England's Indian Summer - T20s, ODIs & Tests

First topic message reminder :

Off goes Rahul...at least he doesn't waste a review ! That was stone dead.
Jimmy on course for ten ?

Rahane in next as Kohli was off the field too long...

Since England dropped KP in 2014, England have given debuts to 11 specialist bats in test matches. Moeen/Stokes/Woakes/Curran average more than 10 of them, and have 12 centuries to their 4.

The one batsman who does average more than them is Haseeb Hameed, who is currently averaging 8.38 in the county championship this year.

Lol

The batting order being such a changeable mess isn't helping those specialist bats settle into test cricket in my opinion. Selection of sub par batsman due to lack of standout options has of course played the biggest role though.

Whilst 'backing youth' is the phrase of the moment I think an experienced head in the middle order would help bed potential longer term solutions such as Pope or Clarke far better than the mess they currently get thrown into.

1.Cook
2.Jennings
3.Root (c)
4.Hildreth/Bell
5.Pope
6.Stokes
7.Bairstow (wk)
8.Woakes
9.Rashid
10.Broad
11.Anderson

That to me would be a far stronger side and give younger batsman whether they be Pope, Joe Clarke or Buttler a better chance of settling into the middle order.

The obvious alternative to bringing in another middle order bat is taking the gloves off Bairstow, moving him permanently up the order and entrusting Buttler or Foakes with the gloves. Personally I think 7 is a very important position in the batting order and I think it complements Bairstows strengths.

Gooseberry wrote:Expanding on what Dummy says...

Trent Bridge weather is forecast to be overcast with a bit of drizzle. Tailor made for England at a ground as he says that naturally suits classic county bowling.

I also agree that the prevailing conditions in England have been problematic for India. Even if they had squeezed in two 4 days games being bowled at by county second 11's that would've been on baked pitches in blazing sunshine...if anything counter productive. Most of the squad has already been on this tour a long time, supposedly giving them time to acclimatise (albeit against the white ball). But theres been no opportunity to practise in those extreme conditions.

Its worth noting as well that Englands batsmen struggled just as much when the ball was jagging around, the Bairstow/Woakes stand only came about once the sun was out and the ball had softened. India had a perfect storm of the conditions most likely to expose them and help Englands bowlers, and England lucked out by getting to bat in the couple of sessions when the assistance for bowlers was at its lowest.
This happens of course and Kholi rightly has accepted that sometimes it just floors you. But its particularly unfortunate that it happened at the one ground that in the previous there months would've given India conditions that suited them. And they were missing the bowler who could probably have used those conditions more than any other. Whilst they probably could/should have done a bit better and you have to credit Englands bowlers (plus Bairstow/Woakes with the bat) for absolutely capitalising on the opportunity  there was a hugely significant amount of bad luck for them in the weather and toss.

Now India are left staring at a probable 3-0 scoreline. Picking themselves up form here will be a tough ask. Some tinkering with the selections wont fundamentally affect that they will be facing a confident and capable 4 seamer attack in conditions that suit them. I don't really buy that they will get better as the series goes on, if anything guys like Shami getting fatigued will become an issue. As will the pressure on Kholi to carry  the batting. And internal frustrations within the team.
What happened at Lords will have hugely deflated them not only because they underperformed but also because their must be a feeling of unjustness and that even the gods are aligned against them.

In terms of Stokes...well England can clearly cope without him at home. Certainly with Woakes back.
Come winter though they will need to incorporate two proper spinners, improve the batting and find seamers who can bowl on slow low wickets. Stokes doesn't fix that but  goes some way to balancing it.

I cant see past another England win at Trent Bridge. After that Indias best hope is England mucking about with more experimental selections and losing intensity.

It's hard to deny that England - and specifically Bairstow and Woakes - got the best batting conditions. But England also benefited from India only having 3 seamers. Kohli had to gamble on Kuldeep early which let England rack up a few runs and then ended up running his 3 seamers into the ground a little bit. Woakes and Bairstow definitely benefited from batting against the older ball on the seamers' third and fourth spells or the spinners when used in unthreatening conditions. England on the other hand kept their seam attack fresh and didn't have to offer the spinner as a release.

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:Since England dropped KP in 2014, England have given debuts to 11 specialist bats in test matches. Moeen/Stokes/Woakes/Curran average more than 10 of them, and have 12 centuries to their 4.

The one batsman who does average more than them is Haseeb Hameed, who is currently averaging 8.38 in the county championship this year.

Lol

For a long time we've relied on Cook or Root to go big and others to sporadically chip in.

Players averaging over 40 by reverse order of debut:

Hameed, Root, Trott...

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=start;orderbyad=reverse;qualmin1=40;qualval1=batting_average;team=1;template=results;type=batting

Gooseberry wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:Ben Stokes found not guilty.

Crumbs really ... gotta love jury verdicts right.

From what was presented the first couple of days its hard to see how, and he certainly should still be on red notice from England.

It's a very high threshold to prove someone's guilt - the prosecution clearly didn't do so.

Duty281 wrote:

Gooseberry wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:Ben Stokes found not guilty.

Crumbs really ... gotta love jury verdicts right.

From what was presented the first couple of days its hard to see how, and he certainly should still be on red notice from England.

It's a very high threshold to prove someone's guilt - the prosecution clearly didn't do so.

Certainly on a charge of affray as Tiger's post explains excellently. It does seem odd that is what he was charged with. Say no more.

guildfordbat wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Gooseberry wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:Ben Stokes found not guilty.

Crumbs really ... gotta love jury verdicts right.

From what was presented the first couple of days its hard to see how, and he certainly should still be on red notice from England.

It's a very high threshold to prove someone's guilt - the prosecution clearly didn't do so.

Certainly on a charge of affray as Tiger's post explains excellently. It does seem odd that is what he was charged with. Say no more.

Agree with the above. What was the prosecutor thinking ? The more evidence they presented the more it seemed the wrong charge had been selected...despite the police taking several months to make up their minds. Of course , it wasn't actually all about Stokes - except to cricket fans - as his sparring partners were also the subjects of investigation... To be honest as they all behaved like idiots and have all suffered injury/financial loss etc as a result - and importantly no innocent bystander was harmed - I am satisfied (rough) natural justice has been served...

The other issue is what , if anything , ECB should do now ? I am a little surprised they have rushed to add him to a already selected Third Test squad ...would have thought his absence saved them a tricky selection debate.
And gained time for consideration. Whatever action they take I feel it should be done swiftly as this whole business has dragged on for nearly a year and isn't doing the image of the game any favours.

alfie wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Gooseberry wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:Ben Stokes found not guilty.

Crumbs really ... gotta love jury verdicts right.

From what was presented the first couple of days its hard to see how, and he certainly should still be on red notice from England.

It's a very high threshold to prove someone's guilt - the prosecution clearly didn't do so.

Certainly on a charge of affray as Tiger's post explains excellently. It does seem odd that is what he was charged with. Say no more.

