5th ODI: Australia v England at Perth (Optus Stadium) on Jan 28, 2018 - England won series 4-1

[AlwaysGreen]

I think he is a good player and batting at 8 is due to the poms having a high artillery of all rounders. Formula has worked for them, but for mine this 5 ODI that has just gone by we contributed to them being good as well. We at times were dreadfull. Lets see how they go on home soil pressure of a world cup. Im happy for other nations to do well till then

Sounds like a personal opinion.

Sabermetric evaluation please or you're wrong

 

[ANTiLAG]

some interesting stats on Woakes

Poms have won 34 ODI's with him in the side
He has batted 18 times only (almost half of those games) and had 12 not outs
Has scored only 364 runs in those 18 innings S/R 113.04 (his average severely inflated by not outs)

Poms have lost 33 matches with him in the side
He has batted 33 times, only 5no. Ave 19.6, S/R 79.44 (5 ducks)

Make that what you will


I think he is a good player and batting at 8 is due to the poms having a high artillery of all rounders. Formula has worked for them, but for mine this 5 ODI that has just gone by we contributed to them being good as well. We at times were dreadfull. Lets see how they go on home soil pressure of a world cup. Im happy for other nations to do well till then

Those are interesting stats ParraBoy, thank you.

What I find interesting, is that he averages 19.6 when England lose striking at 79.44 and 545 of his 1004 career runs have been losses, but when England don't lose, this average jumps to 76.5 striking at about 110. I get the not out inflation, and perhaps he is on a lucky run, but its onto its 3 year now, coinciding with England's turn around as a ODI team, sporadically batting as it may be, but his SR and average in wins is very high whereas his numbers in losses just seem typical of a regular number 8, maybe a touch slow, but pushing 20 is still very respectable.

 

[Iafeta]

some interesting stats on Woakes

Poms have won 34 ODI's with him in the side
He has batted 18 times only (almost half of those games) and had 12 not outs
Has scored only 364 runs in those 18 innings S/R 113.04 (his average severely inflated by not outs)

Poms have lost 33 matches with him in the side
He has batted 33 times, only 5no. Ave 19.6, S/R 79.44 (5 ducks)

Make that what you will


I think he is a good player and batting at 8 is due to the poms having a high artillery of all rounders. Formula has worked for them, but for mine this 5 ODI that has just gone by we contributed to them being good as well. We at times were dreadfull. Lets see how they go on home soil pressure of a world cup. Im happy for other nations to do well till then

I think Antilag will make about 3 more pages off it...

 

[ANTiLAG]

I think Antilag will make about 3 more pages off it...

I think that you don't talk about me enough.

 

[JJ]

I think that you don't talk about me enough.

You're developing quite the fan club

 

[AlwaysGreen]

Best number 8 since Mark Tookey.

 

[Bazal]

Best number 8 since Mark Tookey.

Best since Cliffy Palu

 

[Twizzle]

a good no 8 should be able to take wickets

 

[JJ]

Bring back Buck

 

[ANTiLAG]

You're developing quite the fan club

So it would appear. And yet not one of them has suggested a better #8 option a specific player name.currently playing on present form with Shakib already in the team. Not even past cricketers for that matter.

Not a single one.

I think it must be far more interesting to them insulting me than discussing cricket. Its not that the fan club want to debate the merits of an allrounder or a specialist bowler at 8, they would rather just insult my intelligence in a pack with group support for each other, against me for expressing that an allrounder at 8 is either a good thing as against the mantra of picking the 4 best bowlers, or that Woakes is the best performing one at the present time. But the fan club members offer no specific player opinion of their own. Bar Hindey having a differing view between World XI selection criteria of 4 best bowlers and real team game selection where batting depth matters. The fan club just have an agreed criticism that Woakes is more or less "average". If he is so average, surely with more than 10 ODI teams, it would be easy to suggest a player or two that outshines him as an allrounder at 8.

 

[TheParraboy]

So it would appear. And yet not one of them has suggested a better #8 option a specific player name.currently playing on present form with Shakib already in the team. Not even past cricketers for that matter.

Not a single one.

