England's Summer of Cricket 2022 as Joe Root Steps Down

First topic message reminder :

Duty281 wrote:What do we think of the future of ODI cricket as a whole, because its demise is once again being discussed?

Wasim Akram thinks ODI cricket should be put out of its misery; Mark Ramprakash says that Stokes' ODI retirement could be the beginning of the end for ODI cricket; but Ravi Shastri says there should be fewer T20Is.

My view is that ODI cricket should stay, and it's T20i cricket that should be abolished. T20 should remain franchise/domestic only. No need for a T20 World Cup when the IPL and such exists. If T20i cricket does stay, I think there should be no three format players, only two formats maximum. I'd be very disappointed if 50-over cricket died on an international basis.  

No format will die as long as they are generating revenues.
And much as I used to call them Meaningless-Masala-ODIs, these games as well as meaningless T20Is generate more revenue then tests.
Instead of 5 to 7 ODIs per series earlier...now limited over series comprise of 3+3.
Test Matches, "The Premium Form" of the game per purists ( including me) is still the commercially subsidized format of the game.
Now the defeats in ODIs/T20Is don't hurt as much, nor are wins remembered for long, only World Cups stay in memory.
But the international games generate high viewership rating & expensive advertisements (atleast on Indian TV)

As I wrote on the Ind-WI thread, the Indians have stopped complaining about too much cricket.
BCCI has found peace by putting out as many as 2 and a half to 3 squads now...call them Senior (or premium) and A and B squads for international games.
Ensuring prime stars get plenty of rest / rotation......and the pool of contracted players gets bigger and everyone gets full contracted fee, playing lesser games
Recently we have seen 2 Indian series running concurrently and twice VVSL has been India's national coach for a series when Dravid was with another Indian squad at the same time in another series.

If a marquee player Stokes was under BCCI management.....BCCI would have NEVER let him retire, would have done a sweet deal with him guaranteeing his workload across formats and asking him to appear for a very limited number of ODIs and T20Is and also letting him skip B grade test series.

No format will die since even these meaningless ODI&T20Is are indeed generating revenues, that are essential to subsidize tests and pump into FC, junior and women cricket development

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:Harry Brook looks a proper player

81* off 35 deliveries as England make 221

200 was easy for Pakistan, let's see how they fare with 222! Wouldn't rule them out on this, to be honest.

Brook has to be a definite starter for the World Cup now.

Bowling attack looks better, but also going to be quite rusty. Reckon this is going to be close

96mph from Wood in that over!

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:96mph from Wood in that over!

Although Sam Curran has just been clocked bowling a 86mph bumper…

Sounds like they've wheeled out the Shoaib Akhtar 100mph speed gun

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:England end up 221-3 off 20 overs, partnership of 139* (72) between Duckett and Brook. Duckett 70* (42), and Brook an utterly sensational 81* (35), Jacks earlier with a decent 40 (22) in the powerplay.

Over to you now bowlers!

Yeah, not up there with Roy at his best but a lot better than current Roy.

Good old t20... Team is rubbish on Thursday and unbeatable on Friday...

Think we all know by now it isn't just Pakistan who are unpredictable in this format. And a reason why you'd be a fool to bet on the upcoming WC results as frankly anyone can surprise on a given day. Unlike the last one , this WC probably won't be decided completely by the toss and the dew level so might be quite interesting.

It really does appear that Pakistan are, more than most sides , very heavily dependant on that opening pair. Not sure they can do anything about that at this late stage - but the openers are rather good so who knows ?

England obviously got a monster total and it sounds as if the three "new" selections all had a day out. Which probably doesn't guarantee it will work that way on Sunday or next month ; but is certainly encouraging. I fancied Brook a likely WC starter anyway but this innings rather lifts his status further. Duckett and Jacks not doing themselves any harm either. Good to see Wood back in action and firing them down at pace Hopeful he stays fit !

Will be interesting to see how they juggle the twin aims of giving everyone some game time and trying to string some confidence-boosting wins together through this brief seven game series...

