Custom Bats Cricket Forum
General Cricket => World Cricket => England => Topic started by: Buzz on October 31, 2016, 09:10:36 PM
-
Anderson or Hoggard
Broad or Harmison
Woakes or Jones
Stokes or Flintoff
Ali or Giles.
Bairstow or Jones
Kind of shows you where the issues are with our current team...
Clue:
Strauss vs Cook
Trescothic vs Duckett, Hales, Trott, or anyone...
Vaughan vs Root (big call this one...!)
Bell vs Ballance
KP vs (well moeen can't be picked twice)
-
God I miss Tres.
That is all.
-
Strauss
Tres
Vaughan
Root
Kp
Stokes
Flintoff
Bairstow
Jones
Harmison
Anderson
Plenty of runs there,
And
If we are at home do we need a spinner? Root and kp can share anyway.
-
Cook
Tresco
Trott
Root
KP
Bairstow
Flintoff
Giles
Broad
Jones
Anderson
-
Trescothick
Cook
Strauss *
KP
Root
Bairstow+
Stokes
Moeen
Broad
Jones
Anderson
-
God I miss Tres.
That is all.
Literally the first pick ahead of everyone else.
For what it is worth I go for
Tresco
Strauss
Root
KP
Vaughan
Stokes
Bairstow
Moeen
Flintoff
Broad
Anderson
-
Trescothick
Cook
Root
KP
Bairstow
Stokes
Moeen
Woakes
Flintoff
Jones
Broad
-
Kinda cheating but since 2005:
Cook
Tres
Vaughan
Pietersen
Root
Prior
Flintoff
Swann
Broad
Jones
Anderson
But your point, current top 5 are missing at least two reliable players for cook and root to play around. Wheres collingwood when you need him?
-
hmmmm
Trescothick
Cook
Root
KP
Bairstow
Stokes
Moeen
Swann
Broad
Jones
Anderson
2 spinners... why not :P
-
Oooh. Good thread!
I'd pick Jimmy over Hoggy.
I think Broadvwoukd shade it over Harmy, but only because I don't know what version of Harmy I'm picking.
As a specialist spinner, Gilo over Mo every time.
Fred as my third seamer
YJB gets the gloves
Stokes as the batting all-rounder
Bell & KP at 5 and 4
Root 3
Tres and cooky at the top of the order
-
This would be my dream line up
Tres
Cook
Vaughan
Root
KP
Stokes
Bairstow
Flintoff
Giles
Anderson
Jones
-
(Captain) Cook
Banger
Root
Iron Bell
KP
YJB (wk)
Moeen
Stokes
Woakes
Flintoff
Hoggard
Rest of the squad:
Trott
The King of Spain
Jones
Was torn between Bell and Trott (who would bat 3, Root moves down to 4). Got a team that bats deep in keeping with the fashion of today and Broad/Swann/Anderson/Prior are nowhere to be seen because I want to make sure the dressing room isn't a hostile working environment for the likes of Kevin Pietersen. Hoggard and Woakes take the new ball, Stokes and Flintoff when the ball is reversing. Giles can replace one of Stokes/Woakes when the team travels to Asia so the team has spinners who move the ball away from both right and left handed batsmen.
Got pretty much all the bases covered.
-
Tres
Cook
Vaughan
Root
KP
Stokes
Prior (This time next year imagine it would be YJB instead)
Flintoff
Swann
Broad
Anderson
-
In his pomp Jones would have been a handful in these conditions.
-
Can't believe there's some folk not picking England's highest run scorer and wicket takers! You don't get there by accident.
-
great thread, im putting my team together :) glad to see my forum members do recognise what Tres did for us, just how good this guy was in his pomp, had he found a way to tour, he could even still be opening today!
I don't know how to post a you tube link on here i'm a serious technophobe but should anyone wish to link Simon Jones to Micheal Clarke, it's 0.18 seconds long and for me was the iconic moment from 2005..
It would make my day
-
great thread, im putting my team together :) glad to see my forum members do recognise what Tres did for us, just how good this guy was in his pomp, had he found a way to tour, he could even still be opening today!
I don't know how to post a you tube link on here i'm a serious technophobe but should anyone wish to link Simon Jones to Micheal Clarke, it's 0.18 seconds long and for me was the iconic moment from 2005..