I think it must be far more interesting to them insulting me than cricket discussion. Its not that the fan club want to debate the merits of an allrounder or a specialist bowler at 8, they would rather just insult my intelligence in a pack with group support for each other, against me for expressing that an allrounder at 8 is either a good thing as against the mantra of picking the 4 best bowlers, or that Woakes is the best performing one at the present time. But the fan club members offer no specific player opinion of their own. Bar Hindey having a differing view between World XI selection and real team game selection where batting depth matters.

Definitely best performing n08 at the time, no arguments from me. I see why you like him.

But as I mentioned earlier, poms have an artillery of all rounders of which they are happy to fill their side with. They have done this at test level at times with mixed results. Wether or not they can win the world cup (surely this is the goal) im not sure. They are in good nick but we were woefull on a number of fronts, I dont think it is how many allrounders we have or who is batting at 8 that has caused us grief, thats the least of our concerns.

time will tell

I personally like 4 specialist batsman (one of which can roll the arm over for a few overs if needed)
a keeper/batsman (as opener preferably - I think they will groom Carey for this role in due course)
Ideally two allrounders
four bowlers (starc and Cummins to be part of that, they can score quick runs)
Lyon and Haze to round out the XI

So if we are playing Cummins or Starc at 8, and I could have Woakes instead
Id stick with Cummins or Starc, just my preference

 

[ANTiLAG]

Definitely best performing n08 at the time, no arguments from me. I see why you like him.

But as I mentioned earlier, poms have an artillery of all rounders of which they are happy to fill their side with. They have done this at test level at times with mixed results. Wether or not they can win the world cup (surely this is the goal) im not sure. They are in good nick but we were woefull on a number of fronts, I dont think it is how many allrounders we have or who is batting at 8 that has caused us grief, thats the least of our concerns.

time will tell

I personally like 4 specialist batsman (one of which can roll the arm over for a few overs if needed)
a keeper/batsman (as opener preferably - I think they will groom Carey for this role in due course)
Ideally two allrounders
four bowlers (starc and Cummins to be part of that, they can score quick runs)
Lyon and Haze to round out the XI

So if we are playing Cummins or Starc at 8, and I could have Woakes instead
Id stick with Cummins or Starc, just my preference

Oh I think the argument for the 4 best bowlers is much stronger in tests than in ODI. Put simply, to win most tests, 20 wickets are needed, to win ODI's - you just need more runs than the opposition make in the limited overs allocated to bat.

I think this difference is significant. I still value run makers at 8 in tests, but the argument for allrounders is far stronger in limited overs context as E/R becomes a major factor over pure wicket taking ability plus any pie chucker will grab wickets bowling at the death every now and then. We all see the "t20 stars" would struggle to buy a red ball wicket.

Stacking a test team with allrounders is a bit defensive. Its often perceived as more about playing to not lose, as against getting the win. Not losing is good, winning is better. Some might say that its the same in limited overs, but more allrounders means the batsmen may attack more, knowing there are more quality batsmen to follow. Whereas, more wicket taking bowling strength limits the batting depth. A wonderful cricket dilemma.

 

[TheParraboy]

So tell me Antilag

in your opinion, who plays no8 in the Australian ODI side?
and who is 9, 10, 11 as well?

 

[Iafeta]

So it would appear. And yet not one of them has suggested a better #8 option a specific player name.currently playing on present form with Shakib already in the team. Not even past cricketers for that matter.

Not a single one.

I think it must be far more interesting to them insulting me than discussing cricket. Its not that the fan club want to debate the merits of an allrounder or a specialist bowler at 8, they would rather just insult my intelligence in a pack with group support for each other, against me for expressing that an allrounder at 8 is either a good thing as against the mantra of picking the 4 best bowlers, or that Woakes is the best performing one at the present time. But the fan club members offer no specific player opinion of their own. Bar Hindey having a differing view between World XI selection criteria of 4 best bowlers and real team game selection where batting depth matters. The fan club just have an agreed criticism that Woakes is more or less "average". If he is so average, surely with more than 10 ODI teams, it would be easy to suggest a player or two that outshines him as an allrounder at 8.

Perhaps because no one is remotely interested in picking the worlds best #8?

It's a position of balance. Some teams bat deep, some teams have loads of all rounders. It's difficult to compare.

For me, I want a #8 who is a good bowler. I don't rate Woakes as a bowler.

 

[jargan83]

So tell me Antilag

in your opinion, who plays no8 in the Australian ODI side?
and who is 9, 10, 11 as well?