The good thing about Brook is he looks like for the moment he could fit in and play as part of a middle order/finishing role - makes him easier to fit into the World Cup XI for sure

Buttler
Hales
Malan
Stokes
Brook
Moeen
Livingstone
Jordan
Rashid
Wood
Topley

Probably the ideal XI from the WC squad imo - can be flexible with Moeen/Livingstone’s spots in the order too I think (ie. Spin heavy team, Moeen can come in higher up the order or pace heavy then Livingstone can etc).
Should be able to get 4 overs from Moeen, Livingstone, Stokes as a 5th bowler too - and my argument would be, Brook’s batting impact >>> the impact of 4 overs of a Sam Curran batting 7 and being the “5th” bowler. Not really much of a contest in my book really

I'd probably go with that, although I'd like to see more from the Hales/Salt battle first.

M Wood's fitness is key. Without him England look very one-paced. I'm interested to see how Jordan will respond in a high-pressure game after what happened last year. Woakes could also be an option, but remains to be seen how his bowling will fare in Australia.

Duty281 wrote:I'd probably go with that, although I'd like to see more from the Hales/Salt battle first.

M Wood's fitness is key. Without him England look very one-paced. I'm interested to see how Jordan will respond in a high-pressure game after what happened last year. Woakes could also be an option, but remains to be seen how his bowling will fare in Australia.  

Yep keeping Wood and Topley fit is probably the difference between realistic chances of winning and not. Topley has been super impressive this past 12 months, and you'd think will enjoy the bounce in Aus (offers proper height!).
Jordan was good this summer, and I think has earnt the starting spot. I think you could get away with a Woakes/Willey new ball only type bowler last year in the subcontinental conditions, but not in Aus imo - far too easy to hit, ball won't do much if anything...and also Jordan is a better death option and I think they'd rather use Wood in the powerplay/middle overs rather than save him for the death.

I would agree on Hales/Salt - but from an England point of view, I can't believe they'd bring Hales in and potentially upset the applecart unless he's a nailed on starter. I would rather Salt, not because I think he's much better than Hales...but because I would like Buttler to be out in the field and not keeping. Not only better for captaincy, but he's a ridiculous fielder too. He just has far too much going on trying to captain, keep and open the batting

Why is mankading considered controversial? Non-striker tries to steal an advantage, gets run-out for it. Seems fair.

Duty281 wrote:Why is mankading considered controversial? Non-striker tries to steal an advantage, gets run-out for it. Seems fair.

It's a stupid "spirit of cricket" thing which is beyond me - why do bowlers have to "warn" batters before a mankad? Surely if thats the case then wicketkeepers should "warn" bats before stumping them...

I think teams should do it more often - it's awful simple to not be mankadded as a bat!

It'd be worth seeing more mankads for the outrage it generates.

Sad indictment of the way the games going, winning at all costs. No surprise younger fans deem this attitude acceptable.

Seemed pre empted to try and buy a wicket via a mankad which is probably where I draw the line. Don't think there was ever any intention of bowling a ball there. Batsman(woman) also wasnt backing up before the delivery either

https://twitter.com/AlexHales1/status/1573728629648941056

Alex Hales causing division again.

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Why is mankading considered controversial? Non-striker tries to steal an advantage, gets run-out for it. Seems fair.

It's a stupid "spirit of cricket" thing which is beyond me - why do bowlers have to "warn" batters before a mankad? Surely if thats the case then wicketkeepers should "warn" bats before stumping them...

I think teams should do it more often - it's awful simple to not be mankadded as a bat!

At international level where TV officials are now checking front foot no balls I think they should check whether the batter is out the crease when the ball is released. If so the batters start one short if you subsequently run from that delivery. We'd see an end to it very rapidly I imagine.

I don't think as many batters take the mick now (maybe as you see that shot of the front foot no balls more where it's clear if the batter is well out their crease...) but going back 10 years or so there were many taking the mick. Alastair Cook was an England great who I loved as a cricketer but jaysus did Chef take the mick backing up for most his career for instance!

Batsmen might often effectively "steal" a bit of ground - though I think it is usually more a matter of being alert for a quick take off than a deliberate attempt to cheat.  Even as a bowler myself , unless it is outrageous I don't much worry about it. Seems to me if a bowler executes a "mankad" it is (a)premeditated ; and (b) a sign that he or she is finding an important wicket difficult to take by normal methods.

Within the rules , sure. But necessary ? I'd say not.  And in the specific case clearly being instanced above , seems to have been a pity to mar the finish of a generally good-natured series and a fine achievement by the winning team by resorting to it instead of backing oneself to win conventionally.