It would make my day
https://youtu.be/kpQpJdFLzdc
I am nice sometimes.
-
you legend
thank you
what a fabulous moment
by luck or design the cameraman just got the moment the whole crowd went up in unison. :)
-
Don't forget this over form Freddie
https://youtu.be/l2yv7OIXKIc
-
Intriguing. Assuming a 2005 onward side - ie making Swann etc who came and went between available, I would go....
Trescothick
Strauss/Cook (note one)
Vaughan (c)
Root
Pietersen
Bairstow
Stokes
Flintoff
Swann
S Jones (note 2)
Anderson
Note one - my printed XI assumes the Lords test in the Ashes as a start point. If you pull it back a single game, I would be sorely tempted to let Virgil open and bring Thorpe in at five.
Note 2 - Jones is in for his reverse and pace, but there is a good argument that actually that attack needs one Ryan Sidebottom
-
I assumed it was 2005 v today. Else Swann def makes my team and I'd probably give Prior the nod over YJB
-
Meant to be 05 vs today to effectively highlight the bowling is basically the same high quality. Keeper batter is arguably better but the top order is a chunk weaker.
As people can see Stauss and Cook are used interchangeably across the teams, but Tresco is in every team.
Bell hardly scored a run in 05 and yet he is picked by some people which is comical.
Swann was an exception, but like Trott and Prior out of scope.
Separately I have no idea how anyone would pick prior ahead of YJB, but I think we have a clouded view of Prior's keeping.
YJB is on a different level as a batsman and nearly as good as a keeper.
-
Can't believe there's some folk not picking England's highest run scorer and wicket takers! You don't get there by accident.
l
Im suprised how highly rated stokes and bairstow are. They are good but i think theyve got a way to go to match the likes of flintoff and prior. Not saying they will not make it, just not done enough yet.
-
l
Im suprised how highly rated stokes and bairstow are. They are good but i think theyve got a way to go to match the likes of flintoff and prior. Not saying they will not make it, just not done enough yet.
Agreed! Stokes could become a great all rounder one day but to put him ahead of Flintoff is kind of crazy.
Also Root ahead of Vaughan. The versatility of his game, his hunger and his age all give him a massive advantage over Vaughan. Besides hes already rated as one of top 3 modern day batsmen!
-
l
Im suprised how highly rated stokes and bairstow are. They are good but i think theyve got a way to go to match the likes of flintoff and prior. Not saying they will not make it, just not done enough yet.
Who is the better at their peak? Bairstow certainly, Flintoff vs Stokes much harder - I think Ben is the better bat, Freddie with ball.
But...YJB may be ace etc but he has only started to prove that in the last 18 months. It still isn't clear long term if e are assessing him as keeper-bat or frontline bat. Meanwhile, Prior gets an unfairly harsh Rep - he became a very decent keeper in his second international stint, and is figures as a batsman are comparatively low because he played most of his career behind a rock solid top six, so often came in to give late impetus rather than the opportunity to bat long that later keepers have had.
If he were available today, I reckon Prior would get into the side. He may or may not get the gloves, but the role that we argue Jos Buttler should be given would definitely be made for him.
-
Who is the better at their peak? Bairstow certainly, Flintoff vs Stokes much harder - I think Ben is the better bat, Freddie with ball.
But...YJB may be ace etc but he has only started to prove that in the last 18 months. It still isn't clear long term if e are assessing him as keeper-bat or frontline bat. Meanwhile, Prior gets an unfairly harsh Rep - he became a very decent keeper in his second international stint, and is figures as a batsman are comparatively low because he played most of his career behind a rock solid top six, so often came in to give late impetus rather than the opportunity to bat long that later keepers have had.
If he were available today, I reckon Prior would get into the side. He may or may not get the gloves, but the role that we argue Jos Buttler should be given would definitely be made for him.
For me I feel Prior was the superior keeper but YJB is by far the better bat. Prior was certainly a selfless batsmen who was happy to throw his wicket in pursuit of team runs mainly as you say when England were already 300+. For 5 but the few times we needed him to bat for the team from memory he couldn't do it except one great knock in NZ.
