The news on Ben Stokes’ injury isn’t great. He’ll need an operation for a cartilage tear and will miss six weeks’ action. That means he’s out of the Sri Lanka super series but should hopefully return for the games against Pakistan.
Although some people are freaking out about the injury – Andrew Flintoff was also plagued with a knee problem during his career – Stokes’ problem doesn’t actually sound too concerning. In fact, it sounds remarkably similar to an injury I suffered myself many years ago.
Apparently Stokes has been playing with the injury for a while but it now requires surgery because it’s ‘locking-up’. Although this might sound alarming this is pretty much what you’d expect from a cartilage tear. After he’s had surgery it shouldn’t lock up anymore. Problem solved (in theory).
The beneficiary of Stokes’ misfortune is Chris Woakes, a player who seems to split opinion. Some see him as an ineffectual foot soldier who offers something with both bat and ball but not enough of either. Personally I think that’s a little harsh. Woakes has added a little pace in recent times (something the selectors wisely asked him to do) and I like his batting.
Woakes has been on fire in the county championship recently – he took 9-36 in a single innings against Durham the other day – and he’s a genuine all-rounder for Warwickshire. He averages 37 with the bat in first class cricket with nine hundreds. By comparison Ben Stokes averages just 34 for Durham.
I’m not sure whether Woakes can replicate this form on the international stage, but if England are serious about operating as a meritocracy, then he clearly deserves his place. He’s obviously a cricketer with admirers.
It will be interesting to see what the England management decide to do at the Riverside. They basically have three options:
1. Woakes comes in for Stokes and they do a straight swap (with Woakes batting at six). It’s interesting to note that Woakes has batted six for England in a test match before – against Australia at The Oval in the infamous Kerrigan test. The advantage of doing this is that England can retain exactly the same balance without moving other players around.
2. Woakes replaces Stokes but they jiggle the batting order. It might make sense to promote Bairstow to 6, with Moeen batting 7 and Woakes coming in at 8. This line up would probably reflect the individuals’ ability more than the first option. They might even consider promoting Moeen to 6, to let him play like a proper batsman, if they want to keep Jonny at 7.
3. Jake Ball actually replaces Stokes and England leave Woakes as 12th Man. I can see this happening because the selectors seem a little infatuated (or perhaps I should say ‘intrigued’) with Ball. He’s started the season very well and, of course, he plays for Notts. This move would also make sense because Woakes makes a blinding cuppa char. Well, he’s had enough practice over the years.
I’d be interested to know (a) what you would do, and (b) what you think the selectors will do. Although everything I’ve read suggests that Woakes will be the man who comes into the side, I sense the selectors are excited by Ball and want to see what he can do. Obviously this would mean jiggling the batting order, or simply moving everyone up a spot, but I really don’t think England’s management are too worried by Sri Lanka’s bowlers … best in the world though they may be. Ahem.
Personally I’m not sure what I would prefer. I haven’t decided yet. Although I’m curious to see what Ball has to offer, I think Woakes probably deserves his chance. It also seems a little counterintuitive to strengthen the bowling and diminish the batting when we’ve just bowled the opposition out cheaply twice at Headingley.
James Morgan
I haven’t seen Ball bowl, but if he’s faster than Woakes he should get the nod.
It’s harsh on Woakes given his exploits in CC, but with Jimmy in the team we don’t need another bowler in that style.
Ball please and the selectors will do the same
My main issue with Woakes, as I’ve said before, is that he just hasn’t really looked all that dangerous in Test cricket. There is definitely some validity to the argument that he’s never had a proper run to bed in and feel comfortable but you kind of have to give the coaches something to work with to earn one too, so it’s a two-way street. After the first two pitches he played on he’s had some helpful conditions to work with too: Old Trafford against India had great pace & carry and the ball was hooping around corners, you’d presume ideal conditions for a swing bowler like Woakes, and yet he looked unthreatening. The Oval after that was a green seamer and again, little threat. Durban was a pitch where all bowlers got some assistance from and yet again, Woakes took the grand total of one wicket in the match (yes he had Amla dropped, but so has pretty much every other England bowler – it’s a rite of passage!) The Centurion game I’m more willing to write off simply as a bad game, they happen from time to time. It’s not that one that worries me, it’s the others listed.
That said I’d still probably play him on Friday. There’s no reason to think conditions at Durham are going to be much different to those at Headingley and you’d think well suited to bring the best out of him. And I know a lot of people baulk at the idea of picking bowlers based on batting ability but England’s top six really isn’t consistent enough to justify going in with a tail of Finn, Anderson and Ball (who’s not quite a rabbit but definitely no better than a Test number 10 or 11) and to put good scores on the board they do need contributions down the order on a regular basis. I’d certainly give him the next two Tests (and if England win I’d look at seeing if there was a way to have a look at Ball in the third, who if he doesn’t play in the Tests will definitely get a run in the ODIs considering there’s a bit of an injury pile-up in the limited overs seamers) – if he yet again looks pretty unpenetrative, especially when other bowlers don’t, I think it’d be time to say that’s that for your Test career, Christopher.