Olly Stone to play in place of Mark Wood tonight (pre-planned rotation for Wood)

I understand the 'premeditated' complaint, because my initial reaction was that it didn't look obvious enough to be a reaction to seeing it in the run up (which I'd consider 'acceptable'). But the more I think about, the more I find myself coming around to the idea that if you see it happening enough to plan it, it's a legitimate tactic.

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:Olly Stone to play in place of Mark Wood tonight (pre-planned rotation for Wood)

And Hales back for Malan so Jacks gets another game - at three. Sensible rotation I think. Also Willey's turn again instead of Curran.

England choose to bowl.

Pakistan off to a handy start. Fifty up inside six overs...no alarms. Reckon they're on for a good score which might make for an interesting chase from England later.

Surprised Willey hasn't been used at all in this first power play...would have thought new ball overs are what he's picked for ?

Maybe he's in for his batting

Rashid now...

alfie wrote:Pakistan off to a handy start. Fifty up inside six overs...no alarms. Reckon they're on for a good score which might make for an interesting chase from England later.

Surprised Willey hasn't been used at all in this first power play...would have thought new ball overs are what he's picked for ?

Maybe he's in for his batting

Rashid now...

Seems they are trying Dawson as a spin option up top.

If I remember correctly they were trying similar funky things during the India T20 series before the previous World T20. Dilly bowling in the PP and death. Surran playing but not getting the new ball. Unless I'm misremembering I think Stokes even bowled some PP overs there too.

It's the issue with losing Jof. One of the best PP and death bowlers in the world rolled into a package. Without him they are really searching for guys in both roles. It's why Jof is so valuable. Having a bowler who's genuinely world class in both those key stages is basically an all-rounder in T20. It offers the flexibility and depth that a traditional all-rounder gives in longer forms.

There aren't that many around either. Bumrah, Rashid Khan and Starc are the other gun ones off the top of my head? Afridi is spectacular up top but not in their class at the death. Bhuvi at his best was (hopefully still is as I love watching him bowl) brilliant in the PP too of course.

A couple of poor drops by England - one by Duckett earlier and a very poor one from Hales off Rashid there in the deep - should be taken at this level. Two in three games for him now, can't be having that if he is going to play

Masood in the midst of what they call a match losing knock here - grim lack of acceleration from Pakistan here, considering the lack of wickets lost. Decent bowling by England mind, they've done decently and will hope to restrict to below 170 if they can!

Acceleration from Rizwan never really came, 88 (67) while a decent knock...isn't a match winning one on paper.

Couple of huge sixes from Asif Ali puts a little more gloss on the score - 166-4 off 20 overs feels below par to me, but was looking like under 160 for a bit there so least a little end of innings momentum. England will be disappointed to not chase that though

Of course after saying all that, Hales and Salt get out to two really poor shots early on.

Do we think Asif Ali is the real deal in that lower middle order hitter role that prime Pollard/Russell or Pandya (pre-reinvention as an anchor) were all so brilliant at? Or do I just keep seeing the best of him...?

It's such a valuable thing to have that type of player in T20 that can come in and strike well from ball 1.

Moeen seemed to do it at one point for England. They seemed to be sliding Livingstone towards that role too but personally I think he needs more time to then payoff.

Liam Dawson making a late bid for the starting XI with a match-winning cameo.

Or not a match-winning cameo!

England had lost that, then won it, then actually lost it. Pretty good match though as far as these things go. When's the next one? In six hours time?

That was a fun finish. Pakistan had it won, then England had it won, before Pakistan closed it out.

2-2 and three to play.

VTR wrote:England had lost that, then won it, then actually lost it. Pretty good match though as far as these things go. When's the next one? In six hours time?

We appear to have mirrored each other. They're off to another city next, so Wednesday-Friday-Sunday to close it out. England might have the heavyweights of Buttler and Stokes back in the side for the final three.

I thought Stokes wasn't in the squad for this series?

The more I see the more I agree with Olly's view that in the absence of standout bowlers England should go batter heavy and back their strength.

1.Buttler (wk) (c)
2.Hales/Salt
3.Malan
4.Stokes
5.Brook
6.Livingstone
7.Moeen
8.Woakes/Surran/Willey
9.Dilly
10.Wood
11.Topley

Looking at the makeup of the squad I think it'll be Moeen at 6 though.

king_carlos wrote:I thought Stokes wasn't in the squad for this series?

The more I see the more I agree with Olly's view that in the absence of standout bowlers England should go batter heavy and back their strength.

