Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 87

Thread: Udal looking forwards

  1. #16
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by Pothas
    well is obviosuly very unlikely that he will ever play a test again. if Panesar does develop this season then he should go as reserve for Giles, if doesnt then maybe Udal should be on the tour. Even if he doesnt play a test again he can finnsih his career by winning the county championship with Hampshire.
    It wouldn't be the worst thing in The World for him to not play another Test - just like it was with Martin Bicknell.
    Certainly, though, I don't like to think of Panesar in Australia.
    RD
    Appreciating cricket's greatest legend ever - HD Bird...............Funniest post (intentionally) ever.....Runner-up.....Third.....Fourth
    (Accidental) founder of Twenty20 Is Boring Society. Click and post to sign-up.
    chris.hinton: h
    FRAZ: Arshad's are a long gone stories
    RIP Fardin Qayyumi (AKA "cricket player"; "Bob"), 1/11/1990-15/4/2006

  2. #17
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by aussie
    I never said Udal was better than Panesar.
    I know you didn't - I did, though.
    While yes it will be a while before Panesar become a really test class bowler but he has the ability to do so..
    Does he? I don't think that's anything close to certain.
    What I'd say is pretty certain is that it was stupid to pick him for this tour, as I always thought it was.

  3. #18
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by aussie
    really?, i watched him bowl in India & i hardly remeber any expensive spells at all, for the most he was economical but at times seems unpenatrative.
    Expensive in the entire Second Test, expensive in the second-innings of the Third.
    About half-and-half, in other words.

  4. #19
    International Coach
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    13,285
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard
    Expensive in the entire Second Test, expensive in the second-innings of the Third.
    About half-and-half, in other words.
    Don't remember exact details of 2nd Test, but he only bowled 4 overs in the 2nd Innings of the 3rd.

    Bit harsh to judge him on those 4 overs when you can't really settle into a groove.
    MSN - tomhalsey123@hotmail.com

    Manchester United FC: 20 Times

    R.I.P. Sledger's Signature, 2004-2008


  5. #20
    Hall of Fame Member aussie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Cricket
    Posts
    16,845
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard
    Does he? I don't think that's anything close to certain.
    What I'd say is pretty certain is that it was stupid to pick him for this tour, as I always thought it was.
    Come on Richard, by no means it was stupid to pick Panesar to tour India. Lets say Gilo was fit & the selectors decided to retain Udal, Panesar is said to be the most impressive young spinner in England so his selection was quite ok, i dont see what was stupid in picking him.

  6. #21
    Spanish_Vicente sledger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    C A D E N C E
    Posts
    31,480
    Quote Originally Posted by aussie
    Come on Richard, by no means it was stupid to pick Panesar to tour India. Lets say Gilo was fit & the selectors decided to retain Udal, Panesar is said to be the most impressive young spinner in England so his selection was quite ok, i dont see what was stupid in picking him.
    the fact that he is indeed the most impressive young spinner is a cause for concern, although im pleased for him on a personal level and wish him all the best, i cant see him becoming a major force in world cricket.

  7. #22
    Hall of Fame Member aussie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Cricket
    Posts
    16,845
    Quote Originally Posted by sledger
    the fact that he is indeed the most impressive young spinner is a cause for concern, although im pleased for him on a personal level and wish him all the best, i cant see him becoming a major force in world cricket.
    time will tell, not even Warne or Murali set the world on fire with their initial test performances.

  8. #23
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Halsey
    Don't remember exact details of 2nd Test, but he only bowled 4 overs in the 2nd Innings of the 3rd.

    Bit harsh to judge him on those 4 overs when you can't really settle into a groove.
    That he didn't settle into a groove (having done so in other innings') tells me all I need to know.
    Rarely do spinners come back from expensive first spells and bowl economically later. Indeed, less often than more do any bowlers in Test-cricket these days.