Agree with the above.  What was the prosecutor thinking ?  The more evidence they presented the more it seemed the wrong charge had been selected...despite the police taking several months to make up their minds. Of course , it wasn't actually all about Stokes - except to cricket fans - as his sparring partners were also the subjects of investigation...  To be honest as they all behaved like idiots and have all suffered injury/financial loss etc as a result - and importantly no innocent bystander was harmed - I am satisfied (rough) natural justice has been served...

The other issue is what , if anything , ECB should do now ?  I am a little surprised they have rushed to add him to a already selected Third Test squad ...would have thought his absence saved them a tricky selection debate.
And gained time for consideration.  Whatever action they take I feel it should be done swiftly as this whole business has dragged on for nearly a year and isn't doing the image of the game any favours.

The prosecution tried to get the trial changed on the first day to try Stokes with two counts of ABH, but the judge threw it out and said it was too late.

Stokes and Hales will have to sit before the Cricket Disciplinary Committee and will potentially face bans. Some are saying that Stokes missing the Ashes tour and losing his New Balance contract should be taken into consideration when the CDC decides how to punish him - i.e. he has already missed a lot of cricket and suffered financial loss for this.

For the ECB's part, I guess they don't want to second guess the CDC and start taking matters into their own hands. If they stand him down for the series and then the CDC don't ban him, it would have been for nothing. Maybe they also just want Stokes back into the squad so they can put an arm around him and make sure he's okay. He did make mistakes that night, apparently drinking too much and then getting into an altercation. But he has already been quite severely punished and the trial will have been taxing on him emotionally. Even if he doesn't make the team, I guess they don't want him left out the squad looking in? Because if they cut him out until the CDC meet, then it might be an even bigger deal when he returns to the squad.

robbo277 wrote:

alfie wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Gooseberry wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:Ben Stokes found not guilty.

Crumbs really ... gotta love jury verdicts right.

From what was presented the first couple of days its hard to see how, and he certainly should still be on red notice from England.

It's a very high threshold to prove someone's guilt - the prosecution clearly didn't do so.

Certainly on a charge of affray as Tiger's post explains excellently. It does seem odd that is what he was charged with. Say no more.

Agree with the above.  What was the prosecutor thinking ?  The more evidence they presented the more it seemed the wrong charge had been selected...despite the police taking several months to make up their minds. Of course , it wasn't actually all about Stokes - except to cricket fans - as his sparring partners were also the subjects of investigation...  To be honest as they all behaved like idiots and have all suffered injury/financial loss etc as a result - and importantly no innocent bystander was harmed - I am satisfied (rough) natural justice has been served...

The other issue is what , if anything , ECB should do now ?  I am a little surprised they have rushed to add him to a already selected Third Test squad ...would have thought his absence saved them a tricky selection debate.
And gained time for consideration.  Whatever action they take I feel it should be done swiftly as this whole business has dragged on for nearly a year and isn't doing the image of the game any favours.

The prosecution tried to get the trial changed on the first day to try Stokes with two counts of ABH, but the judge threw it out and said it was too late.

Stokes and Hales will have to sit before the Cricket Disciplinary Committee and will potentially face bans. Some are saying that Stokes missing the Ashes tour and losing his New Balance contract should be taken into consideration when the CDC decides how to punish him - i.e. he has already missed a lot of cricket and suffered financial loss for this.

For the ECB's part, I guess they don't want to second guess the CDC and start taking matters into their own hands. If they stand him down for the series and then the CDC don't ban him, it would have been for nothing. Maybe they also just want Stokes back into the squad so they can put an arm around him and make sure he's okay. He did make mistakes that night, apparently drinking too much and then getting into an altercation. But he has already been quite severely punished and the trial will have been taxing on him emotionally. Even if he doesn't make the team, I guess they don't want him left out the squad looking in? Because if they cut him out until the CDC meet, then it might be an even bigger deal when he returns to the squad.

Intersting Robo.

Regardles of the legal ins and outs its absolutely not in dispute that even prior to the actual fight he was bvehaving in a thoroughly obnoxious way. Its also not debated that he got into a fight he didnt need to be any part of, and couldnt be stopped by his freiends from continuing to fight. The eye witnesses and video evidence make it pretty clear that his actions can at best be described as those of a violent agressive drunk and a generally odious individual.

No wonder the Australians rate him so highly.

lets not normalise and excuse this sort of behaviour. Criminal conviction or not, sprots star or just generic thug, its not the sort of behaviour that should be brushed off or easily forgetten. See what happens with characters like Warner when their peers and fans forgive and even encourage their toxic personality. Im sure there will be a lot of talk about him cleaning up his act etc but lets see. Its not even like this was isolated, hes previously been ticked off for his anger issues.

The ECB are handling this exactly as they should in terms of not pre-empting and jepordising the trail, and now looking at discplinary procedures whilst in full possession of the facts. I'd be surprised if he is given more than a token ban for the rest of the summer though.

All in though addressing his issues and the wider team culture is more important than whether or not hes convicted or slapped on the wrist by the discplinary comitee. Stoke's anger has previously led to him breaking his own hand, and recently its led to him missing a chunk of games and possibly contributed to his dip in performances. It doesnt suit him, the team, or the game to not seriously challenge the behaviours and coping mechanisms he has whcih led to this happeneing in the first place. Theres plenty of examples of sports players who have rehabilitated themselves, and Im quite happy if Stokes is serious about accepting that his behaviour is way over the line and seeks to change himself to give him every chance and all the support he needs to do that. The worst case though is that theres a slap on the wrist meaningless ban and then the team management, Stokes and the fans are content to move on pretend its all OK and effectively rubber stamp this kind of behaviour.

To me, as someone who doesnt really like the culture of drunken violence that surrounds sport and is increasingly nomralised by our society, Im particulalry worried by the comments that seem to portray Stokes as some kind of victim here. That hes " already suffered enough" and that hes had a stressful time.
Just because he wasn't convicted of a crime, which does seem to be largely down to errors by the SCPS as well as the vageries of the jury system, doesn't mean it isn't abundantly evident from the video and testomnies (including his own) that his behaviour was unnacpetable at that he should shoulder a large protion of the responsibility for what happened. And again this sin't the first time his anger and violent nature has caused him problems.

Hopefuly the management wont be making excuses for him, but will make sure he deals with his problematic behaviour and is supported in learning to control his overly aggressive nature.

Ben Curran signs for Northants - a third Curran!

All I want is an England XI that has Curran, Stokes, Foakes, Woakes, Curran, Curran, Overton, Overton as it's 4-11

I think you're on a high horse, to be honest.

Bloody Olly, posting as I finally get to reply. Ruined me.