1.Buttler (wk) (c)
2.Hales/Salt
3.Malan
4.Stokes
5.Brook
6.Livingstone
7.Moeen
8.Woakes/Surran/Willey
9.Dilly
10.Wood
11.Topley

Looking at the makeup of the squad I think it'll be Moeen at 6 though.

Yes, good point, it's actually Woakes, not Stokes or Foakes, who may be available for the last few games of the Pakistan leg. I presume Stokes will be introduced for the three game series v Australia that follows this one.

Duty281 wrote:

king_carlos wrote:I thought Stokes wasn't in the squad for this series?

The more I see the more I agree with Olly's view that in the absence of standout bowlers England should go batter heavy and back their strength.

1.Buttler (wk) (c)
2.Hales/Salt
3.Malan
4.Stokes
5.Brook
6.Livingstone
7.Moeen
8.Woakes/Surran/Willey
9.Dilly
10.Wood
11.Topley

Looking at the makeup of the squad I think it'll be Moeen at 6 though.

Yes, good point, it's actually Woakes, not Stokes or Foakes, who may be available for the last few games of the Pakistan leg. I presume Stokes will be introduced for the three game series v Australia that follows this one.

That series in the same conditions as the World T20 will give us a better indications of where the team is. The batting should suit the conditions. Malan is the obvious one who heavily favours pace but most the batters strike very well against seam. I'd say Mo is the only one with a particular weakness against pace but even that short ball issue is mitigated by the bouncer limit and the fact Mo can simply swing hard with that hook in the shortest form.

I actually think Woakes could be a very good T20 PP bowler. He hasn't got the T20 experience of others but has all the tools to be good up top and has the pedigree with the new white ball from ODI's where he is fantastic in the PP. Hopefully he can get fit and bowl well as I'd be happier with Woakes taking the new ball than Surran or Willey.

Going back to the women's game, for me this particular 'mankad' dismissal should not have been given out - the batter was still in her ground (on this particular delivery - I've seen other images where she had gone early) at the time when she could reasonably have expected the bowler to deliver the ball. Should have been a dead ball as the bowler went right through her action and failed to release the ball prior to the run out. I bet there are dozens of times in any limited overs match where you could execute the run out in this manner just from a batter backing up fairly if you go through your action and then turn round. Obviously, one of the issues here was that it was a bowler bowling around the wicket, so she needed to turn round to break the wickets, but she was two steps down the wicket before turning.

I'm not necessarily against a 'mankad' run out if the batter is taking liberties, and can be run out by the bowler on their approach to the wicket, but not from them 'dummying' a completed action and turning round.

Catching up on it all today after a weekend away - and I’m not sure I agree Dummy - Deepti’s bowling arm hasn’t even started to come over to release the ball and Charlie Dean has wandered out of her ground and isn’t looking at the bowler anymore. If the arm had come over then Dean couldn’t be run out - but Sharma never got close to reaching the release point. As the law is written it’s out for me.

I do agree the law is vague though. They changed it from the moment the back foot lands, as that allowed the batter to steal too much but I do feel that something more definitive needs to be added. Whether that is the moment the front foot lands or something else. Would save a lot of mither and debate!

The mankad debate always causes a lot of moral dishonesty from the people involved on all sides too. When you’ve got Stuart Broad defending the Spirit of Cricket you’ve jumped the shark - I mean, come on now Stuart. But then we’ve also got to hear in this case the Indian team defending it as a something they are totally fine with. They can say that if it makes them feel better, but if they genuinely believed that Dean would have been run out one of the 50 other times she was out of her ground - they did it because the game was slipping away. Which is fine, it’s a legit dismissal but let’s not pretend it was done because they see Mankads as the same as any other way of getting a batter out.

Moral of the story is until the law gets changed or clarified, stay in your crease until you see it leave the hand. Not worth the risk in most cases.

JDizzle wrote:...

Moral of the story is until the law gets changed or clarified, stay in your crease until you see it leave the hand. Not worth the risk in most cases.

Even though I'm a long way from being one of the younger posters that Soul refers to as approving this method of dismissal, I go along with Duty and Olly in regarding it as acceptable and certainly share JD's bottom line here. However, as suggested in JD's and other posts above, the whole matter is a can of worms, not helped by the authorities of world cricket.

The so called ''Mankad dismissal'' is said to be against the spirit of the game which makes it wrong but is within the rules which makes it ok. Go figure.

