andy wrote:3 players have signed 3 year multi deals with the ECB. Joe root, harry brook and surprisingly mark wood......Ben Stokes and Jimmy Anderson one year deals.....David Willey has lost his contract which is a suprise and not ideal timing to find out midway through a world cup...
sussexpob wrote:As for Mark Wood being given a 3 year contract, I am starting to think that Wood must have a dossier on the ECB.... he will be 34 after this tournament finishes, and a 34 year old who has been injured non-stop since his debut 10 odd years ago, and missed 100s of matches. The last Ashes series somewhat proved that given a long rest into a game, he can crank it up to ridiculous pace, but he coudn't sustain it after the first game.
His ODI record is terrible, he's not a noteworthy T20I player, and he averages about 2-3 tests a year inbetween breaking down (and an average of 30 a wicket is not exactly great)....
Seems a very bizarre commitment for England to make. I wonder if he breaks down again soon, if he just sits doing nothing and claiming his dosh
alfie wrote:I don't think Stokes lacks motivation to continue with England : but he wouldn't be human if he didn't have some concern over how his body is going to stand up to all the stress he's been putting on it.
I reckon if he can keep in good enough condition to do so he will be keen to continue - and indeed to negotiate possibly even better terms next year , as Key suggests. But if the knee gets worse or other issues arise he may have to reserve himself for short form stuff to see out his career.
Durhamfootman wrote:I would think so, which is why it's completely understandable that Woody would bite the ECB's hand off for a 3 year deal
The ECB are clearly struggling to get a grip on players wanting to take the franchise money. I half expected Anderson to be offered a 3 year deal, despite him being 40 odd and a player who wouldn't get a T20 gig anyway. Not for the first time, the ECB seem out of their depth trying to solve a new conundrum and so jump in feet first with only half a clue as to what it is that they think they're doing
alfie wrote:3 years does seem a long term deal for Wood : but the "miles on the clock" point does also apply here. Wood has had quite a lot of enforced absences from serious game time so probably is less knocked about in that sense than other younger bowlers
Durhamfootman wrote:He's also, despite his injury woes, almost certainly the quickest bowler that England have ever had. Dobell recently said that in his opinion, when the time comes, Wood will be the hardest player for England to replace since Graeme Swann. That spell at Headingley was one of the great spells of fast bowling imo. Truly astonishing pace. I kind of watched it in disbelief
sussexpob wrote:Durhamfootman wrote:He's also, despite his injury woes, almost certainly the quickest bowler that England have ever had. Dobell recently said that in his opinion, when the time comes, Wood will be the hardest player for England to replace since Graeme Swann. That spell at Headingley was one of the great spells of fast bowling imo. Truly astonishing pace. I kind of watched it in disbelief
Was Dobell suggesting that in pure type/pace, Wood would be hard to replace, or as a player in general and what he brings to the side? Because if its the former, yes indeed that goes without saying but its debatable what value sheer pace has anyway, if its the latter then poor George needs a straightjacket I think. People love pace, and of course there will be times when sheer pace will be valuable. But how valuable it is, is often overstated dramatically.
You can demonstrate Wood's value on the team by two factors....
Firstly, his own performance as a yardstick. In matches where he plays, he has the worst bowling average out of all the regular pace bowling options that played along side him (rated by counting those to have taken 10 wickets), and in his career span, there are also another handful of players who have taken 10 wickets who performed better than him on wicket average. If you take those pace bowlers that never played with him, those that performed worse, when isolated to their own career time frames and Wood's performance at the same time, also performed better than him (so Steve FInn/Archer, etc).
Secondly, its often presented that Wood's pace adds another dimension that elevates all bowlers. This is, on the data, false. Anderson for instance averages 21 in matches without Wood, and nearly 30 with him. Broad and Robinson are consistent. The only example of a player who performs better in the team when with Wood, is Chris Woakes. But then that only became true after the last test, and the vast disparity between Woakes away and home form makes him somewhat of a statistical outlier.
It's also worth noting when Wood's best bowling comes. In games that are always live (ie test 1-2 of a series) he averages 41 and 35.... at the end of series, he averages pretty well. Games like in Hobart or the third test vs Windies, that represent his best moments, were dead rubbers. Of course, there is examples of brilliant games he has had in live series, Leeds this year being an example, the the trend is very much for him to bowl badly in games that are live series, and pick up stats at the end.
Return to International Cricket
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 42 guests