Good that the judicial saga with Stokes is over. Hope he learns his leasons at least now and focus on his cricket and do justice to his brilliant talent. If he's fit, he has to play in my view. Between him, Woakes and Curran, he is the better bat in my view. And he certainly the best all-condition bowler among the 3 by a country mile. Stokes should come back in for either Curran/Woakes or Butteler. Going in without a spinner should be the last option to be considered. In most conditions, you would need a spinner for the overall balance. Rashid sure didn't have to play a role in the last game, but he did what was asked for in the first test. And in any case it swings or seams anything like it did in the last game, Anderson alone will be more than good enough for this Indian batting lineup. 5 quicks will be a massive overkill.

msp

Agree that Stokes is currently the only one of the all rounders who can reliably bat in the top 6. Woakes is an excellent 8 and a good 7, but no higher for me, while Curran has potential to develop into a top class all rounder but needs a bit of physical development and match experience to get there.

Dropping Buttler for Stokes would give us a surfeit of seam bowlers, and likely lead to at least one being under-bowled.
On recent form, Broad would have to be the most vulnerable of the seam bowlers (as Curran and Woakes were MotM's in the last 2 tests and Jimmy is in great form), but I don't see him being stood down from this match.

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:Ben Curran signs for Northants - a third Curran!

All I want is an England XI that has Curran, Stokes, Foakes, Woakes, Curran, Curran, Overton, Overton as it's 4-11

How about Billy Root as well...

As for India, I'll be surprised if they still have it for this series from a mental point of view. The one person who would still have that fortitude is the skipper himself. But he can be stupid with selections particularly in away test, and he has got a bad back and is not even sure to play. Ashwin's fit, and Jasprit Bumrah, it is reported is fit and available. I wouldn't have him a head of Umesh though. If it is Bhuvi, it is a different story but he's not available.
Rishabh Pant is pretty much a work in progress. He can't do worse than Dinesh Karthik with the bat, and for that matter even with the gloves. And if he gets going at this level, that would be a long term solution unlike Karthik, Patel or Saha. Time to move on from that generation, selectors will now have to work with Pant, Kishan and Samson. The only thing to look forward to in this serious now for an Indian supporter is whether Pant would get an opportunity and how would he go about it. He may not right away produce the goods, but at least there is a sense of purpose in playing him.
Lokesh Rahul didn't do anything substantive in the last 2 games, but he again is the future, and like in the case of Kohli last time, this should be a major learning experience for him. If at all Shikhar Dhawan who is rather useless in such conditions has to be brought in, then it should be in place of Murali Vijay who hasn't been his usual disciplined self for quite some time now, after that run of injuries... Rahul and Vijay remain my choice though, though you never know with Virat.
If Karun Nair would have given the impression of an all-condition test batsman, I would have considered dropping Rahane. He was unjustifiably dropped in South Africa, but his game seems to have fallen apart in this series, not even a shadow of the batsman that he was during India's previous round of overseas tours from 2013 15. But Karun doesn't seem cut out for test cricket in testing conditions. So Rahane, it has to be hoped, would get back to his usual self sooner rather than later.

Having been called up for jury service 3 times (so far...) I do have faith in the jury system, although the courts have faced the squeeze just like many other aspects of our society. I hope the commentators who are all to keen to continue to stick the boot in have also had experience of the system but suspect they have not.

I would also suggest that being a defendant in any trial, but particularly one in the public eye such as this, is an ordeal in its own right. We are very keen on getting worked up about punishment, but prevention of future criminal behaviour should be higher on the list and I'd hope Stokes has learned his lesson.

I agree that the early reporting may well help to reinforce the negative views

Worth pointing out that this is a 'not guilty' verdict. It is not quite an 'innocent' one.

LondonTiger wrote:

Gooseberry wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:Ben Stokes found not guilty.

Crumbs really ... gotta love jury verdicts right.

From what was presented the first couple of days its hard to see how, and he certainly should still be on red notice from England.

Well the first few days was the prosecution's turn, then the defence got their go.

What seems to have helped his cause was the actual charge - Affray.

CPS Website wrote:Affray
An offence under section 3 is triable either way. The maximum penalty on conviction on indictment is 3 years' imprisonment and/or a fine of unlimited amount. On summary conviction the maximum penalty is 6 months' imprisonment and/or a fine not exceeding level 5.

Under section 3 of the Act, it must be proved that a person has used or threatened:

unlawful violence;
towards another;
and his conduct is such as would cause;
a person of reasonable firmness;
present at the scene;
to fear for his personal safety.
The seriousness of the offence lies in the effect that the behaviour of the accused has on members of the public who may have been put in fear. There must be some conduct, beyond the use of words, which is threatening and directed towards a person or persons. Mere words are not enough. Violent conduct towards property alone is not sufficient for the purposes of an offence under section 3. For a definition of 'violence' in affray see section 8 of the Act .

The offence may be committed in a public or private place.

The notional bystander test is explained in the case of (R v Sanchez [1996] Crim L R 572 CA), and asserts that the hypothetical bystander, rather than the victim, must be put in fear for his or her personal safety. Apart from the hypothetical bystander, there must be present a 'victim' against whom the violence is to be directed (I & Others v DPP (2002) 1 AC 285 HL).

It is not enough for the prosecution to prove that unlawful violence has been used. There has to be violence of such a kind that a bystander would fear for his safety. Where the violence is focused solely and exclusively on the victim, such that it would be incapable of causing a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene to fear for his safety, then the offence is not made out (Leeson v DPP, unreported (2010)).

The level of conduct appropriate for charges under section 3 will often fall comfortably within the ambit of that anticipated within section 4 of the Public Order Act 1986. Affray should be considered in circumstances of serious and indiscriminate violence. Examples of the type of conduct appropriate for a section 3 offence include:

A fight between two or more people in a place where members of the general public are present (for example in a public house, discotheque, restaurant or street) with a level of violence such as would put them in substantial fear (as opposed to passing concern) for their safety (even though the fighting is not directed towards them);
Indiscriminate throwing of objects directed towards a group of people in circumstances where serious injury is or is likely to be caused;
The wielding of a weapon of a type or in a manner likely to cause people substantial fear for their safety or a person armed with a weapon who, when approached by police officers, brandishes the weapon and threatens to use it against them;
Incidents within a dwelling should not be charged as affray merely because a lesser public order charge is not available. Offences of assault are likely to be more appropriate. Affray should be considered in circumstances analogous to those listed above where serious violence is used or threatened, and with due regard to the principles set out in R v Sanchez.
The accused must have intended to use or threaten violence; or have been aware that his conduct may be violent or may threaten violence.

The crown court is likely to be the more appropriate venue if a charge of affray is preferred.

Alex Hales seems to have been blamed by defence lawyers on both sides, despite not being charged.

As to Stokes place on the team, as with other situations when a player has lost their spot, he should have to earn it back rather than being gifted it.

Dummy,
Standing Broad down for this one to get Stokes back in is not such a bad call at all. But it just won't happen, it is one of those things... Guess it has to be Curran, thoug if it was up to me, I would have Woakes dropped...
Curran offers that left-arm option and has the makings of a great talent. He was instrumental in setting the tone for the series with that all-round display in the first test, had it not for him, probably the very nature of the series would have been different by now.

They have said they will rest the bowlers at some point. Stokes and Porter for Broad and Anderson would be exciting, but I don't think they'll rest both men at once. You'd assume they'd also like the series won first.