-
In addition YJB got into the England test side on the back of a storming county season in 2015 with 5 or 6 championship Tons and some big daddy tons. Jos is world class 1 day batsmen but in longer formats has a modest at best record so the argument t for him in the test side as batsmen/keeper or just batsmen is in my opinion is a wasted point.
ODI first name on the team sheet test side for me prove you can
-
Stokes is already better than Flintoff in my view.
-
Agreed! Stokes could become a great all rounder one day but to put him ahead of Flintoff is kind of crazy.
Also Root ahead of Vaughan. The versatility of his game, his hunger and his age all give him a massive advantage over Vaughan. Besides hes already rated as one of top 3 modern day batsmen!
When did Root become 'one of the best three modern batsmen'? He has to sustain it for 5-10 years. Vaughan as a pure batsman averaged 50, captaincy made his form suffer.
-
When did Root become 'one of the best three modern batsmen'? He has to sustain it for 5-10 years. Vaughan as a pure batsman averaged 50, captaincy made his form suffer.
Vaughan has to be ahead of root for his 2002 ashes efforts alone, if root can do similar in this series then we're talking. He became legend from that point, the only one to stand up to that great Aussie side.
-
Stokes is already better than Flintoff in my view.
Ill disagree with you on that.
Meant to be 05 vs today to effectively highlight the bowling is basically the same high quality. Keeper batter is arguably better but the top order is a chunk weaker.
I don't agree the bowling is as good. Broad and Anderson walk into the 2005 side (but i dont think they are at their peak anymore) but the 2005 team had better balanced attack.
For the record, which i grant is not part of the debate and also contribute i probably would have picked Chris Read from 2005 until he was too old, not a fan of a batter with a pair of keeping gloves on.
-
Such an interesting thread, and interesting hearing different peoples perceptions.
Def take @Buzz 's point that 05 Bell was a bit pants, so maybe I shouldn't have picked him.. I picked career Bell by accident. But likewise Vaughan (OT aside) had a fairly lean 05. 02 Vaughan would be a no brainier!
Bairstow v Prior? I reckon YJB is the better batter, but Prior the better keeper and with a fantasy top 6 ahead of him Priors keeping wins, plus his attacking batting (versus YJB's versatility). Maybe I could pick YJB as a specialist batsman instead of Bell.
Stokes v Flintoff is another interesting one. Stokes def the better batter, Flintoff def the better bowler, so I guess it depends how you want to balance your team (or pick both instead!). If he can keep fit I think Stokes is going to be better over a longer period of timem. Fred had a 3 year period where he was truly world class. I think Stokes could be at the beginning of a 5-6 year stint
-
Can someone with access to the stats put up Flintoff's bowling stats vs Stokes' stats please.
I think members may get a surprise...
I would also note I picked both in my team!
-
Flintoff
Bowling averages
Mat Inns Balls Runs Wkts BBI BBM Ave Econ SR 4w 5w 10
Tests 79 137 14951 7410 226 5/58 8/156 32.78 2.97 66.1 11 3 0
ODIs 141 119 5624 4121 169 5/19 5/19 24.38 4.39 33.2 6 2 0
T20Is 7 7 150 161 5 2/23 2/23 32.20 6.44 30.0 0 0 0
First-class 183 2279911059350 5/24 31.59 2.91 65.1 4 0
List A 282 9416 6536 289 5/19 5/19 22.61 4.16 32.5 10 2 0
Twenty20 39 34 657 827 39 4/12 4/12 21.20 7.55 16.8 1 0 0
-
Stokes
Bowling averages
Mat Inns Balls Runs Wkts BBI BBM Ave Econ SR 4w 5 10
Tests 27 48 4157 2366 71 6/36 8/161 33.32 3.41 58.5 3 2 0
ODIs 47 37 1472 1473 39 5/61 5/61 37.76 6.00 37.7 1 1 0
T20Is 18 14 256 395 8 3/26 3/26 49.37 9.25 32.0 0 0 0
First-class 100 155 11552 6832 232 7/67 10/121 29.44 3.54 49.7 12 4 1
List A 112 77 2908 2721 96 5/61 5/61 28.34 5.61 30.2 3 1 0
Twenty20 74 46 746 1075 30 3/26 3/26 35.83 8.64 24.8 0 0 0
-
I don't think Flintoff stats ever did him justice.
