets. Not bad for someone who "isn't a spin bowler".

 

[BensGrandad]

Mo has 133 test wickets. Not bad for someone who "isn't a spin bowler".

I would say that he is in the side mainly as a batsman but also has the added advantage of being a spin bowler if needed.

 

[Cowfold Seagull]

Not sure about dropping Woakes for Moeen. Seems a bit knee jerk off the back of Mo getting 200 and a six fer the other day.

I'm a fan of Moeen but unless the thinking is that we definitely need two spinners, this seems a bit harsh on Woakes.

As harsh on Woakes, as it was for Curran when he was dropped in favour of Stokes. Good to see Curran back though.

 

[LlcoolJ]

As harsh on Woakes, as it was for Curran when he was dropped in favour of Stokes. Good to see Curran back though.

Agreed. Said previously that if we don't need two spinners (or if Joe could chip in with a few overs as he has previously) then I'd have considered moving YJB to four and dropping Pope instead of dropping Curran.

I still think he could have made a difference in the last test with being a left arm seamer and he definitely didn't deserve to lose his place.

 

[dazzer6666]

As harsh on Woakes, as it was for Curran when he was dropped in favour of Stokes. Good to see Curran back though.

Not harsh on Woakes, he’s injured.........

 

[Eeyore]

Mo has 133 test wickets. Not bad for someone who "isn't a spin bowler".

@40.6 though.

 

[big nuts]

@40.6 though.

Before Graham Swann that was about the going rate for English finger spinners. The king of Spain was averaging 40 per wicket and Tufnell would have been around the same.

In contrast to Giles who was a handy lower order batsman and Tufnell a genuine number 11, I think Ali more than warrants his place in the team as a genuine batsman.

 

[Lifelong Supporter]

I like Mo who I see as an attacking batsman who can achieve good results with the ball. However he is erratic so one never knows what one is going to get on a particular day. That adds to the excitement I guess. He also comes over as a relaxed, good guy who is good to have around.

 

[Arkwright]

What sort of message to a young player like Pope, keep runless Cook and Jennings and drop one of the most talented players in the country. Burns at Surrey once again scores over 1,000 runs in a season and yet we open with two walking wickets.
While I'm moaning, not only drop Pope but don't give him enough time to go back and play for his county, how is he meant to gain form when he's not playing.
Pathetic.
I know I'm a biased Rey supporter.

 

[Cowfold Seagull]

What sort of message to a young player like Pope, keep runless Cook and Jennings and drop one of the most talented players in the country. Burns at Surrey once again scores over 1,000 runs in a season and yet we open with two walking wickets.
While I'm moaning, not only drop Pope but don't give him enough time to go back and play for his county, how is he meant to gain form when he's not playing.
Pathetic.
I know I'm a biased Rey supporter.

Whilst I agree that Jennings isn't the answer, I do think that Cook should keep his place, he still has runs in him, is an excellent slip fielder, and of course adds so much invaluable experience.

Continually chopping and changing the team does no long term good either. Those younger players currently in it need to be shown some faith by the selectors.

 

[redoubtable seagull]

Before Graham Swann that was about the going rate for English finger spinners. The king of Spain was averaging 40 per wicket and Tufnell would have been around the same.

In contrast to Giles who was a handy lower order batsman and Tufnell a genuine number 11, I think Ali more than warrants his place in the team as a genuine batsman.

I would agree with what has been said about Ali’s bowling average in comparison to other Eng spin bowlers. The only thing I would add is that he is quite expensive. He goes for over 3.5 runs an over in test cricket. Even though the game has moved on since the days of Tufnell and Giles and runs are scored much more freely, but they were reliable enough to hold up an end whereas Ali does not tend to be able to offer that. He has had two bowling purple patches both on home soil in his career. One against India a few years ago where the Indians threw wickets away wickets as they didn’t respect his bowling; he had a good series in 2017 against SA where he took 25 wickets in a four match series. He has to play as a batsman who can bowl a bit and not the other way round.

 

[Arkwright]

Whilst I agree that Jennings isn't the answer, I do think that Cook should keep his place, he still has runs in him, is an excellent slip fielder, and of course adds so much invaluable experience.

Continually chopping and changing the team does no long term good either. Those younger players currently in it need to be shown some faith by the selectors.

At what stage do you stop selecting Cook on past history? I'm not convinced about his own dedication to the cause, wasn't he lambing on his Essex farm a couple of weeks before touring NZ surely be needs time in the middle scoring runs not producing cute little lambs. With the central contracts you could argue players have become complacent and are playing less cricket.