I've known some (sensible) cricket watchers be appalled by such a dismissal even though the non-striker was trying to gain an unfair advantage but warmly applaud a keeper's work when he waits with the ball in his gloves to see if the facing batsman batsman belatedly overbalances and presents a stumping chance. If we are trying to judge the spirit of the game, wouldn't the latter type of dismissal be further from it than the former? To me, both dismissals are fine and the batsman in both cases would only have himself to blame.

I'll also throw in that I'm unsure how comfortably the ''Mankad dismissal'' sits alongside the ''fake fielding'' rule introduced in 2017. This reads (Rule 41.5 - and I did have to search for it!), ''it is unfair for any fielder wilfully to attempt, by word or action, to disrupt, deceive [my emphasis] or obstruct either batsman after the striker has received the ball'' and provides for a 5 run penalty in such an event. I've never been entirely happy with this rule believing that it's up to the batsman to be on guard and make sure he's not kidded in this fashion. However, given this rule is in force prohibiting some things a fielder might do, is it right that a bowler can still effect a ''Mankad'' dismissal? Isn't there nearly always and pretty automatically an element of deception on the part of the bowler?

All in all, a bit of a mess but after all the fuss this weekend no batter can say that he or she hasn't been warned!

JDizzle wrote:Catching up on it all today after a weekend away - and I’m not sure I agree Dummy - Deepti’s bowling arm hasn’t even started to come over to release the ball and Charlie Dean has wandered out of her ground and isn’t looking at the bowler anymore. If the arm had come over then Dean couldn’t be run out - but Sharma never got close to reaching the release point. As the law is written it’s out for me.

I do agree the law is vague though. They changed it from the moment the back foot lands, as that allowed the batter to steal too much but I do feel that something more definitive needs to be added. Whether that is the moment the front foot lands or something else. Would save a lot of mither and debate!

The mankad debate always causes a lot of moral dishonesty from the people involved on all sides too. When you’ve got Stuart Broad defending the Spirit of Cricket you’ve jumped the shark - I mean, come on now Stuart. But then we’ve also got to hear in this case the Indian team defending it as a something they are totally fine with. They can say that if it makes them feel better, but if they genuinely believed that Dean would have been run out one of the 50 other times she was out of her ground - they did it because the game was slipping away. Which is fine, it’s a legit dismissal but let’s not pretend it was done because they see Mankads as the same as any other way of getting a batter out.

Moral of the story is until the law gets changed or clarified, stay in your crease until you see it leave the hand. Not worth the risk in most cases.

The stills I've seen appear to contradict this - bowlers front foot planted and bowling arm near vertical and Dean's bat still in its ground. (Obviously she was miles out when the stumps were broken). That's the main reason I think this one was wrong, not that I am ethically disinclined to this method of dismissal generally, although I question the necessity of pulling this off for the final wicket of a game where they should still had plenty of time (about 15 runs and 4 overs) to get the wicket by a more conventional method.

The law definitely needs clarifying - as a batsman backing up, I would be moving with the bowler coming in but keeping the bat back until the ball is bowled. Not easy to stop that forward momentum if a bowler does not actually release the ball.

JDizzle - interesting to note our boy prodigy Rehan Ahmed has been batting at 5/6 for Leicestershire in recent CC matches. Not bowling huge amounts mind…but got some batting promise too?

Jennings with another century today - hard to see how he doesn't travel to Pakistan. Hameed with his 5th hundred of the season too, average upto 60 now albeit in Div 2...still have to remember he's only 25!

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:JDizzle - interesting to note our boy prodigy Rehan Ahmed has been batting at 5/6 for Leicestershire in recent CC matches. Not bowling huge amounts mind…but got some batting promise too?

I did spy that for the first time today! Having a look on Cricinfo, he looks to have a highest score 1 in 2 innings for the Second XI in the Champ this year - so it’s not on weight of runs! Must be something there I guess, but being really, really good at one skill is hard enough. Let’s not over burden the lad and Scott Borthwick him.

Ah this mankad debate will run and run...

Merit in a lot of remarks above : but one thing I would question is this issue of a batsman having to wait until the ball is delivered to leave the crease. I wonder if we were to look at countless examples in any game , just how often the foot or bat actually remains grounded that late ?  Suspect in many (most ?) cases the batsman's attention is diverted to the other end well before the ball leaves the bowler's hand and they are theoretically vulnerable to a bowler's opportunistic pause in action and quick bail flick...not from any real intention to cheat ; but because they are poised to run as soon as possible and because they assume the bowler is going to complete his or her action rather than stop suddenly.

