Cricket Player Manager
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 88

Thread: Who is for the chop?

  1. #46
    Request Your Custom Title Now! Mr Mxyzptlk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Trinidad and Tobago (Trinidad)
    Posts
    36,795
    Quote Originally Posted by McKanga View Post
    My 4 most doubtful after Ist innings in Sydney:
    * Pannesar is a good bowler but a very cheap batsman. He is a deserved cult figure but must be good for 20+ runs an innings (persist)
    Why? You pick your bowlers to bowl first and foremost. And at the moment, he's probably England's best bowler. I don't see why a good bowler needs to contribute 20 runs per innings if he's a good enough bowler. Courtney Walsh certainly didn't.
    Sreesanth said, "Next ball he was beaten and I said, 'is this the King Charles Lara? Who is this impostor, moving around nervously? I should have kept my mouth shut for the next ball - mind you, it was a length ball - Lara just pulled it over the church beyond the boundary! He is a true legend."


  2. #47
    Request Your Custom Title Now! Mr Mxyzptlk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Trinidad and Tobago (Trinidad)
    Posts
    36,795
    Quote Originally Posted by McKanga View Post
    * Read is laughably #6 batsman but keeps well. When better players are available to England should bat #8 (persist)
    ...Read doesn't bat at 6...

  3. #48
    Request Your Custom Title Now! Mr Mxyzptlk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Trinidad and Tobago (Trinidad)
    Posts
    36,795
    Quote Originally Posted by wpdavid View Post
    2. The myth that we're spoilt for choice with top notch bowlers
    I didn't hear of this myth. As far as I know, people always realized that there wasn't much outside of England's Ashes 2005 attack. That's why Collingwood came in for Simon Jones in the 5th Test, because England were better served playing an extra batsman, given the lack of quality choices to replace Jones in the bowling attack.

  4. #49
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Matteh's Avatar
    Boredmeeting Champion!
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Midlands
    Posts
    22,939
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Mxyzptlk View Post
    Why? You pick your bowlers to bowl first and foremost. And at the moment, he's probably England's best bowler. I don't see why a good bowler needs to contribute 20 runs per innings if he's a good enough bowler. Courtney Walsh certainly didn't.
    Think he was having a go at the fielding or loose bowling rather than his batting.
    Quote Originally Posted by cpr View Post
    3. Although Cow Tipping is a hilarious student game in backwater towns such as Bangor, there really is no need for Mitchell to cover one side of the cow in superglue


  5. #50
    Request Your Custom Title Now! Mr Mxyzptlk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Trinidad and Tobago (Trinidad)
    Posts
    36,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Matteh View Post
    Think he was having a go at the fielding or loose bowling rather than his batting.
    "Pannesar is a good bowler but a very cheap batsman. He is a deserved cult figure but must be good for 20+ runs an innings"

    Where do you get that from?

  6. #51
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Matteh's Avatar
    Boredmeeting Champion!
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Midlands
    Posts
    22,939
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Mxyzptlk View Post
    "Pannesar is a good bowler but a very cheap batsman. He is a deserved cult figure but must be good for 20+ runs an innings"

    Where do you get that from?
    Sounds like he's giving the 20+ runs an innings away rather than scoring them.

  7. #52
    Request Your Custom Title Now! Mr Mxyzptlk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Trinidad and Tobago (Trinidad)
    Posts
    36,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Matteh View Post
    Sounds like he's giving the 20+ runs an innings away rather than scoring them.
    He called him a very cheap batsman. That's a very clear reference to his contributions with the bat, or lack of contributions, rather.

  8. #53
    U19 12th Man
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Devon
    Posts
    218
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Mxyzptlk View Post
    Because apparently Mahmood can bat too.

    Not sure that the Strauss-Cook partnership has been successful enough to call settled or anything close to it. I wouldn't mind seeing Cook at 3 again. But I also wouldn't want Trescothick in the team again until he scores big in County cricket.

    Vaughan is such a good captain that I'd keep him as long as he's guiding England well. I'm not sold on Strauss as captain, and as far as I'm concerned, you don't make someone captain by default. A captain shouldn't be there simply because "he's in the team anyway."

    Solid wicketkeeping and a high20s average would be enough to get him through the World Cup IMO.

