Print

[Biggie Smalls]

I don't think i can watch any more of this series . If i was english , i wouldn't be able to help myself ( ie when the windies were in oz last , i watched pretty much every ball of the test series), but as a neutral spectator i dont see the point of getting depressed watching a w.i side which wouldn't give most first class sides an even contest . It's such a shame w.i cricket has descended to this level of ineptitude,  but i may as well just hold out and wait for the au vs bang series to start .

[Seniorplayer]

And where there is  a selective memory there's always the stats....

[Seniorplayer]

I don't think i can watch any more of this series . If i was english , i wouldn't be able to help myself ( ie when the windies were in oz last , i watched pretty much every ball of the test series), but as a neutral spectator i dont see the point of getting depressed watching a w.i side which wouldn't give most first class sides an even contest . It's such a shame w.i cricket has descended to this level of ineptitude,  but i may as well just hold out and wait for the au vs bang series to start .

with all the money in t20  competitions the standard of test cricket
will probably decline

[Calzehbhoy]

And where there is  a selective memory there's always the stats....

Not arguing about his Indian tour, he, as well as many others, had a poor tour! For many their first tour to India can be a chastening experience.

You seem obsessed with him and in particular his Indian tour performance?? As you appear to love stats so much I'd say a bloke batting at 9 with a test batting average of 29.55 and bowling average of 29.33 for a third seamer is pretty darn good (Even after his poor performance in India)! ......OR..... are you now going to argue that the stats are inflated due to a 'poor' oppo (I mean his performance last summer were only against Pakistan who a month or so later were ranked #1 side in the world) ?

[ppccopener]

Chris woakes....hmmm 

In my humble opinion now and again you get a player who is not outstanding with bat or ball..but when you look at his contribution overall bat ball and in the field it adds up to far more than it appears to be on the surface of just stats...
Stats can be used to make whatever point you want it's about making valuable contributions

He is now our quickest bowler aside from Wood and that batting average low down is pretty good.

I find some of the comments on here about him unrecognisable to the player I see

But opinions are just that,we've all got them!

[Alvaro]

Batting: Chris Woakes's defensive technique should be the envy of most of the clowns batting in the top order (Cook and Root aside).
Bowling: Woakes is probably the quickest England bowler who can actually move the ball off the straight, and without breaking down every two games.

[northernboy1987]

Woakes's bowling is streets ahead of Wood, Ball, TRJ or pretty much anyone else waiting in the wings, as is his batting, he will come straight back into the side as soon as they decide he's fit enough without question and if you think otherwise then you're wrong.

[Biggie Smalls]

with all the money in t20  competitions the standard of test cricket
will probably decline

True  but I'll still happily watch test cricket a anywhere,  between anyone ..... other than Zimbabwe and West Indies .  ( i include my keenness to watch Ireland and Afghanistan in this statement).

[Seniorplayer]

Not arguing about his Indian tour, he, as well as many others, had a poor tour! For many their first tour to India can be a chastening experience.

You seem obsessed  and in particular his Indian tour performance?? As you appear to love stats so much I'd say a bloke batting at 9 with a test batting average of 29.55 and bowling average of 29.33 for a third seamer is pretty darn good (Even after his poor performance in India)! ......OR..... are you now going to argue that the stats are inflated due to a 'poor' oppo (I mean his performance last summer were only against Pakistan who a month or so later were ranked #1 side in the world) ?

Couple of points not obsessed just a different opinion to others also think guys like TRj  or specialist batsman are a better option also  do agree that in 2016 in the UK Pakistan were poor at times they said so themselves and as for Sri Lanka  in May 2016 they had started to rebuild and  lets not forget Chris  has not always a number 9 he has batted at 6 downwards and I won't even mention how your batting averages can be boosted with not outs. Also in my humble opinion  just two  fiftys and two five fors in 17 test matches is not good enough. If he is to  eventually replace Anderson England need more.
Hopefully  with his extra pace he will contribute in Aus as England will probably play 5 seamers

[northernboy1987]

Woakes took 41 wickets at 25 last year (across 12 Tests) even with the apparently awful India tour he had. Wood for example has taken 26 wickets at 40 in the 10 Tests he's played without ever taking more than 3 wickets in an innings or more than 5 in a match. The difference is night and day in my opinion there is no way that Wood (as much as I like his extra pace) is a better option than Woakes.

He's already contributed more in his first 17 tests than Anderson did in his first 17 (43 wickets at nearly 39 vs Woakes 48 wickets at 29).

[Seniorplayer]

Woakes took 41 wickets at 25 last year (across 12 Tests) even with the apparently awful India tour he had. Wood for example has taken 26 wickets at 40 in the 10 Tests he's played without ever taking more than 3 wickets in an innings or more than 5 in a match. The difference is night and day in my opinion there is no way that Wood (as much as I like his extra pace) is a better option than Woakes.

Do think  though the opposition they played against when making comparisions needs to be considered also England didnt use Wood properly he should be used as a strike bowler three four  fast  over bursts  putting the ball in the right areas and hitting the pitch hard.

[edge]

Whisper it quietly... is Mark Wood actually that quick?

[petehosk]

Do think  though the opposition they played against when making comparisions needs to be considered also England didnt use Wood properly he should be used as a strike bowler three four  fast  over bursts  putting the ball in the right areas and hitting the pitch hard.

I for 1 agree that Wood is a quality bowler with pace and could absolutely do some damage in Aus. Let's remember that Plunkett also has 90mph+ pace, as does Woakes. We are lucky at the moment in that we have Stokes, Woakes and Ali as high quality bowling all-rounders plus Bairstow as a high quality keeper batsman! I have certainly never know us to have so many!! Normally we are more than happy with 1 genuine all-rounder!
The trick we need to perform now is finding that ideal balance for the team!! 

[golders]

Whisper it quietly... is Mark Wood actually that quick?

Agree with this...In fact I don't believe we have a single quick who consistently bowls 90mph,merely high eighties with the odd 90mph delivery.

[petehosk]

I agree - Wood, Plunkett and Woakes all bowl 85-88mph with some effort balls 90mph+
Stokes if 85mph with some around 88mph mark! And Broad and Anderson are more 80-85mph but with Anderson and Broad you get the skill and control (Anderson anyway and Broad sometimes)