Obviously varies from player to player ; and some bats probably do push it a bit (a good case for a warning ?) ; but I think in most cases it is more a matter of momentum... And of course the situation is a little different from a fast bowler (unlikely to pause at the moment of delivery ) to a slow bowler basically walking up off a few steps. (Incidentally  I've just watched some highlights of an India/Australia game and note quite a few cases where the batsman appears to leave a bit early - though it is such a split-second thing it is not always easy to be sure where the line can be drawn)

I guess what I am concerned about here is that there are probably quite a lot of times in any game when a bowler would be able to effect such a run out - and if he were to try it , and not achieve a result ,  there would be no loss (except face !) anyway ; so on that basis why not try it ?  But do we really want to see it become a regular feature of the game ?  Bowlers distracting themselves from their main objective with hopes of a "clever" wicket ? Batsmen forced to remain ultra-cautious in their running for fear of a sneak attack from behind ?  Seems to me such incidents at present occur either when a very close finish is imminent or when the fielding team is desperate - or both. But if it were to be regarded as a "normal" part of the game , would it not start to happen quite regularly ? I for one would hate that.

As one who has actually executed a mankad  (It was many years ago : I was very young ;  and the match was one with a bit of rancour already from earlier incidents - but on reflection I came to very much regret my action ,  and continue to do so to this day ) I speak from some experience ; and would suggest that not much good for either side comes from these incidents.

The law is OK as it stands : there to stop blatant cheating by the batsman. I just hope most players don't start seeing this as a smart tactic because I reckon it is one the game can well do without.

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:Jennings with another century today - hard to see how he doesn't travel to Pakistan. Hameed with his 5th hundred of the season too, average upto 60 now albeit in Div 2...still have to remember he's only 25!

Jennings is , one would think , nearly a sure thing for Pakistan. Even if both Lees and Crawley travel I'd want to have at least one alternative lined up - and Jennings has a very decent record in Asia. The drawback might be that his record otherwise at Test level is pretty awful so if he played and did well he would present a bit of a dilemma for the selectors when the team looks to play elsewhere !

Hameed is perhaps a similar case - though might be a little too early to categorize him : not the first player to be totally unravelled in Australia ! He has a bit of work to do to get back in contention though , despite his relative youth.

Woakes is back for England, his first game for his country since those soporific tests in the West Indies.

Neither Salt or Hales really making a push for that 2nd opening slot alongside Jos...

Beyond the whole team dynamic stuff, my other issue or reason I wasn't clamouring for Hales's recall is he simply isn't the player he was 2014-2017/8 - there was a reason he was reserve heading into the 2019 WC for the ODIs, and his world franchise stuff has been meh over the last few years (albeit some slack deserves to be cut on that with various Covid bubbles).

England will be hoping one of them will click in these final few games pre-WC!

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:Neither Salt or Hales really making a push for that 2nd opening slot alongside Jos...

Beyond the whole team dynamic stuff, my other issue or reason I wasn't clamouring for Hales's recall is he simply isn't the player he was 2014-2017/8 - there was a reason he was reserve heading into the 2019 WC for the ODIs, and his world franchise stuff has been meh over the last few years (albeit some slack deserves to be cut on that with various Covid bubbles).

England will be hoping one of them will click in these final few games pre-WC!

If only England had a gun opener who’d proven himself in these conditions in the PSL… Should have sent up the Smeed signal.

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:JDizzle - interesting to note our boy prodigy Rehan Ahmed has been batting at 5/6 for Leicestershire in recent CC matches. Not bowling huge amounts mind…but got some batting promise too?

Our beautiful baby boy Rehan with a 5 wicket haul (Albeit very #spinners figures, going at over 4s and a tonne, but still 5 wickets!) and now a 2nd innings century at less than a run a ball batting at 5!

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:JDizzle - interesting to note our boy prodigy Rehan Ahmed has been batting at 5/6 for Leicestershire in recent CC matches. Not bowling huge amounts mind…but got some batting promise too?

Our beautiful baby boy Rehan with a 5 wicket haul (Albeit very #spinners figures, going at over 4s and a tonne, but still 5 wickets!) and now a 2nd innings century at less than a run a ball batting at 5!

A spinner who turns it both ways and can bat? He is going to make a billion pounds on the franchise circuit.