Chris Woakes...

For all positions mentioned.

 

[ANTiLAG]

So tell me Antilag

in your opinion, who plays no8 in the Australian ODI side?
and who is 9, 10, 11 as well?

For Australia?

Well that used to be easy. Not so much these days.

James Faulkner was looking pretty damn good from about 2013 - 2015 in ODI, but he's not having the same success these days (big batting average this year in BBL but slow SR). Also his ER in odi was climbing despite the field restrictions being let off. Ironically, when Faulkner's odi form starts diving, Woakes' starts increasing.

Me thinks the opposition have done their homework a bit on Jimmy and he's losing a bit of effectiveness.

But I do believe this, in the last odi - with Maxwell, Stoinis, Marsh in the top 6, that 4 specialist bowlers on top of that then seemed imbalanced to me. But if they're the best batsmen, they're the best batsmen. Unlike you, I'd happily pick Woakes in an Australian side at 8 were he available, with 2 of Starc, Haze, Paddy and Patto rotated with Lyon when you want a spinner, or 3 of the fast men when spin isn't that important. Then you only need 10 overs from Maxwell, Stoinis and Marsh. Surely those three can give most of the 10 remaining overs between them without calling on Finch/Head or Smith?

I get that Australia isn't exactly going to replicate the circa 2015 WC combo of Maxwell, Watto, and Faulkner with 3 more specialist bowlers (Starc, Johnson, Haze, Cummins) anytime soon . But I thought that combo and structure won Australia many games by scoring a lot of runs quickly, and getting through 20 overs well enough. Watto and Faulkner were excellent then.

Watto's left a hole that Marsh and Stoinis just are not quite filling with the ball even if they get close to him with the bat. And Faulkner and Maxwell, well form is a fickle mistress.

But Parra, I havn't been following the fortunes of too many Australian domestic cricketers of late to really think how I would rejink the Aussie ODI team. I have been following a lot of international cricket, though.

 

[ANTiLAG]

Perhaps because no one is remotely interested in picking the worlds best #8?

Agreed. For some reason they're far more interested in insulting me for expressing my choice as it is such a poor one.

It's a position of balance. Some teams bat deep, some teams have loads of all rounders.

Agreed. But these 2 are not mutually exclusive. Teams may bat deep and have allrounders both.

It's difficult to compare.

Well if Woakes is such a poor choice of mine, it shouldn't be difficult at all.

For me, I want a #8 who is a good bowler. I don't rate Woakes as a bowler.

Yups. 4 best bowlers is one way for teams to go. So is 5 best bowlers. But that's not all that popular. But so are allrounders. Do you rate Woakes as an allrounder?

Out of curiousity, if you have time, why do you not rate Woakes' bowling? Too many runs? Not enough wickets? Not good in the powerplays?

 

[Iafeta]

I'm not insulting you firstly. Secondly the reason I don't care about the worlds best #8 is because it's a completely moot yet boring discussion. As explained earlier, what is a 8? First choice bowler? Bits and pieces all rounder? All teams have different strategies that frankly alter game to game, let alone series to series. If you are evaluating batting, are they good because they always get a good platform? Or are they a red inker?

It's like discussing who was the best President of the gilded era, founding fathers or pre civil war era. The percentage of people who frankly care (I do FWIW as I like history) because it's not relevant to them, let alone the proportion of people who have paid any attention to it to feel warranted in getting into a debate, plus the multitudes of different contexts one has to consider, make it a fairly mundane debate. IMO if you are relying on a #8 to be a pivotal bat in your team then your problem is moreso in your top 6, so I would think most here would've expressed opinions on best openers, or best first drops.

If you ask who is the best seamer as well, people will be engaged in the discussion because it's easy to see the relevance due to the importance of the role.

Why don't I rate him? RPO is average, bowling average isn't great, and as the stats above allude if you are referring for some reason to his batting it's hit or miss. I think someone mentioned it above, if you had the option (albeit both have up and down series) of picking Starc or Cummins, v Woakes, I would pick Starc or Cummins anyway and back the top order to get the runs.

 

[hineyrulz]

Perhaps because no one is remotely interested in picking the worlds best #8?

It's a position of balance. Some teams bat deep, some teams have loads of all rounders. It's difficult to compare.

