If they were going to give Stokes two games then why would it be the two he can't bowl in?
by nickcricket8/24/2016 12:42:04 PM
Not sure I'd play a non-bowling Stokes but looks a healthy team all the same
by NemoUKS8/24/2016 12:42:04 PM
Delighted to see Wood back
by NemoUKS8/24/2016 12:42:22 PM
As long as Bairstow is made available for the Semi Final against Surrey I don't mind, They screwed us with Plunkett last year. Missed every ODI till the closest then they said he couldn't play against Glou
by nickcricket8/24/2016 12:43:20 PM
INDIVIDUAL 100: CD Nash 100* (204) Sussex 185/2 (67.3 ov, trail by 67 - 1st inns) v Glamorgan
by ESPNcricinfo Live8/24/2016 12:44:24 PM
Because I don't think everybody will actually get two matches Nick.
by StaggerBreaths8/24/2016 12:44:37 PM
I see the value in picking Stokes, they want to give him more chances to nail down that number 5 slot because he gives the team such great balance. If his Top score is still 70 at the end of the series then we might have to rethink for the CT next summer
by nickcricket8/24/2016 12:45:47 PM
Oh GOD I forgot that the Champion's Trophy is still a thing. -______________-
by StaggerBreaths8/24/2016 12:47:21 PM
Was about to defend Stokes until I looked at his ODI record and found that he's never scored a century and only averages 21 at under a run a ball... wow.
With the bat we know what he's like, a lot of the time he's going to frustrate us, then once in a while he'll do something spectacular. In between a few cameos. As long as he contributes with his bowling then that isn't a problem. I don't think they are ever going to be able to bed him down at 5 so can't see the point of him playing as a specialist batsmen.
by Haystack_Jnr8/24/2016 12:55:48 PM
Chad's gonna have a decent batting average at the end of this innings (if he gets out that is)
by Haystack_Jnr8/24/2016 12:57:18 PM
Undermined, of course, by the fact that he's called 'Chad'.