THAT over v Ponting and the fact Justin Langer talked about him at one point as being the best bowler in world cricket.
Show me the numbers and I still wouldn't change my mind - I say Flintoff was a better bowler than Stokes
-
Can someone with access to the stats put up Flintoff's bowling stats vs Stokes' stats please.
I think memebers may get a surprise...
And Stokes and Woakes...
-
And Stokes and Woakes...
Stokes is in the same vein as Flintoff, rockstar all rounder, might hit the ball out the park, might get bowled swinging across the line for 3, has the ability to bowl some absolutely magic spells of bowling. Woakes is a class act at International level now, just not quite as exciting to watch most of the time, his stats will equal or possibly better Stokes and Flintoff but he won't win the hearts of the public in the same way I don't think.
-
Flintoff
Bowling averages
Mat Inns Balls Runs Wkts BBI BBM Ave Econ SR 4w 5w 10
Tests 79 137 14951 7410 226 5/58 8/156 32.78 2.97 66.1 11 3 0
ODIs 141 119 5624 4121 169 5/19 5/19 24.38 4.39 33.2 6 2 0
T20Is 7 7 150 161 5 2/23 2/23 32.20 6.44 30.0 0 0 0
First-class 183 2279911059350 5/24 31.59 2.91 65.1 4 0
List A 282 9416 6536 289 5/19 5/19 22.61 4.16 32.5 10 2 0
Twenty20 39 34 657 827 39 4/12 4/12 21.20 7.55 16.8 1 0 0
So, they show very similar average and strike rate at test level over their whole careers. What that disguises is that Flintoff took years to establish himself as a test player, and if you look at his stats up to the end of the 2003 summer (when he'd played as many tests as Stokes has to date), they're quite different:
Span Mat Inns Ovrs Mdns Runs Wkts BBI BBM Ave Econ SR 5 10
unfiltered 1998-2009 79 137 2491.5 507 7410 226 5/58 8/156 32.78 2.97 66.1 3 0
filtered 1998-2003 26 43 723.5 174 2148 43 4/50 6/157 49.95 2.96 101.0 0 0
So Stokes has developed much faster (and who knows what he can become), however I don't think anyone can argue that he's anywhere near the level of 2005-vintage Freddie, yet.
-
Stokes is in the same vein as Flintoff, rockstar all rounder, might hit the ball out the park, might get bowled swinging across the line for 3, has the ability to bowl some absolutely magic spells of bowling. Woakes is a class act at International level now, just not quite as exciting to watch most of the time, his stats will equal or possibly better Stokes and Flintoff but he won't win the hearts of the public in the same way I don't think.
True, but it's interesting to look at - proves that you don't have to be showy to have good returns. If you take Woakes' median score they will not have the peaks and troughs of Stokes. I would not have Woakes over Stokes in my side, but to have both of them is brilliant.
-
True, but it's interesting to look at - proves that you don't have to be showy to have good returns. If you take Woakes' median score they will not have the peaks and troughs of Stokes. I would not have Woakes over Stokes in my side, but to have both of them is brilliant.
You're right it is quite interesting and it goes for many comparisons too, especially in cricket, I think it's why Kallis is occasionally overlooked when discussing favourite all rounders, his stats are unbelievable but he wasn't a showy player with bat or ball so doesn't stand out in the same way, although he was incredibly valuable to South Africa's middle order. I often think it's the same with Cook, as shown above, not everyone would pick him over Strauss and Tresco yet on paper Cook is well ahead of both of them (and almost any other England opener in history, post war especially, but that's another story) and I think that what makes him so successful (determination, grit, bloody mindedness and the simplicity of his game) is also why people aren't as easily enamored to him as a batsman (ironically it's what I admire most about him along with the sheer physical fitness that allows someone to play 130odd tests without missing one).
-
stats have their place and are a tool a lot use to judge who is the best.
flintoff and stokes thou maybe stats don't reflect the influence on the game, I think they are both similar impact players
fred was on fire in the ashes 2005 and stokes has been brilliant recently.
as others have mentioned, you don't forget the over to Pointing and you don't forget Stokes stunning hundred at Lords against NZ.
if I had to pick one or the other I think Stokes could be a better player for us in time as he is a better batsman..
the way he plays his cricket thou I think he will burn out at around 30
England have to look after him he's a diamond. I would pick the extra seamer(2 spinners) in india so stokes and borad do not get overworked.