Stokes for Broad for the fourth then Broad in for Anderson in the fifth?

Go completely 'left-field'.

Stokes in for Jennings; Buttler shunted up to open the batting as a 'lead-off' 'pinch hitter'.

Buttler opening wouldn't have been the worst idea in a subcontinent like scenario. But not sure it would work in conditions where the ball really does a significant bit in the early overs. Buttler is better than a slogger upfront. But he's not Virender Sehwag to pull off proper test quality innings at an ODI tempo consistently enough.
Interesting selection decision for England. Lets see how they go about it.

I see Bumrah has been ruled fit for Trent Bridge. The visitors bowling has been good so will be interesting how they fit him in. Will they go with four quick and no spinners

Buttler can't open in red ball cricket. His technique is poor and he's even struggled to slog at 7 so far. Woakes could open

I'm a Buttler fan but I've seen nothing from him to suggest he can play the swinging ball so opening at Trent Bridge would be fairly counter-intuitive.

Given he has scored vital ODI and T20 runs against the best bowlers in the world there seems a perception that Buttler just needs to play the same way against the red ball and if it comes of once a series then he can turn a test in a single session. Unless he improves remarkably against the moving ball I can't see much longevity in his recall though. Especially with Bairstow having progressed beyond him as a keeper and Ben Foakes averaging 42 in first class cricket whilst being a better glove-man than both.

One thing Buttler can do against red and white ball is play spin very well though. A skill which this England side needs to improve away from home.

Gooseberry wrote:

robbo277 wrote:

alfie wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Gooseberry wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:Ben Stokes found not guilty.

Crumbs really ... gotta love jury verdicts right.

From what was presented the first couple of days its hard to see how, and he certainly should still be on red notice from England.

It's a very high threshold to prove someone's guilt - the prosecution clearly didn't do so.

Certainly on a charge of affray as Tiger's post explains excellently. It does seem odd that is what he was charged with. Say no more.

Agree with the above.  What was the prosecutor thinking ?  The more evidence they presented the more it seemed the wrong charge had been selected...despite the police taking several months to make up their minds. Of course , it wasn't actually all about Stokes - except to cricket fans - as his sparring partners were also the subjects of investigation...  To be honest as they all behaved like idiots and have all suffered injury/financial loss etc as a result - and importantly no innocent bystander was harmed - I am satisfied (rough) natural justice has been served...

The other issue is what , if anything , ECB should do now ?  I am a little surprised they have rushed to add him to a already selected Third Test squad ...would have thought his absence saved them a tricky selection debate.
And gained time for consideration.  Whatever action they take I feel it should be done swiftly as this whole business has dragged on for nearly a year and isn't doing the image of the game any favours.

The prosecution tried to get the trial changed on the first day to try Stokes with two counts of ABH, but the judge threw it out and said it was too late.

Stokes and Hales will have to sit before the Cricket Disciplinary Committee and will potentially face bans. Some are saying that Stokes missing the Ashes tour and losing his New Balance contract should be taken into consideration when the CDC decides how to punish him - i.e. he has already missed a lot of cricket and suffered financial loss for this.

For the ECB's part, I guess they don't want to second guess the CDC and start taking matters into their own hands. If they stand him down for the series and then the CDC don't ban him, it would have been for nothing. Maybe they also just want Stokes back into the squad so they can put an arm around him and make sure he's okay. He did make mistakes that night, apparently drinking too much and then getting into an altercation. But he has already been quite severely punished and the trial will have been taxing on him emotionally. Even if he doesn't make the team, I guess they don't want him left out the squad looking in? Because if they cut him out until the CDC meet, then it might be an even bigger deal when he returns to the squad.

Intersting Robo.

Regardles of the legal ins and outs its absolutely not in dispute that even prior to the actual fight he was bvehaving in a thoroughly obnoxious way. Its also not debated that he got into a fight he didnt need to be any part of, and couldnt be stopped by his freiends from continuing to fight. The eye witnesses and video evidence make it pretty clear that his actions can at best be described as those of a violent agressive drunk and a generally odious individual.

No wonder the Australians rate him so highly.

lets not normalise and excuse this sort of behaviour. Criminal conviction or not, sprots star or just generic thug, its not the sort of behaviour that should be brushed off or easily forgetten. See what happens with characters like Warner when their peers and fans forgive and even encourage their toxic personality. Im sure there will be a lot of talk about him cleaning up his act etc but lets see. Its not even like this was isolated, hes previously been ticked off for his anger issues.

The ECB are handling this exactly as they should in terms of not pre-empting and jepordising the trail, and now looking at discplinary procedures whilst in full possession of the facts. I'd be surprised if he is given more than a token ban for the rest of the summer though.

All in though addressing his issues and the wider team culture is more important than whether or not hes convicted or slapped on the wrist by the discplinary comitee. Stoke's anger has previously led to him breaking his own hand, and recently its led to him missing a chunk of games and possibly contributed to his dip in performances. It doesnt suit him, the team, or the game to not seriously challenge the behaviours and coping mechanisms he has whcih led to this happeneing in the first place. Theres plenty of examples of sports players who have rehabilitated themselves, and Im quite happy if Stokes is serious about accepting that his behaviour is way over the line and seeks to change himself to give him every chance and all the support he needs to do that. The worst case though is that theres a slap on the wrist meaningless ban and then the team management, Stokes and the fans are content to move on pretend its all OK and effectively rubber stamp this kind of behaviour.

To me, as someone who doesnt really like the culture of drunken violence that surrounds sport and is increasingly nomralised by our society, Im particulalry worried by the comments that seem to portray Stokes as some kind of victim here. That hes " already suffered enough" and that hes had a stressful time.
Just because he wasn't convicted of a crime, which does seem to be largely down to errors by the SCPS as well as the vageries of the jury system, doesn't mean it isn't abundantly evident from the video and testomnies (including his own) that his behaviour was unnacpetable at that he should shoulder a large protion of the responsibility for what happened. And again this sin't the first time his anger and violent nature has caused him problems.

Hopefuly the management wont be making excuses for him, but will make sure he deals with his problematic behaviour and is supported in learning to control his overly aggressive nature.

If they decided on a 4 month ban, would you be happy if they treated 4 months as "served" for missing the Ashes last year?

I don't think the ECB should let him off now the criminal case is done and I think it's right he faces a charge of bringing the game into disrepute. But as lostinwales points out, rehabilitation now is as important as punishment. He will have suffered over the last 11 months - yes he may have brought it on himself but he still would have had a tough time. He had his court trial and a trial by social media too. He'll know he's made a huge error and I think they can reinforce that message without giving him a further kicking.

I guess it depends on Stokes. If he's quite blase about the whole incident, maybe the disciplinary panel coming down hard on him would do him some good. If he is showing genuine contrition, then he's probably ready to be rehabilitated.

Duty281 wrote:Go completely 'left-field'.

Stokes in for Jennings; Buttler shunted up to open the batting as a 'lead-off' 'pinch hitter'.