  9. #24
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by aussie
    Come on Richard, by no means it was stupid to pick Panesar to tour India. Lets say Gilo was fit & the selectors decided to retain Udal, Panesar is said to be the most impressive young spinner in England so his selection was quite ok, i dont see what was stupid in picking him.
    That he's played only 1 full season, and would almost certainly have achieved far more on the West Indies tour?
    "Being the most impressive young X in the country" is all the more reason NOT to be thrown in the deep end IMO. And in India Panesar did nothing - absoluely nothing - so it hence it was a waste of time taking him. Would've been better to pick Blackwell and let him get slogged, telling us all what many already knew - he's useless.

  10. #25
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by aussie
    time will tell, not even Warne or Murali set the world on fire with their initial test performances.
    Few did, but most of the good players showed pretty obvious potential (don't know about Warne and Murali).
    To date, Panesar has done nothing of the sort.

  11. #26
    Hall of Fame Member FaaipDeOiad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    19,102
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard
    Few did, but most of the good players showed pretty obvious potential (don't know about Warne and Murali).
    To date, Panesar has done nothing of the sort.
    Since when do you ever give any consideration to potential? Your first instinct with every player is to rubbish them unless they have an awesome first class record, which obviously no young, inexperienced player is going to have.

    Warne got hammered for 200 odd runs on his debut, and only took one wicket, and dropped a catch off his own bowling. He was overweight, inaccurate and inexperienced. If it wasn't for Allan Border spotting his ability and putting a word in with the selectors he might not have played test cricket again for years, if ever.

    Glenn McGrath barely did a thing for his first half a dozen tests, at least in terms of actual wicket taking, and it wasn't until the West Indies tour in 1995 that he turned good bowling into good returns.
    I know a place where a royal flush
    Can never beat a pair

  12. #27
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Err, yes.
    That was the point I'm making.
    Tell me, please - how many players have I rubbished on Test debut (or before) that have turned-out to be anything remotely other than poor?
    Pretty much every time I've said someone's been poor they've turned-out that way - usually for a long time.
    I didn't see the debuts of Warne or McGrath, so you don't know what I'd have said about them.

  13. #28
    Hall of Fame Member FaaipDeOiad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    19,102
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard
    Err, yes.
    That was the point I'm making.
    Tell me, please - how many players have I rubbished on Test debut (or before) that have turned-out to be anything remotely other than poor?
    Pretty much every time I've said someone's been poor they've turned-out that way - usually for a long time.
    I didn't see the debuts of Warne or McGrath, so you don't know what I'd have said about them.
    We're working in a pretty short timeframe, aren't we? It usually takes more than a few months to be proven wrong on a prediction as broad as a player's whole career and ability as a cricketer. Given that you rubbish everyone though, I'd imagine you'll be wrong eventually.

    Asif is a name that springs to mind of a guy who's bowled brilliantly recently that I seem to recall you trashing in the past. Flintoff obviously you blasted for a long time, and I can't imagine you liked Simon Jones much given his first class average.

  14. #29
    Hall of Fame Member aussie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Cricket
    Posts
    16,845
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard
    Few did, but most of the good players showed pretty obvious potential (don't know about Warne and Murali).
    To date, Panesar has done nothing of the sort.
    you had the television off during the nagpur test?

  15. #30
    Hall of Fame Member aussie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Cricket
    Posts
    16,845
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard
    That he's played only 1 full season, and would almost certainly have achieved far more on the West Indies tour?
    "Being the most impressive young X in the country" is all the more reason NOT to be thrown in the deep end IMO. And in India Panesar did nothing - absoluely nothing - so it hence it was a waste of time taking him. Would've been better to pick Blackwell and let him get slogged, telling us all what many already knew - he's useless.
    you've lost it.

    How could you said Panesar did nothing & it was a waste or time picking him & England were better off picking Blackwell to get slogged , come on now.

    You are sounding as if you didn't see a ball he bowled in India & you are making your arguement on stats. I cant tell you this for the majority he was very accurate hardly bowled bad spells, at this stage he doesn't have much variation & at times i felt the Indian batsmen got accustomed to his on dimensional bowling. But his contribution on the tour was far from useless

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 16
    Last Post: 07-12-2005, 11:24 AM
  2. Room to let.
    By Nate in forum General
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 04-09-2005, 06:30 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •