|
|
Post by flashblade on Sept 16, 2016 10:03:26 GMT
Sadly, no surprise there, Joe. First his central contract was downgraded to an incremental one. Now I'd guess he's going to lose that, too, when the contracts are announced next month. As a bowling all-rounder he has become surplus to requirements as there are four England seamers who are quality white ball batsmen, all of whom are now ahead of him - Stokes, Woakes,Willey and Plunkett. If his days as an England player are over, it's good news for Sussex on the field. Off-the-field the treasurer in the Sussex counting-house may take a different view... I think he's now seen by England as a T20 player. Not consistent enough over 10 overs. |
|
nemmo
Captain 2nd XI
Posts: 285
|
Post by nemmo on Sept 16, 2016 19:46:36 GMT
On some other cricket postings on the internet Batty's selection was described as "He's a reliable consistent backup whose development won't be spoilt by 2 months watching cricket from the stands instead of playing."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2016 21:12:46 GMT
Quite surprised Jordan is not in the ODI squad.First his central contract was downgraded to an incremental one. Now I'd guess he's going to lose that, too, when the contracts are announced next month. As a bowling all-rounder he has become surplus to requirements as there are four England seamers who are quality white ball batsmen, all of whom are now ahead of him - Stokes, Woakes,Willey and Plunkett. If his days as an England player are over, it's good news for Sussex on the field. Off-the-field the treasurer in the Sussex counting-house may take a different view... I think he's now seen by England as a T20 player. Not consistent enough over 10 overs. Jordan's problem is that in a bowling side that includes Stokes, Woakes, Willey, maybe Plunkett plus Moeen and Rashid, they're all going to bat above him. And if he's going to bat at 11, you might as well pick Wood, Ball or Finn, if they are deemed to be better bowling options because when you get down to last man in, you really cannot be selecting on the basis of which number 11 is the superior batsman. So in short, Jordan misses out simply because he has the misfortune to be a seamer who can bat in what is an unprecedentedly rich era for such cricketers, when in almost every other age they have been a rarity. |
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on Sept 17, 2016 8:28:25 GMT
I think he's now seen by England as a T20 player. Not consistent enough over 10 overs. Jordan's problem is that in a bowling side that includes Stokes, Woakes, Willey, maybe Plunkett plus Moeen and Rashid, they're all going to bat above him. And if he's going to bat at 11, you might as well pick Wood, Ball or Finn, if they are deemed to be better bowling options because when you get down to last man in, you really cannot be selecting on the basis of which number 11 is the superior batsman. So in short, Jordan misses out simply because he has the misfortune to be a seamer who can bat in what is an unprecedentedly rich era for such cricketers, when in almost every other age they have been a rarity. Very good points. T20 has been a factor in developing a golden age for genuine all rounders, specifically seam bowlers. When we bemoan the presence of "medium pace dibbly dobblers" such as Stevens or Dexter we're apt to forget that we have richer talents on the scene, but mostly seen in international games. |
|