    Panesar at 8? Extremely scary. Especially with an untried wicketkeeper-batsman at number 6. Hoggard > Harmison and Panesar. Tremlett is definitely the best batsman of the 5 listed there and Jones actually has some good potential.
    Openers - I don't know I just think that in a couple of years time it'll be Cook and Strauss anyway. So why not now.

    With Vaughan - I don't feel he's offered enough with the bat recently. People seem to harp on about his 3 150's but that was four years ago , and for me he hasn't done alot since (granted his 150 at Old Trafford). With the captaincy , they selected Flintoff off 3 good matches in India , and three pretty poor ones against Sri Lanka. I think Strauss captained well and his batting improved while he was captain. I disagree about your selection of a captain. A captain should be selected from the team , not put in, And I don't believe that Vaughan has the quality with the bat.

    Nixon - When I said 2 ODI series I meant the Commenwealth Bank Series and the world cup.

    I think we should put him there. He's looked decent with the bat and he can stick around when needed (the 60 he put on with Collingwood in India). I don't see any other choice. I definatly agree with Tremlett , but if Jones isn't fit , which I hope he is , then Tremlett would fit well at number 8.

  9. #54
    Request Your Custom Title Now! Mr Mxyzptlk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Trinidad and Tobago (Trinidad)
    Posts
    36,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Bamber View Post
    A captain should be selected from the team , not put in, And I don't believe that Vaughan has the quality with the bat.
    A captain should not be selected by default. A player may be established in the side and an allround excellent player, but that doesn't make him the best choice for captain. I'm not yet convinced by Strauss, though he is certainly a better leader than Flintoff.

    I believe Vaughan is one of the best captains in the world, if not the best. And given the likes of Pietersen, Cook, Strauss and Bell aroud him (and Collingwood, I suppose), England would benefit more from a very good captain who contributes 35 or so runs per innings than a mediocre captain who contributes 40+.

  10. #55
    Hall of Fame Member aussie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Cricket
    Posts
    16,845
    Quote Originally Posted by wpdavid View Post
    3. The myth that Flintoff is a test number 6.
    Not against anyone good, he isn't. Not consistently, anyway. Give the man a break, please.
    This is not true yo, between the the 2003 WC to now Flintoff has a very good record batting down the order for England. Even if it you want to narrow it down to innings solely @ # 6 it goes down by 3 points but in the last 4 years he has only failed in 3 series @ 6, the current series which i say its down to him not having enough cricket leading up to the series, SRI 2003 & SA 2004/05 (but he made up for that with the ball). So overall Freddie has been very consistent @ 6 since turning his game around in 2003 & in the future i can see him scoring runs againts most other international attacks.

  11. #56
    Request Your Custom Title Now! Mr Mxyzptlk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Trinidad and Tobago (Trinidad)
    Posts
    36,795
    Quote Originally Posted by aussie View Post
    This is not true yo, between the the 2003 WC to now Flintoff has a very good record batting down the order for England. Even if it you want to narrow it down to innings solely @ # 6 it goes down by 3 points but in the last 4 years he has only failed in 3 series @ 6, the current series which i say its down to him not having enough cricket leading up to the series, SRI 2003 & SA 2004/05 (but he made up for that with the ball). So overall Freddie has been very consistent @ 6 since turning his game around in 2003 & in the future i can see him scoring runs againts most other international attacks.
    Why must he be made to bat at number 6, regardless of whether he is good enough?

    He's already England's best seam bowler and the talisman of the England team. If you can bring in a specialist to bat at 6 and relieve Flintoff and 7, why not do so? After all, he is a bowling allrounder and the less burden he has to carry with the bat, the better it is for his role with the ball, surely. Number 6 is a critical position in a batting lineup, because it's typically where the specialist batting ends. It's the point at which you can start to gauge the kind of depth a team has with the bat.

    Flintoff shouldn't bat at number 6 whether or not he is capable of doing so. I'm sure many players are capable of batting at number 6 for England. You choose the best suited to the needs of the team.

  12. #57
    Global Moderator Matt79's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Colll----ingggg---woooooodddd!!!!
    Posts
    17,426
    Quote Originally Posted by Goughy View Post
    Well its the argument againt 5 bowlers. There just are not enough overs for 5 bowlers to be used fully (I know England only bowled for 2 sessions in this particular case) and if you are looking to take wickets why would you go for your 5th choice bowler (Im putting Anderson ahead of Saj) ahead of your main 2 or 3?

