Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Chris Woakes
Yes he had a poor game. Chris is a good batsman and a good bowler. He could be very good at either but there has to be a question as to whether he can be very good at BOTH. I think he may be falling between the two stools at present.

England seem to see him as cover for Broad & Bresnan. I don't think his bowling's good enough for that (at international level) although he's certainly the best batsman of the three. If he is to make it for England, I would see him more as a successor to Paul Collingwood - primarily a batsman with bowling as his second suit.

Frankly, I'd like to see him back at county level for a while, not just for selfish Bears reasons but I think England are expecting too much at this stage of his career.
Reply
Well it was only a couple of years ago when he took 6 wickets in a one day match against Australia. He hasn't had the best of starts to the season, so just wondering whether it may be a little lack of confidence. I believe he's got the ability. He should forget all the nonsense about bowling quicker. He is what he is and he's had a lot of success at county level doing it.

Giles knows what he can do and will stick with him.
Reply
So how do we think he did today? He was unlucky in that he had to bowl at Watson who targetted both him & Kerrigan.He came back much better later on though.
I do worry that he is easy pickings for the best batters.Hopefully the experience will help him rather than hinder him.
ALWAYS A BEAR
Reply
I've seen some shockingly ill informed & downright cruel drivel written about Chris' debut in the test. Drivel because most of the muppets posting on other forums including the BBC cricket forum are questioning his credentials in county cricket - how dare they. He's a young man in the early stages of his career & deserves better. Criticise him yes but be constructive. I've seen far worse & more expensive bowling from Broad many times.

Reply
[-] The following 2 users Like stingray's post:
D K Lillee, Redditchbear
Yea I agree stingray. It's far too easy to judge people too quickly. Yes test cricket is tougher than first class cricket but woakes is in as an all rounder anyway so if he has a chance to shine with the bat. And his economy rate was better than broads. Even Anderson as a young man got hit around the park.

Reply
(22-08-2013, 12:21 AM)Paul Wrote: his economy rate was better than broads. Even Anderson as a young man got hit around the park.

I think Watson would've hit anyone around the park yesterday, and Chris came back very well after his tough opening spell. He should've been introduced as a fourth seamer, not first change seamer, but I presume they wanted to get Kerrigan his feet wet now in a dead rubber as opposed to having to bring him in if Swann's elbow creaks a day before Brisbane.
Reply
I think he was ok. Not great, but ok.

I worry that too much is being expected of him. He's an excellent county cricketer but (still) a bit short on pace and didn't bat higher than number 8 until this season. He isn't - and won't be - a Botham or a Flintoff. I'd hate to see him become a Richard Ellison or (for the oldies amongst us) Barry Knight. i.e. not quite good enough with either bat or ball.

Anyway, I like him a lot so let's hope he stuffs these thoughts right back down my throat.
Reply
FIRST TEST WICKET FOR WOAKES!

Well done son!
Paul fondled my onion bags.
Reply
First of many we hope

Reply
Not if the selectors listen to the pundits it won't be. Some of the criticism of him has been ridiculous and completely uncalled for.
Paul fondled my onion bags.
Reply
[-] The following 2 users Like Lilly's post:
parkfield bear, stingray
It almost appears to be bordering on abusive/bullying from some areas of the media. Woakes is in the side for starters, selection has been and gone, get over it, get behind the young player making his début and encourage him, don't make instant judgements based on 2 days of a test match.

To go with that, I'd say Woakes has bowled okay, not great but okay, a few really good deliveries, but lots of just okay ones. I'd argue he's struggled a bit because he's almost too accurate, and has a very strong repeatable action, you can trust him to bowl the ball 6 out of 6 on the same spot if he wanted to, so you can prepare for it. If the ball was swinging or seaming then that type of accuracy would become a bit more lethal.

My only real criticisms of Woakes would be he hasn't changed things up enough, moved about on the crease a lot, gone round the wicket, significantly slower balls, or many cutters, at times his bowling has seemed too reliable.

I don't buy the too slow argument, he is also very consistent with his pace, between 84 and 86 mph, regularly a few miles an hour faster than Jimmy Anderson.

Generally I just think he needs to back himself to use more of his variations, and cut out the odd short ball that just sits up, and isn't a really committed shoulder high in at the body, short ball, which I've seen him bowl before.

What do I know though? I'm just another fan, and Woakes fan at that, but that's just my opinion.

Dom.

The Bowler's Holding the batsman's Willey
Reply
[-] The following 1 user Likes Bloomy's post:
stingray
Good post bloomy, it's the flattest of wickets. The Aussie bowlers caused no problems last night. I can't believe what utter garbage Agnew writes.

Reply
(23-08-2013, 10:08 AM)Paul Wrote: Good post bloomy, it's the flattest of wickets. The Aussie bowlers caused no problems last night. I can't believe what utter garbage Agnew writes.

Precisely.

Anderson did well to take a few wickets on it, but the rest of the bowlers fared on a par, if not worse, than Woakes.

He is just an easy target I'm afraid with Finn and Tremlett (despite lack of form and injury respectively) seen as the ones who 'ought' to be playing and as such unless Woakes had taken a ten wicket haul he was always going to be subject to this nonsense.

I just hope he ignores it and proves he is up to that standard. Just a shame he has been picked at the Oval as opposed to a bowler friendly wicket.
Paul fondled my onion bags.
Reply
[-] The following 1 user Likes Lilly's post:
stingray
I think the problem comes from the one day games he has played in and the performance of the other England debutant. He has done ok so far and has an England future.
Reply
I think it depends on they we look at him. He is a direct replacement for bairstow so should be judged more for his batting than bowling. If he can fit the role as a no.6 and be a useful 4th seamer then that should suit England's purposes.

Reply
[-] The following 1 user Likes Paul's post:
Warleybear
I had a thought when Chris walked in to join Ian at the crease.I wondered if Abbers was up there watching two of his youngsters out there together batting for England in an Ashes Test match.

His smile would have been full of satisfaction and pleasure.Good on him :001_smile:

ALWAYS A BEAR
Reply
[-] The following 1 user Likes Redditchbear's post:
Leicester Exile
Yes it would have been such a proud moment for abbers, if he had of still been alive. What ashame he never got to see them. Still he saw Ian bell become the best batsman in the England team.

Reply
I am so proud of Chris Woakes. Calm in a crisis, pure class. He would have got England over the line if bad light hadn't interrupted.

Ps Trotty great as well!
Reply
[-] The following 2 users Like stingray's post:
Redditchbear, Warleybear
Indeed...

My thoughts on the subject of bad light are under the test match thread.
Reply
I'm extremely annoyed.

He would have been a fans favourite had he achieved it, which it would have done. Could potentially shape his England career that, it shouldn't of course, but could.
Paul fondled my onion bags.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)