Appreciating cricket's greatest legend ever - HD Bird...............Funniest post (intentionally) ever.....Runner-up.....Third.....Fourthcricket player"; "Bob"), 1/11/1990-15/4/2006
(Accidental) founder of Twenty20 Is Boring Society. Click and post to sign-up.
Nice work Martyn and Rich. Both good reads there.
WWCC - Loyaulte Mi Lie
"People make me happy.. not places.. people"
"When a man is tired of London, he is tired of life." - Samuel Johnson
"Hope is the fuel of progress and fear is the prison in which you put yourself" - Tony Benn
Enjoyed this line:
Turns out even fitting that he was out for an even 150.In the week which saw Michael Jackson depart for an enigmatic 50, it was somehow appropriate that Mike Hussey shrugged off his year-long impersonation of a zombie from the "Thriller" clip to post an off-the-wall 140 odd not out (sorry).
The articles have been fantastic so far.
Cricket Web's 2013/14 Premier League Tipping Champion
- As featured in The Independent.
"I don't believe a word of Pietersen's book, but then I don't believe a word anyone else has said either."
- Simon Barnes renders further comment on KP's autobiography superfluous in a sentence
My question is, why gamble on Harmison playing well when you get much better value on Sidebottom? Sidey's surely more likely to hit form- after all, his peak was barely a year ago. And not only that, but if he does hit form, he'll be far more dangerous than an on-form Harmison will be. The value just isn't there with punting on Harmison.
Could make the same argument re: Onions if you prefer.
Last edited by Uppercut; 04-07-2009 at 06:32 AM.
Onions has a strong case for selection, he is the leading FC wicket taker in the country after all, but has been outbowled by Harmison in this match and, worringly, hasn't hurried the batsmen in the second innings as he did in the first. A pessimistic reading might be that having had a look at him and deduced he's faster than he looks his shock value has been reduced.
I'm not advocating Harmison's selection, I hasten to add, but I don't subscribe to what I'll call the Dickinson fallacy: that he's never been any good. He supports this by taking out the games where he's performed well and citing the subsequent mediocrity. It's the worst kind of reductive thinking because it's true of any player: good performances are dismissed as aberrations, bad ones that fit his position seized on as irrefutable proof. Sentences like "Steve Harmison, for all his supposed pace and bounce, isn't a man I ever feel is going to take any wickets when he comes on to bowl", seem to sail dangerously close to this.
But I'd take Onions.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)