5 tests is tough going on this coming tour in the time scale
-
The fact the ECB have signed up to 7 Tests in 8 weeks shows you all you need to know about player welfare. They are pieces of meat. They are disposable pawns in the administrators' obsession with cash.
Break Stokes? Then they'll find another one.
-
The fact the ECB have signed up to 7 Tests in 8 weeks shows you all you need to know about player welfare. They are pieces of meat. They are disposable pawns in the administrators' obsession with cash.
Break Stokes? Then they'll find another one.
absolutely, the ECB will do the most lucrative deal possible as their priority. England,Australia and India cut the cash cow pie up between them not so long ago.
the thing is, no one really needs this saying but, players like Flintoff and Stokes don't come along very often
How long since Botham was replaced(ish) in the Enlgand team?
we had to wait best part of 20 years......
-
We had Chris Lewis, he was the new Botham.
-
Woakes is doing well - he has understood the weaknesses in his game at the top level and tried to address them. I never thought he would manage it, but he has got to the stage where - at least in England - he is test class.
But he is never going to win a game from nowhere by force of personality.
Flintoff did, Stokes has started to and will do so more.
I agree that Freddie's figures do him less justice than any other England bowlers of recent times (even more so than Anderson and Hoggard). His first twenty or so games, when he was very definitely a batsman who turned his arm over, perhaps distort the quality of what went afterward. As did the fact that his three peak years, which accounted for 40% of his Test career, came in a stellar attack in which he had to fight for wickets with Harmison and Jones' extreme wheels, Hoggard's supreme swing and, as daft as it sounds, Ashley Giles' ability to pick up wickets when batsmen sought to get going whilst the had the chance.
The guy was a beast. You mention "that" over but he bowled whole spells as good - I'd suggest any young bowler watch the way he destroyed the Aussies at the Oval in '05 - 12 staright overs of pace, movement, bounce and not a bad ball in sight.
-
+1
-
(No Swearing Please) the bed
Ben Stokes is decent but he has not proved all that much so far other than potential and the odd world class effort.
Yes he has shown recently consistency to a degree.
Woakes has been polorized by so many but has been a decent cricketer for a long time...
I dare say for all the stat mongers
look at Woakes vs Stokes
Very interesting if you go off stats
Chris Woakes hammers Stokes in most STATS.
I'm not suggesting one is better than the other but so many people have this opioion on Stokes because he his a more flamboyant so called match winner when Woakes is seen as a honest trier.
STATS ONLY TELL SO MUCH GRANATED BUT WOAKES stats do add up to being a very very good player.
-
OH MY TEAM
Tres
Cook
Trott
Root (spinner)
KP
Bell
Prior
Woakes/Moeen/Stokes
Jones
Broad
Anderson
-
I like the improvement in Woakes! He was a medium fast bowler but obviously worked really hard and gained 5mph! You have to respect that effort and hard work. And I think he is reaping the reward now.
Is he as good as Stokes? Most of the arguments seem to suggest that he is not quite as good. But am I happy to have both of them in the Test team as all-rounders? Too sodding right I am!!
-
Stokes for me has to kick on like he has been doing and do it against the best more often... He has the potential but I feel he has never moved on. Yes he is a flair player and all I get that.
Agree with @Alvaro without Stokes England would be boring to watch as hell
-
I like the improvement in Woakes! He was a medium fast bowler but obviously worked really hard and gained 5mph! You have to respect that effort and hard work. And I think he is reaping the reward now.
Is he as good as Stokes? Most of the arguments seem to suggest that he is not quite as good. But am I happy to have both of them in the Test team as all-rounders? Too sodding right I am!!
I don't really think that they are competing for the same spot. Stokes is a frontline batsman who balances the side by being a very decent fifth bowler - he will usually bowl the old ball overs looking for reverse swing.