I am still not sure what you expected of Woakes in the 2014 Oval test v India. 4-54 in 17 overs (over the two innings) seems a perfectly respectable return.
A fourth option (which is essentially “horses for courses”) is to say that the Durham pitch usually rewards “kiss the deck” quick bowlers, rather than “bang it in” quicks. On that basis, you bring in both Woakes (at 8 for me, with Jonny B at 6) and Ball, and leave Finn out. Harsh on Finn, perhaps, but it might work in Durham.
Finn has the best average and Strike Rate of the three so it would be crazy to leave him out on those grounds. If his method isn’t suited to these conditions (possible although I’m not wholly sold on that idea) he needs to play in them to develop a method that works.
The only reason not to play Finn that has any validity that I can see is managing his work load (especially after what ‘s just happened to Stokes). Is Finn going to be a white-ball regular because, if so, can he play every Test as well?
I feel sorry for Woakes. It’s not easy to assess potential without a run in the side.
All these young all-rounders get compared with Flintoff. Leaving aside the fact that it can be cogently argued he was not a great player (but had one great series and a few outstanding performances), his first 20 innings with the bat produced 280 runs at 14 (twice dnb) and with the ball 13 wickets at 44 (twice dnb). At that stage FF scarcely looked to be the new Botham. But he was persevered with and despite having a higher bowling average than batting and only taking 5 wkts in an innings three times, clearly was a major asset for much of the time.
It is not going to be easy for Woakes – he seems condemned to sit behind Stokes all the time the latter is fit. It’s difficult to see him getting a run otherwise – who needs a five man pace attack? Unless the selectors think his bowling is such that he could become a major force when Branderson retire, it’s probably better to look at someone who might be a real force with the ball when that inevitable event occurs.
You would think that Woakes would be the likeliest replacement for Anderson when he retires, given that Woakes makes a good enough impression by that point.
Broad will be around for a few years after that.
Except that Broad has knee tendonitis, which is a chronic condition to be managed rather than something which can be cured. It could flare up again at any time – as with Rafa Nadal. I would not bet on Broad going long into his 30s.
Yes, given their respective injury histories, you could expect Anderson (currently nearly 34) to retire at a later age than Broad (nearly 30).
That said, both should benefit from not playing ODIs. Broad especially given it will mean less impact on his knee.
The argument was for continuity when Hales and Compton kept their places on poor returns but inexplicably didn’t apply to Woakes who was dropped from the squad. It’s amazing what a call up will do but Woakes has been in good form with the bat and found his rhythm for Warwickshire with the ball. Unfortunately he had to leave the game mid-match which must have cheered up Durham no end.
He’s never been given the support and enthusiasm other hopefuls have had – no matter how short term. He’s mild mannered and for some reason that counts against a player these days of macho muscle flexing and expletives. As a bowler though he has a nagging accuracy which tightens up an end as well as puts pressure on batsmen. There are more ways of creating pressure than trying to hit people. It isn’t necessarily old school though. Watching a bit of IPL it can frustrate the batsmen in the short forms of the game. In Test cricket good batsmen will wait to see him off. A good accurate bowler will take wickets if a ball is swinging – conditions at Durham should favour that. I think Woakes is quite close to being a Test bowler – but he needs appreciation and belief for the time he is playing. If he succeeds then the gains are enormous. He already has the base. He doesn’t need tinkering. And he’s a very good batsman at 7 or 8. Ball might have the latest “buzz” but Woakes has done the preparatory work.
I’d play Woakes, with 6/7/8 of Moeen/Bairstow/Woakes. I think Moeen deserves a chance to play a proper innings, and that playing Ball makes the tail too long. Given the forecast is to be overcast, about 15 degrees with a north wind, I doubt whether whoever plays out of Ball or Woakes will get much bowling anyway. We’d probably be better playing another specialist batsman actually. In terms of what the selectors will actually do, I expect it will be Woakes but probably a different order to the one above.
On the subject of long tails (sort of), who noticed just how bad a batsman Nuwan Pradeep is? He really did look like I would facing Jimmy Anderson, backing away, wafting the bat and having all 3 stumps splattered! It’s quite a rarity these days to see someone so supremely bad. Started me thinking of other “rabbits” of recent years – Chris Martin was my favourite, with an “outstanding” average of 2.3 from over 100 Test innings (Pradeep currently averages 3.75), but who else springs into people’s minds…?
Well, not recent but perhaps no-one compares with Eric Hollies (the man who bowled that googly to Bradman in his last innings in a Test)? A 25 year career of first class cricket (with a gap for WWII) and 1673 runs scored and 2323 wickets taken. Now that is a record.
That man wasn’t a rabbit but a ferret surely?