For me, I want a #8 who is a good bowler. I don't rate Woakes as a bowler.

Booooooooooooooom!!!!!

 

[ANTiLAG]

I'm not insulting you firstly. Secondly the reason I don't care about the worlds best #8 is because it's a completely moot yet boring discussion. As explained earlier, what is a 8? First choice bowler? Bits and pieces all rounder? All teams have different strategies that frankly alter game to game, let alone series to series. If you are evaluating batting, are they good because they always get a good platform? Or are they a red inker?

Don't wanna bore you Ifaata. Don't feel compelled to talk about number 8's. You are free to discuss far more interesting topics to you like what batsman has no foot movement, green pitches and small bats of yester year.

t's like discussing who was the best President of the gilded era, founding fathers or pre civil war era. The percentage of people who frankly care (I do FWIW as I like history) because it's not relevant to them, let alone the proportion of people who have paid any attention to it to feel warranted in getting into a debate, plus the multitudes of different contexts one has to consider, make it a fairly mundane debate.

Yeah, we're at page 32. There's plenty of debate from members telling me Woakes is not good a choice. Just no further options given.

I

MO if you are relying on a #8 to be a pivotal bat in your team then your problem is moreso in your top 6, so I would think most here would've expressed opinions on best openers, or best first drops.

In a World XI there is no problem in the top 3. Safrica play an All rounder at 8, I doubt de Kock, Amla and Faf with a middle order including ABDV is seen as so much of a problem when Safrica started doing this. I don't think Australia when they had Faulkner at 8 had too many concerns, with Finch and Warner with Smith, Clarke and Bailey making runs. Mind you, bringing Maxwell in for Bailey for higher SR and lower average does change the dynamic. In fact, Safrica it could be said by playing multiple allrounders of late, has tried to strengthen its bowling by having better 5th bowling options than previously even if worsening its 4th bowling option with a still healthy batting line up. Mulder is now joining Morris, Pretorious and Phehlukwayo (even Parnell's batting is factored in for his selection when picked). I like quick runs myself.

I

If you ask who is the best seamer as well, people will be engaged in the discussion because it's easy to see the relevance due to the importance of the role.

Importance of the role? Best seamer isn't a role. Its a title. Opening bowler for wickets, powerplay slogger 'queller' and death bowler, middle over bowling, those are roles. No offence. Mustafizur and Bumrah are fantastic at the death, Hasan Ali does not take the new ball, so these different roles do matter when announcing the best seamer. Bumrah's death bowling has greatly changed the Indian side to the point where's there is little debate about it. Not saying he's the best bowler. But Rabada and Boult look far more likely to get wickets up top. All these guys have differing playing roles to exploit their strengths to the best for the team in 10 overs.

I

Why don't I rate him? RPO is average, bowling average isn't great, and as the stats above allude if you are referring for some reason to his batting it's hit or miss. I think someone mentioned it above, if you had the option (albeit both have up and down series) of picking Starc or Cummins, v Woakes, I would pick Starc or Cummins anyway and back the top order to get the runs.

Cummins Ball ER 5.38 SR 31.6 Bat 12.00 at 72sr
Woakes Ball ER 5.57 SR 34.2 Bat 29 at 91sr

There's an argument there alright Cummins is a better bowler than Woakes. 2/54 beats 2/56. But better cricketer for number 8? I am far less convinced than you. I certainly don't think Waokes vast superiority with the bat makes him a moronic choice at 8 on recent form. He's pretty much doing what Faulkner did from 2013 to 2015 without all the back of the hand slow balls varieties.

But I what find interesting is the backing the top order to get runs, cos South Africa clearly want de Kock, Miller and ABDV to score fast, and use Faf and Amla as accumulators (Amla actually score pretty quick) as do England with Roy, Stokes, Buttler and Hales swashbuckling around with Root far more reserved, and Bairstow and Morgan doing whatever they see fit. Yet we are seeing so many more hundreds in losing games now than say the 1980s.

Starc at his best is definitely World XI material by virtue of his great yorkers which make him one of the most elite death bowlers in cricket. But, he's gone a lil off the boil of late leaving Bumrah sitting pretty, I think Starc has more dimensions than Bumrah, and Mustafizur is clearly more dependent on grip off the pitch with disappointing returns in England. But I hope to see Mustafizur continue to rise in 2018.