I do like the idea of going left field with that other opening slot - that is the biggest issue with this England batting line up, and whatever county batsmen we get off the rank, seems to come in and do similar to the last one. There's only really Rory Burns left of that "ilk" - maybe we should look to try something different? I don't think it's the worst idea Duty, albeit I think if we were to do it I would prefer to see Jason Roy as the pinch hitter so to speak

Not sure Roy would be better than Buttler in that kind of role. Based purely on his performances for England Roy looks more of a slogger. David Warner has shown that left field choices at the top of the order can work out very well, though it could be argued that England have tried it with Hales and Ali (who had only ever opened in one day cricket before doing so in tests).

Now bringing Stokes in for Jennings (or Pope as suggested in one paper) would give us 5 seamers which really is far too many.

Burns is surely next in line. As others have ssaid someone like Buttler or Roy might be viable in the sub continent on slow low pitches and where spinners will be used early, but not in classic English county conditions. Even then Id chuck Moeen in the mix above either ... he at least has some pedigree as a top order bat and England would want 2-3 spinners in the side somewhow pretty much garaunteing his selection.

I do think its unfair to judge Jennings on this series so far when every top 5 batsman (espeically the openers) bar Kholi has struggled against some pretty extreme movement.

England do need to address their batting issues, and do need to be looking beyond the home series. But I really dont see promoting Buttler whos struggling at 7 to opener, when the new balls likely to be jagging all over the pace at Trent Bridge, as in anyway a sensible or viable option.


Looking at the forecast for that test winning the toss looks pretty key again. Day one is likley to have by far the best batting conditions, with heavy cloud and a spot of rain the other days. Englands seamers will relish it.

In terms of resting Broad or Anderson....theyve not bowled a massive number of overs so far and havent been pushing the pace. The requirement to rest and rotate is surely based on teh effort expended as much as it is in number of games

Gooseberry wrote:Burns is surely next in line. As others have ssaid someone like Buttler or Roy might be viable in the sub continent on slow low pitches and where spinners will be used early, but not in classic English county conditions. Even then Id chuck Moeen in the mix above either ... he at least has some pedigree as a top order bat and England would want 2-3 spinners in the side somewhow pretty much garaunteing his selection.

I do think its unfair to judge Jennings on this series so far when every top 5 batsman (espeically the openers) bar Kholi has struggled against some pretty extreme movement.  

England do need to address their batting issues, and do need to be looking beyond the home series. But I really dont see promoting Buttler whos struggling at 7 to opener, when the new balls likely to be jagging all over the pace at Trent Bridge, as in anyway a sensible or viable option.


Looking at the forecast for that test winning the toss looks pretty key again. Day one is likley to have by far the best batting conditions, with heavy cloud and a spot of rain the other days. Englands seamers will relish it.

In terms of resting Broad or Anderson....theyve not bowled a massive number of overs so far and havent been pushing the pace. The requirement to rest and rotate is surely based on teh effort expended as much as it is in number of games

One of Broad and Anderson said as much in the pre-series interview. They've been spoken too about having their schedules managed, but India have been batting closer to 30 overs than 130 overs, so the bowlers should be fresh enough.

I think some of the calls for Broad are to do with form (although I don't back those). Others are saying wrap the series up and then rotate so we can look at other options - which would give Porter a run, give Woakes a chance to open the bowling and also involve Curran and Stokes, with long-term planning in mind.

Jennings needs to get this whole series in. He's only just been recalled, let's give him a chance to really settle in. We could even bring Burns in for Cook if we won at Trent Bridge, bringing to an end an incredible run of games for him, but to have a look at two guys in a bit of a shootout. Might also bring Cook back hungry for the winter.

If we win at Trent Bridge, a 4th and 5th test team of: Burns, Jennings, Root, Pope, Bairstow, Stokes, Buttler, Woakes, Curran, Rashid, Porter should hopefully be strong enough in home conditions to finish the job, and would help us make some decisions for the winter and beyond.

I think it’s as smart to rest them for energy as it is mentally. And, even more important, to give others a chance to get exposure to and be examined as Test bowlers.

Jennings deserves more time. Be interested in a few other of the players to look at opening in County cricket. Malan could is elk open in harsher conditions abroad.

msp83 wrote:As for India, I'll be surprised if they still have it for this series from a mental point of view. The one person who would still have that fortitude is the skipper himself. But he can be stupid with selections particularly in away test, and he has got a bad back and is not even sure to play. Ashwin's fit, and Jasprit Bumrah, it is reported is fit and available. I wouldn't have him a head of Umesh though. If it is Bhuvi, it is a different story but he's not available.
Rishabh Pant is pretty much a work in progress. He can't do worse than Dinesh Karthik with the bat, and for that matter even with the gloves. And if he gets going at this level, that would be a long term solution unlike Karthik, Patel or Saha. Time to move on from that generation, selectors will now have to work with Pant, Kishan and Samson. The only thing to look forward to in this serious now for an Indian supporter is whether Pant would get an opportunity and how would he go about it. He may not right away produce the goods, but at least there is a sense of purpose in playing him.
Lokesh Rahul didn't do anything substantive in the last 2 games, but he again is the future, and like in the case of Kohli last time, this should be a major learning experience for him. If at all Shikhar Dhawan who is rather useless in such conditions has to be brought in, then it should be in place of Murali Vijay who hasn't been his usual disciplined self for quite some time now, after that run of injuries... Rahul and Vijay remain my choice though, though you never know with Virat.
If Karun Nair would have given the impression of an all-condition test batsman, I would have considered dropping Rahane. He was unjustifiably dropped in South Africa, but his game seems to have fallen apart in this series, not even a shadow of the batsman that he was during India's previous round of overseas tours from 2013 15. But Karun doesn't seem cut out for test cricket in testing conditions. So Rahane, it has to be hoped, would get back to his usual self sooner rather than later.

No changes needed by India except WK
Only a seamer comes in for Kuldeep ONLY if the pitch or weather appears seam friendly....else hang on to Kuldeep
On the WK DK out is a no brainer......Pant in is the obvious choice although a more radical one could be to turn Rahul into a WK and get an added batsman in Nair
but between Nair and Pant as a batsma....Pant is better batting with an old ball and capable of turning the game on its head in a 30 over 200 run partnership with Pandya

robbo277 wrote:

Gooseberry wrote:Burns is surely next in line. As others have ssaid someone like Buttler or Roy might be viable in the sub continent on slow low pitches and where spinners will be used early, but not in classic English county conditions. Even then Id chuck Moeen in the mix above either ... he at least has some pedigree as a top order bat and England would want 2-3 spinners in the side somewhow pretty much garaunteing his selection.

I do think its unfair to judge Jennings on this series so far when every top 5 batsman (espeically the openers) bar Kholi has struggled against some pretty extreme movement.  

England do need to address their batting issues, and do need to be looking beyond the home series. But I really dont see promoting Buttler whos struggling at 7 to opener, when the new balls likely to be jagging all over the pace at Trent Bridge, as in anyway a sensible or viable option.