It would be interesting to see a list of players who’ve taken more wickets than scored runs. I wonder what the biggest gap is? I was thinking more of the last 20 years for rabbits though – there were dozens of hopeless batsmen in Hollies’s era, but it’s become much rarer now.
It would be interesting to see that list but until it emerges, isn’t there something faintly heroic in Hollies going out to bat for the 616th time in a first class match without ever achieving a 50 – and of course failing to do so on this final occasion?
His batting was so wonderfully poor that he surpassed even that of Tom Wass, a fine bowler for Notts at the turn of the previous century, of whom it was said that as he strode to the wicket the old horse at Trent Bridge would back itself into the shafts of the heavy roller.
It is good to think Mr Pradeep, happily available for selection at Chester-le-Street is upholding these fine traditions of ineptitude.
Courtney Walsh “wasn’t bad”. Over 500 test wickets, and less than 1000 runs. But “The Phantom” Chris Martin is the only one I can think of quickly. 233 test wickets, and only 123 test runs. Sadly, Danny Morrison’s test batting career was more impressive than I thought (though this doesn’t set the bar high). If you haven’t seen Chris Martin’s batting “masterclass” on YouTube, I’d recommend you do.
Eric Hollies was before my time but I do remember watching Lance Gibbs bat(?) many times at Edgbaston. He always seemed slightly bemused at being in the middle without being able to handle the ball.
The first tour I clearly remember watching was the India tour of 1979 – which was the last tour of the great Chandrasekhar, who rivalled anyone in the rabbit stakes. 600 first class runs over 17 years – and 1063 wickets! I reckon that gives Hollies a run for his money.
I checked on Statsguru. Gibbs scored 488 test runs (and a “mere” 309 wickets). Chandra is a great call: 167 runs vs 242 wickets.
Hollies only played 13 tests, taking 44 wickets, and scoring 37 runs.
Pradeep was very funny. It looked like he was trying to play the ball that bowled him from square leg he was backing away so much.
Agree with all of that.
Woakes’ form could hardly be better, and if he has genuinely improved as a bowler then he deserves another chance to show it against England’s benchmarks at a ground suited to their style of bowling. If he’s powderpuff again, then at least we know where we stand.
And Moeen has been saying he should be batting higher up – time to call his bluff, if that’s what it is.
I am still deeply unconvinced about Woakes as a Test player. He’s a bit more than military medium now but his bowling still doesn’t have anything special which would trouble good batsmen on good pitches. Even if he does take wickets at Riverside, it’s tailor made conditions and wouldn’t tell us anything about him we didn’t already know. We don’t really need his batting against the Sri Lanka attack – moreover, rather than picking bowlers based on batting ability, the top order need to learn to stand up for themselves.
Give Ball a blast and see how he does. I wouldn’t worry too much about the tail – Anderson and Finn are no rabbits.
Hi Garreth. I’ve heard it said that Woakes is too orthodox to be successful at test level i.e. he’s too predictable and easy to line up. I can see some kind of logic in that, even though it sounds bizarre! Nobody would ever say that a batsman is too orthodox to be successful in first class cricket.
PS Congrats to Morpeth by the way :-)
Thanks Morgsie! ☺
Regarding “too orthodox”, I think it’s a bit different for bowlers – at the top level they generally need to bring something more to the party than just line and length (even Glenn McGrath had a bit of pace in his early years). Anderson provides swing, Broad moves it off the seam, Finn gives us bounce – but Woakes adds nothing. If one of our bowlers was lightning fast but erratic like Devon Malcolm, there may be a case for a steadier bowler at the other end – but the other three rarely go round the park so we have more to gain by throwing in Ball as a wildcard.
It doesn’t matter much. What I would do is drop Compton and replace him with Sam Northeast.
Not that I agree on your bowling view (pick Woakes as much the greater talent), but I can see the thinking about Compton. But use it to put Hales at 3 and try Sam Billings in the old Alec Stewart role. It would give Bairstow the chance to do what he does best (bat), and Billings technique is much more suited to red ball opening than Hales.
I am not at all sure it was a good idea for the selectors to ask Woakes to add pace. He was previously bowling at 82/83mph (which is as fast as Jimmy Anderson today) and had the control and variations of swing and seam to take 300 FC wickets by the time he was 24. Until recently it seemed the extra pace (he topped 90 mph in SA) had damaged the control and variety. There seems to be a selectorial fetish about pace (at least in some cases) which has been evident for many years. The most recent case before Woakes was probably Bicknell, but going back further it always astonished me how many test players crawled out of the woodwork when they died to say Cartwright and Shackleton should have played many more tests. I guess current day selectors would have told Sydney Barnes and Alec Bedser to go away and add some pace.
I’m fairly sure Barnes would have told the selectors where to go in return.
:-)
(& he would have loved the IPL…)
I’d opt for Mitch Johnson. A good Anglo-Saxon blood line. Should do a passable job especially if he dyes his hair red.
Nobody bite! Jeremy you stirrer :-)
Good to see a mention of Sydney Barnes – probably the greatest bowler of all time.