    There is little logic behind bowling a bowler you think gives you less chance of taking a wicket ahead bowlers you think are better.

    By their very nature, a 5th bowler is not as highly regarded as a 1,2,or 3 and its hard to find any point in the game where you would prefer a lesser bowler bowling than a better one.
    Top-post, sums up my feelings on the five bowlers vs four bowlers issue perfectly - particularly given the ongoing argument from some the Freddie needs to bat at 6 rather than 7 so you can include Saj Mahmood in the team. I've put it in my sig tla...
    Last edited by Matt79; 04-01-2007 at 05:31 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Irfan
    We may not like you, your filthy rich coffers or your ratbag scum of supporters but by god do we respect you as a football team
    GOOD OLD COLLINGWOOD - PREMIERS IN 2010

    Is Cam White, Is Good.

  13. #58
    Hall of Fame Member aussie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Cricket
    Posts
    16,845
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Mxyzptlk View Post
    Why must he be made to bat at number 6, regardless of whether he is good enough?

    He's already England's best seam bowler and the talisman of the England team. If you can bring in a specialist to bat at 6 and relieve Flintoff and 7, why not do so? After all, he is a bowling allrounder and the less burden he has to carry with the bat, the better it is for his role with the ball, surely. Number 6 is a critical position in a batting lineup, because it's typically where the specialist batting ends. It's the point at which you can start to gauge the kind of depth a team has with the bat.

    Flintoff shouldn't bat at number 6 whether or not he is capable of doing so. I'm sure many players are capable of batting at number 6 for England. You choose the best suited to the needs of the team.
    All i'm saying in that post is that Flintoff is very capable of batting @ 6, showing those who have repeatedly said during this series that he can't.

    Overall your point is valid here, but the thing is that i've been saying is that i really can't see England breaking up the 5-man attack once all of Harmo/Oggie/Jones/Monty + Freddie are fit. So in that case Flintoff should stick @ 6.

    Flintoff @ 7 does look good no doubt, but as i told you in the other thread, the keeper problem & # 8 dilemma comes up again. You are advocating Read but he's got to make runs regardless if his keep is good. The days of picking a keeper based on on glovework & disregarding his efforts with the willow are LONGGGGGGGG gone yo.

    The idea of Freddie batting @ 7 depends on the fitness of Jones & the quality of the keeper.

  14. #59
    Soutie Langeveldt's Avatar
    Pinball Champion!
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Devon, UK
    Posts
    29,560
    Absolutely ridiculous Ashes series for England.. Surely Saj Mahmood needs to go never to return, as do Read and Jones.. But who on earth could replace them? (Apart from Lewis for Mahmood as I've been saying for ages and ages)
    Quote Originally Posted by vic_orthdox View Post
    Don't like using my iPod dock. Ruins battery life too much.
    Quote Originally Posted by benchmark00 View Post
    Thanks Dick Smith. Will remember to subscribe to your newsletter for more electronic fun facts.

    ****.

  15. #60
    World Traveller Craig's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Super Happy Fun Sugar Lollipop Land!
    Posts
    34,131
    Quote Originally Posted by Langeveldt View Post
    Absolutely ridiculous Ashes series for England.. Surely Saj Mahmood needs to go never to return, as do Read and Jones.. But who on earth could replace them? (Apart from Lewis for Mahmood as I've been saying for ages and ages)
    Well I suggest they invent the time machine, go back about 14 years ago and recruit Mark Boucher, Shaun Pollock, and Jacques Kallis and invent some British passports for them as well.
    Beware the lollipop of mediocrity. Lick once and you suck forever...

    RIP Fardin Qayyumi, a true legend of CW

    Quote Originally Posted by Boobidy View Post
    Bradman never had to face quicks like Sharma and Irfan Pathan. He wouldn't of lasted a ball against those 2, not to mention a spinner like Sehwag.

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Round 7 match team previews and match reports
    By andyc in forum World Club Cricket
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 17-09-2006, 07:32 AM
  2. Top Cat For The Chop
    By kenway in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 10-09-2004, 01:53 PM
  3. Inzamam For The Chop
    By sledger in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 02-09-2004, 11:57 PM

Posting Permissions

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