Looking at the forecast for that test winning the toss looks pretty key again. Day one is likley to have by far the best batting conditions, with heavy cloud and a spot of rain the other days. Englands seamers will relish it.

In terms of resting Broad or Anderson....theyve not bowled a massive number of overs so far and havent been pushing the pace. The requirement to rest and rotate is surely based on the effort expended as much as it is in number of games

One of Broad and Anderson said as much in the pre-series interview. They've been spoken too about having their schedules managed, but India have been batting closer to 30 overs than 130 overs, so the bowlers should be fresh enough.

I think some of the calls for Broad are to do with form (although I don't back those). Others are saying wrap the series up and then rotate so we can look at other options - which would give Porter a run, give Woakes a chance to open the bowling and also involve Curran and Stokes, with long-term planning in mind.

Jennings needs to get this whole series in. He's only just been recalled, let's give him a chance to really settle in. We could even bring Burns in for Cook if we won at Trent Bridge, bringing to an end an incredible run of games for him, but to have a look at two guys in a bit of a shootout. Might also bring Cook back hungry for the winter.

If we win at Trent Bridge, a 4th and 5th test team of: Burns, Jennings, Root, Pope, Bairstow, Stokes, Buttler, Woakes, Curran, Rashid, Porter should hopefully be strong enough in home conditions to finish the job, and would help us make some decisions for the winter and beyond.

Robo yep you seem to be largely in agreement withw hat I was saaying. Im aware of the pre series assumption that Broad and Anderson were expecting to be rested, but so far we have only really had 2 half tests....and a good chunk of one they sat watching Woakes bat. There absiolutely is a need to look after them and prolong their careers, but I dont beleive the England camp are so dogmatic as to see that purely as "they cant play 5 tests in a row" but instead will be cosntantly assesing their physical state and the effort theyve epended playing. Anderson did bowl a fairly heavy load in the first test first innings, but really this is not the attritional series they had been concerned about. When you look at what he did in the winter Ashes this is very lightweight.
As for mental rest ...try talking to Buttler Bairstow and Root about that. Anderson and Broad are one format players with no captaincy
If either is due for a rest it woudl be Anderson whos bowled about 10 more overs than Broad so far, but he doesnt exactly look knackered. Neither has been getting hauled off for regular treatement or limping around.
That might be different by Test 4 or 5 but test 3 looks set to be another low scorer. The conditons are tailor made for England and India still cant bat.

Im not convinced by questions about Broads form either...he was extremely unlucky to not have taken more wickets in the first innings and ended up with 6 for 77. Curran took 1 for 53 .... now yes its not an entirley fair comparrison because Broad gets the new ball, but hes clearly not that bad.

As it stands Andersons the one whos bowled the most and is the oldest. If ytou were going to rest anyone youd assume him. Hes also of course been Englands best bowler in conditions that noone can exploit like him.

I do buy the idea of rotation also as a chance to try out some other options, espeically giving others a go with the new ball (although that could be done without dropping your best bowlers, just switching them up) . Porter though? Sure hes got a good county record ...for all that means. So does Darren Stevens. The last two tests have shown that England arent exactly short on right arm low 80s bowlers who can move the Dukes ball on a wet weekend, and an apparently out of form Broad can still bedazzle the only decent batting line up in test cricket. Porter was only selected for the squad at all as so many others were injured, its also quite possible that Curran wouldnt have got his chance either if his brother various Overtons and Wood werent available (not to mention the Stokes siuation and Woakes coming back from injury).
Its useful to have a guy like Porter around who can jump in a do a job in home conditions should one of the currnet team be injured, but he is a very much a county pitch bowler.A bowler like him adds nothing to England long term, aside from some depth. Is he notably better than the other candidates to assume Anderson and Broads roles when they retire? No. Does he add any variation to Englands resources, like being a left armer or a bit of pace or extreme bounce? No. I have no doubt hes got the skills to bowl in the summer series, but England have lots of players who can do that ( as evidenced by this series).
What they desperately need to find and havent currently got any real options on the table for is someone to takes Woods place as token pace man and give them some hope in away series. If we are talking about rotation to "give someone a go" and "develop players for the future" I'd be happy to see that for one who brings something different ...Curran being a left armer for example. Unfortunately England dont seem to have identified a fast bowler they think is ready. Gartons probably the closest ...but is stuck playing second XI cricket and really at least a year too young.

So right now I just dont buy the value in rotation solely to give Porter a go. If Broad or Anderson are assesed to be in danger of fatigue based on medical assesments and their workloads then sure go ahead....although theres still the Stokes question first. Talk is hes been assesed physically and mentally for his readiness, but honestly it just seems pointless to select him for this test. Let him lie low and see what the outcome of the discplinary is, then he may be an option for the last two tests.

England still also face the big issue with their openers. Burns and Gubbins were the two that came extremely close to selection, and at least one of them will surely tour this winter. Id have no issue at all with one being "given a go" if/when the series is wrapped up, altrhough whether thats for Jennings or Cook is another matter. This to me is a bigger question than whos best at moving a dukes ball.
Decoding Zigglers last sentence which appears to have suffered the autocorrect curse I really dont buy Malan as an opener any more than I do Buttler. He couldnt even hold down a spot down the order and hes certainly no Warner.

What do people think to the idea that Anderson is actually getting "better" as he gets older? Saw Bayliss mention that he is improving, and to be fair, you can see it - he seems to have really mastered his game. And like Bayliss says, there's nothing stopping him playing another 3-4 years - it's not like he has an action that is tough on the body, or plays one day cricket...

Averages don't always tell the full picture, of course, but Anderson's stats make for pretty reading:

2013 - 31.8
2014 - 22.15
2015 - 22.65
2016 - 23.73
2017 - 17.58
2018 - 18.12

In terms of strike rate, 2018 is currently Anderson's best ever year. With proper management, hopefully he can stretch it out for a few more years.

Broads figures have improved notably too.

The big thing with Anderson is that hes been effective on many of the tours, and was the only bowler who wasnt completely useless in Aus.

Whilst some of that improvement probably reflects a decline in test batting in recent years ( the reverse of what weve seen in limited overs) I do think him staying injury free through a light workload is helping. And doubtless he has continued to hone his craft and improve his skills and consistency.

How long he keeps going will be dictated by the state of his body I guess. He looked done a few years back...but has recovered incredibly. As Ollie says if he isnt being asked to push the pace and can keep managing to move the ball in any conditions then he coild have a few years yet ....which is pretty incredible.

Duty281 wrote:Averages don't always tell the full picture, of course, but Anderson's stats make for pretty reading:

2013 - 31.8
2014 - 22.15
2015 - 22.65
2016 - 23.73
2017 - 17.58
2018 - 18.12

In terms of strike rate, 2018 is currently Anderson's best ever year. With proper management, hopefully he can stretch it out for a few more years.

Notable that his figures have improved massively post David Saker being the bowling coach...

