England Spinner for First Ashes Test

First topic message reminder :

There's been a lot of discussion on this across the various threads, so let's see what the consensus is with a poll. I have only included what I feel are realistic options - but feel free to point out any oversights into the comments so I can ignore consider them

liverbnz wrote:Picked the most likely to help take 20 wickets as I don't think England's bowling line-up can do it as consistently as before. He'll go for a few but I think the risk is worth it. Advil Rashid for me.

I don't think he'll give the selectors a headache. Still think Ali should be given a crack. Not a wicket taker in the classical sense but does invite a lot of unforced errors which get you wickets all the same orovided the field is up to scratch.

Not all sides would play like New Zealand, consistently attacking even the good balls. If Ali serves up 2 rubbish hit me stuff in an over, they would be quite content with putting those away. That would drastically reduce his wickettaking threat. Otherwise the seamers will have to bowl pretty well, the opposition has to be suspect in English conditions against seamers, and should look to Ali as one to be targeted, like the Indians did last year.......

guildfordbat wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:
...

* Batty is a wise, old county pro but he's not bowling that much at Surrey now (he's normally second spinner to Ansari) or that well. Similar qualities to Tredders but not as good imo which surely rules him out for all here!!

Batty was left out of Surrey's CC team for today's match at Leics. Similarly, Kerrigan who never looked convincing at the Oval last week and was torn apart by Roy, was dropped for Lancs' CC match at Gloucs.

Another fringe name to be ruled out of current contention - Adam Riley. The young off spinner did well last season and replaced ''my man'' Tredwell in the Kent CC side. He was then being spoken of as an ''England Possible''. However, he's not had a good start to this one. His 95 overs have produced just 4 wickets and gone for 346, giving him an average of 86.5. He's yet to take more than 1 wicket in an innings.

msp83 wrote:I mentioned the batting averages of Stokes and Moeen just because it was asserted that Stokes averages less than Moeen that is very much untrue.

No the assertion was that prior to the NZ series Stokes avergaed marginally less than Ali does now, which is true. This was in repsonse to your assertion that Ali is not a good enough batsman to be in a top 6 on the basis of his batting average, and that there are other test batsmen getting games with p1ss poor averages who arent also from 4 bowlers.
You bought up batting averages, I just pointed out that Stokes got promoted on the back of a poor one and has done well in the top 6 whiolst in a good run of form with the bat. Ali is having a bad spell with the bat, and both a for the most part bowling pretty horribly and below their potential.

Ali is not good enough to be a test batsman . The average only proves that. The assersion was not that he's not good enough because of his average. His technique isn't good enough for batting top 6 in tests. The average is just an indicator of the same.
After the last Ashes where Stokes had some success batting at 6 he was demoted to number 8 and before being reinstated for the NZ series, he was messed around in the batting order. Ali got a relatively more stable run....... Anyways, would Ali or Stokes be selected as batsman only in a test side?

Well the masses have spoken, and due to 606v2's hold over the ECB, it will be Adil Rashid lining up against the Aussies in the First Test

msp83 wrote:Ali is not good enough to be a test batsman . The average only proves that. The assersion was not that he's not good enough because of his average. His technique isn't good enough for batting top 6 in tests. The average is just an indicator of the same.
After the last Ashes where Stokes had some success batting at 6 he was demoted to number 8 and before being reinstated for the NZ series, he was messed around in the batting order. Ali got a relatively more stable run....... Anyways, would Ali or Stokes be selected as batsman only in a test side?

On current form no, but neither woudlk Ian bell. And Morgan wouldnt have been for the ODI the other day. Cook perobably didnt deserve a place in the side several times in his career based on the runs he was scoring and the technique he was displaying.

Is Stokes really good enough to be selected solely on his batting, if he couldnt bowl at all would he be in the side or would someone like Bairstow ( whos doing very well again) get in the side ahead of him?

Just to provide another meaningless comparison Steve Smith started out as a legspinner who can bat a bit, now hes the best number 3 aus have had in a generation. Ive also noticed that oranges and apples are different colours and that comparing a duck to a goose doesnt help much.

Look you clearly have a massive problem with Ali. Thats fine, I understand it still hurts that once again india got undone by engflish spinners who lack basic technique and the ability to chuck the ball both ways.

The debate over whether or not hes a specialist batsman is pretty ireleavant, he isnt being picked on that. Neither is Rashid. Or Stokes.

Ali has had ONE good series with the ball and what? Three or four mediocre to bad ones? Time he moved over and made way for Rashid in my opinion.

You can't compare Ali's one good season with the whole careers of Bell, Cook or Morgan and I do think that Stokes could get in the team based on his batting, he's done far more than Bairstow ever did.