Maybe Stokes had a concern he’d be hit out of the attack if he’d bowled earlier, and then maybe he wouldn’t have had the success he had bowling later,either way it worked out ok, againIf you had been watching the game when he was batting you would have seen the reason. And I wasn't slagging off his ability only his attitude. My original post was speculating that Stokes didn't bring him on until late to make a point. Or do you have a better reason to explain why he played Leach as the only spinner all morning?
Good bowling
Sure. Clicked on the thread while at work and saw your suggestion that the only possible explanation for Renan not bowling was as a punishment.Care to explain your response to what was written? His ability has not been questioned. Don't join a thread half way along and assume you know what its about.
And he's just been promoted to No.3 batsman - some punishment that!Sure. Clicked on the thread while at work and saw your suggestion that the only possible explanation for Renan not bowling was as a punishment.
Thought it was nonsense. Surely there were more plausible reasons ... such as how expensive he was in the first innings ... until the ball got older.
Next thing I heard he had taken 3 wickets and couldn't resist sorry!