Woakes is a hard ball conventional swing bowler who has added the extra 5mph that mean he is treated with respect by international player - he will mostly bowl the front end overs. His batting is purely a bonus - I know he did on debut but the evidence does not *yet* support the idea that he could bat six in tests; after all, he has two fifties and a top score of 66. He would be more a like for like comparison with players such as Tim Bresnan and, further back, Ashley Giles - picked as bowlers, happen to be better than just holding a bat.
-
Woakes is by far superior to Giles and Bresnan.
He is probably a better bat than Ballance too.
-
Our club skipper is woakes's FA. Alongside him I've spoken to a few guys who know him and all talk about the work he's put into his all round game over the last 3-4 years. Frankly, it shows, he's been arguably our most consistent performer across 2016. He bowls as quick, or quicker than anyone else available, puts it in the right areas and we'd have dreamed of an all rounder of his quality even five years ago.
I'd wager he'll be better for England than Freddie and possibly more consistent than stokes. Totally agree his first class stats are surprisingly good...
-
Woakes is by far superior to Giles and Bresnan.
He is probably a better bat than Ballance too.
To speak up for Bressie lad, I have to point out that Woakes has yet to acheive anything like the success that Tim had in his international career - he has done well, admittedly, but against some fairly weak opposition which burnishes his stats, and has not performed the hard yards that Tim had to behind other bowlers.
-
To speak up for Bressie lad, I have to point out that Woakes has yet to acheive anything like the success that Tim had in his international career - he has done well, admittedly, but against some fairly weak opposition which burnishes his stats, and has not performed the hard yards that Tim had to behind other bowlers.
Is that the 1 5 for and 1 50 Tim.
He was decent but Woakes is a upgrade on him.
Sorry but your Yorkshire glasses need adjusting Woakes is a better all round cricketer than Tim who was all heart on his sleeve trier but no sorry Woakes is better in my opinion.
-
I am a big Bresnan fan, who pre elbow knack was a strong defensive bowler with a broad blade. Woakes led the attack this summer and until he found his nip was more of a batting AR.
I would have had Bresnan in this squad for his temperament and experience. He was brilliant for Yorkshire last year.
-
I am a big Bresnan fan, who pre elbow knack was a strong defensive bowler with a broad blade. Woakes led the attack this summer and until he found his nip was more of a batting AR.
I would have had Bresnan in this squad for his temperament and experience. He was brilliant for Yorkshire last year.
And he averages about 80 batting at 5 in the championship, so he'd definitely solve the issue with the middle order!
-
And he averages about 80 batting at 5 in the championship, so he'd definitely solve the issue with the middle order!
Not in India he would'nt
-
I really don't get this obsession with stats. Unless you're Bradman 99.94 or Murali 800, it's just a nominal thing.
Woakes' stats might look better than Stokes' but Stoke can win matches almost single handedly. Can Woakes say the same? Can Woakes smash 250 in record time? Can Woakes take a match changing 6fer? I know Stokes can...
-
I really don't get this obsession with stats. Unless you're Bradman 99.94 or Murali 800, it's just a nominal thing.
Woakes' stats might look better than Stokes' but Stoke can win matches almost single handedly. Can Woakes say the same? Can Woakes smash 250 in record time? Can Woakes take a match changing 6fer? I know Stokes can...
Woakes can take the wickets and score runs.
No your right about stats as I have said only tell so much but for some Stokes is the 2nd messiah which he isn't. Woakes gets belted on this forum but is a genuine all round cricketer of great ability and yes he can take a 6 for. He cant score 250 in record time though.
I do not tend to look at stats but when I only watch the players live once maybe twice a year they are all we have. Stokes is a maverick
-
Actually there are plenty of us on the forum who rate Woakes very highly, yes also some who don't even think he should be in the team.
stokes is different, a one off and if he stays fit could be, as good as Fred, was flintoff as good as Botham? No...could Stokes be? He has already shown incredible match winning ability and the self confidence Beefy had to go out there and do it.
we are all a bit guilty of looking back thru rose tinted glasses to say players are not as good they we're back in the day, but just look at Joe Root.....he's only really comparable with KP who like or loathe him(loathe) was probably the best batsman we have had in.......well absolutely ages, he really was a different class at his peak.
But back to Woakes.....if anyone can name an England player improved that much from his first time in the team to now?
Bairstow maybe? That's about it...
Woakes then and now is like watching two different cricketers in the same body ! :)