Gooseberry wrote:

robbo277 wrote:

Gooseberry wrote:Burns is surely next in line. As others have ssaid someone like Buttler or Roy might be viable in the sub continent on slow low pitches and where spinners will be used early, but not in classic English county conditions. Even then Id chuck Moeen in the mix above either ... he at least has some pedigree as a top order bat and England would want 2-3 spinners in the side somewhow pretty much garaunteing his selection.

I do think its unfair to judge Jennings on this series so far when every top 5 batsman (espeically the openers) bar Kholi has struggled against some pretty extreme movement.  

England do need to address their batting issues, and do need to be looking beyond the home series. But I really dont see promoting Buttler whos struggling at 7 to opener, when the new balls likely to be jagging all over the pace at Trent Bridge, as in anyway a sensible or viable option.


Looking at the forecast for that test winning the toss looks pretty key again. Day one is likley to have by far the best batting conditions, with heavy cloud and a spot of rain the other days. Englands seamers will relish it.

In terms of resting Broad or Anderson....theyve not bowled a massive number of overs so far and havent been pushing the pace. The requirement to rest and rotate is surely based on the effort expended as much as it is in number of games

One of Broad and Anderson said as much in the pre-series interview. They've been spoken too about having their schedules managed, but India have been batting closer to 30 overs than 130 overs, so the bowlers should be fresh enough.

I think some of the calls for Broad are to do with form (although I don't back those). Others are saying wrap the series up and then rotate so we can look at other options - which would give Porter a run, give Woakes a chance to open the bowling and also involve Curran and Stokes, with long-term planning in mind.

Jennings needs to get this whole series in. He's only just been recalled, let's give him a chance to really settle in. We could even bring Burns in for Cook if we won at Trent Bridge, bringing to an end an incredible run of games for him, but to have a look at two guys in a bit of a shootout. Might also bring Cook back hungry for the winter.

If we win at Trent Bridge, a 4th and 5th test team of: Burns, Jennings, Root, Pope, Bairstow, Stokes, Buttler, Woakes, Curran, Rashid, Porter should hopefully be strong enough in home conditions to finish the job, and would help us make some decisions for the winter and beyond.

Robo yep you seem to be largely in agreement withw hat I was saaying. Im aware of the pre series assumption that Broad and Anderson were expecting to be rested, but so far we have only really had 2 half tests....and a good chunk of one they sat watching Woakes bat. There absiolutely is a need to look after them and prolong their careers, but I dont beleive the England camp are so dogmatic as to see that purely as "they cant play 5 tests in a row" but instead will be cosntantly assesing their physical state and the effort theyve epended playing. Anderson did bowl a fairly heavy load in the first test first innings, but really this is not the attritional series they had been concerned about. When you look at what he did in the winter Ashes this is very lightweight.
As for mental rest ...try talking to Buttler Bairstow and Root about that. Anderson and Broad are one format players with no captaincy  
If either is due for a rest it woudl be Anderson whos bowled about 10 more overs than Broad so far, but he doesnt exactly look knackered. Neither has been getting hauled off for regular treatement or limping around.
That might be different by Test 4 or 5 but test 3 looks set to be another low scorer. The conditons are tailor made for England and India still cant bat.

Im not convinced by questions about Broads form either...he was extremely unlucky to not have taken more wickets in the first innings and ended up with 6 for  77. Curran took 1 for 53 .... now yes its not an entirley fair comparrison because Broad gets the new ball, but hes clearly not that bad.

As it stands Andersons the one whos bowled the most and is the oldest. If ytou were going to rest anyone youd assume him. Hes also of course been Englands best bowler in conditions that noone can exploit like him.

I do buy the idea of rotation also as a chance to try out some other options, espeically giving others a go with the new ball (although that could be done without dropping your best bowlers, just switching them up) . Porter though? Sure hes got a good county record ...for all that means. So does Darren Stevens. The last two tests have shown that England arent exactly short on right arm low 80s bowlers who can move the Dukes ball on a wet weekend, and an apparently out of form Broad can still bedazzle the only decent batting line up in test cricket. Porter was only selected for the squad at all as so many others were injured, its also quite possible that Curran wouldnt have got his chance either if his brother various Overtons and Wood werent available (not to mention the Stokes siuation and Woakes coming back from injury).  
Its useful to have a guy like Porter around who can jump in a do a job in home conditions should one of the currnet team be injured, but he is a very much a county pitch bowler.A bowler like him adds nothing to England long term, aside from some depth. Is he notably better than the other candidates to assume Anderson and Broads roles when they retire? No. Does he add any variation to Englands resources, like being a left armer or a bit of pace or extreme bounce? No. I have no doubt hes got the skills to bowl in the summer series, but England have lots of players who can do that ( as evidenced by this series).
What they desperately need to find and havent currently got any real options on the table for is someone to takes Woods place as token pace man and give them some hope in away series. If we are talking about rotation to "give someone a go" and "develop players for the future" I'd be happy to see that for one who brings something different ...Curran being a left armer for example. Unfortunately England dont seem to have identified a fast bowler they think is ready. Gartons probably the closest ...but is stuck playing second XI cricket and really at least a year too young.

So right now I just dont buy the value in rotation solely to give Porter a go. If Broad or Anderson are assesed to be in danger of fatigue based on medical assesments and their workloads then sure go ahead....although theres still the Stokes question first. Talk is hes been assesed physically and mentally for his readiness, but honestly it just seems pointless to select him for this test. Let him lie low and see what the outcome of the discplinary is, then he may be an option for the last two tests.

England still also face the big issue with their openers. Burns and Gubbins were the two that came extremely close to selection, and at least one of them will surely tour this winter. Id have no issue at all with one being "given a go" if/when the series is wrapped up, altrhough whether thats for Jennings or Cook is another matter. This to me is a bigger question than whos best at moving a dukes ball.
Decoding Zigglers last sentence which appears to have suffered the autocorrect curse I really dont buy Malan as an opener any more than I do Buttler. He couldnt even hold down a spot down the order and hes certainly no Warner.

Very good posting.

Interesting from the ES

“Fast bowling is a massively impactful exercise,” adds Phil Scott. “A few years ago, when he was tested on force plates, the load he put through his body at the crease is a lot less than the average. Jimmy was around four times his bodyweight on the front foot at contact. Research shows it can be as high as 12.

Stokes comes in for Curran - confirmed by Root.

Don't agree with that personally, I'd have left Stokes out. Harsh on Curran

Me too , Olly.

Stokes could easily have sat this one out . Curran has done nothing wrong ; seems to have been left out mainly because they don't need five fast bowlers : if you were actually looking at recent performance Stokes would more logically have replaced Buttler.
Not a bad lineup anyway : bat to nine or ten , lots of bowlers ...though they no longer have the handy variety of the left arm attack.

Suppose they might say Curran has been "rotated" ...and might come back for one of the other pace men next game ?

alfie wrote:Me too , Olly.

Stokes could easily have sat this one out .  Curran has done nothing wrong ; seems to have been left out mainly because they don't need five fast bowlers : if you were actually looking at recent performance Stokes would more logically have replaced Buttler.  
Not a bad lineup anyway : bat to nine or ten , lots of bowlers ...though they no longer have the handy variety of the left arm attack.

Suppose they might say Curran has been "rotated" ...and might come back for one of the other pace men next game ?

On the highlighted point, Buttler has had a far better test summer with the bat than Stokes has to be fair...

And on your final point - I imagine they'll be thinking similar. Win this 3rd test, then you can be a bit more experimental with the lineup for the final two tests with Curran/Porter

Gooseberry wrote:Im not convinced by questions about Broads form either...he was extremely unlucky to not have taken more wickets in the first innings and ended up with 6 for  77. Curran took 1 for 53 .... now yes its not an entirley fair comparrison because Broad gets the new ball, but hes clearly not that bad.

This has come up a couple of times on social media now Curran has been dropped for Stokes.

Since his debut, Curran has taken 8 wickets @ 23.50. Econ 3.60 and SR of 39.1.

Post-Ashes, Broad has taken 25 wickets @ 20.32. Econ 2.73 and SR of 44.5. One 5-for.

Trimming out the NZ series and only looking at the test match summer, Broad has taken 14 wickets @ 21.71. Econ 2.89 and SR of 45.

Broad's definitely bowling no worse than Curran, and on most metrics better. Yes, he gets the new ball and Curran doesn't, but he's fulfilling his role as a new ball bowler.

Stokes is coming in as a change bowler who bats, not a new ball bowler who doesn't. Which means he's in direct competition with Woakes and Curran and not Broad or Anderson. You could bring him in for one of the latter two, but you'd have to play with the composition of the team (e.g. find a new opening bowler). Would they be as successful with the new ball?

The question therefore is rightly Stokes, Woakes or Curran for the two spots.

Looking at the test match summer against Curran's career stats, Stokes has 9 wickets and Woakes has 8 wickets. Both have lower averages (Stokes - 20.66, Woakes - 14.50), economies (Stokes - 3.36, Woakes - 3.51) and strike rates (Stokes - 36.8, Woakes - 24.7). Having a left-armer also plays into Ashwin's hands of creating some rough for the right-handers, which is a bigger deal now we've sorted our middle order.

Where Curran has something in his favour is the batting side. Woakes has a ridiculous average of 154 this summer because he has played 2 innings, including a 137*. Curran's 36.75 is handy and definitely better than Stokes' 18.50. But Stokes has proven himself a better bat than that and has test hundreds to his name.

Curran missing out is possibly a bit harsh. But this is International cricket, not junior club. He'll get another shot and I'm sure he'll do well. I think we'll see him again before this series is out and regardless of the rest of this series I'd have him pencilled in to replace Woakes for the Sri Lanka tour.

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:

alfie wrote:Me too , Olly.

Stokes could easily have sat this one out .  Curran has done nothing wrong ; seems to have been left out mainly because they don't need five fast bowlers : if you were actually looking at recent performance Stokes would more logically have replaced Buttler.  
Not a bad lineup anyway : bat to nine or ten , lots of bowlers ...though they no longer have the handy variety of the left arm attack.

Suppose they might say Curran has been "rotated" ...and might come back for one of the other pace men next game ?

On the highlighted point, Buttler has had a far better test summer with the bat than Stokes has to be fair...

And on your final point - I imagine they'll be thinking similar. Win this 3rd test, then you can be a bit more experimental with the lineup for the final two tests with Curran/Porter

Buttler has a higher average than both Stokes and Curran this summer. So although you can make an argument for Curran over Stokes as a batsman, it's harder to make the argument for anyone over Buttler when Buttler is performing better than both of the all-rounders.

On recent performances Buttlers a better bat than Stokes Alfie. There was mutterings about how little first class cricket the likes of Rashid and Buttler have had ... Stokes has only played a handfull of competitive red ball games himself and hasnt passed 50 with the bat in one since September last year.

That said I dont think theres much argument that all discplines Stokes is the better player than Curran. Theres a solid argument that he maybe should find some lower level red ball cricket to rediscover his touch, but thanks to the county schedule he'd just be playing T20.

Purely from a cricketing POV its not a hugely controversial call to replace Curran IMO.

The rest ...well. Its Stokesy and hes a good guy right?

Tough on Curran but they could hardly have dropped Woakes. Ironic that England have a lot of competition at the lower end of the batting order (Ali, Curran, Woakes, Rashid) and little at the top or middle.
Weather forecast for Nottingham is OK for much of the match except Sunday. Given India's luck in this series, they'll probably be batting on Sunday in poor conditions.

I don't agree with bringing Stokes straight back in. Yes, he was found not guilty of a specific charge but it's clear that his behaviour was very poor - and not for the first time.

If Stokes was playing the first test when the charge was still on, there is no justification whatsoever in dropping him for poor behaviour after he's acquitted.
Woakes or Curran might enjoy the swing home conditions, but Stokes is among the best all-rounders in the world currently if not the best. As I wrote earlier in the thread, he's by far the better all condition bowler and overall, the better bat too. Has to to play clearly, no point undermining the confidence of one of your key players. If it was up to me it would have been Woakes rather than Curran as I see something really special in the lad. But Woakes made himself undroppable with that performance in the last game.

Seems Pant is prime to make his test debut.

Stokes should absolutely come straight back in.

Pants averaging 74 from 5 first class innings on this tour. Given India's struggle with the bat his inclusion is surely one of the easiest decisions they've had to make.

Pant's selection seems obvious, that's why I am worried! It is in such situations that Virat's selection stupidities can kick in!

Just to clarify...

I wasn't actually calling for Stokes to replace Buttler ! I would far prefer to let Ben wait a bit.  However : if he had to be included and returned to the number six spot then it is arguable this was mainly because of his perceived superior batting credentials - in which case the more logical move was to replace a late order batsman who hadn't been scoring recently .
Buttler certainly did enough against Pakistan to earn himself a couple of chances - though I do think he needs runs again very soon if he's to justify a rather peculiar position as a number seven specialist batsman.  But I'd have thought Curran has done more than enough in his three Tests (all England wins !) to merit continued selection...

The point about the left arm option/footmark issue cutting both ways is well taken , I think , and may well have played a part.  And certainly Stokes bowling can be highly destructive so I don't really think the attack is any worse off one way or the other.

My issue is chiefly with the fact that many recent selections have been made "hopefully " ...and players have retained their places less for consistent excellence than lack of obvious alternatives ; so it seems a little ironic
that a young player , brought in against some cynicism from critics , has actually exceeded all expectations and
shown himself to be in fine form - only to be discarded at the first opportunity.

I'm sure he will handle it , and come again. Just think this ,  like a few recent selections , suggest the old method of picking the man in form seems to have been sidelined despite - particularly in his own case - working out quite well.

No matter.  As long as Stokes is truly settled in his mind and focused I think he will do a job for England . I am still not altogether happy with the balance of the team but it has done the business so far in this series and may well continue to do so ; though I would caution against any assumption that India will just roll over...they are better than that.