Cricket Betting Site Betway
Page 6 of 24 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 350
Like Tree124Likes

Thread: Selection errors tally thread

  1. #76
    Englishman BoyBrumby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Gone too soon
    Posts
    47,096
    Richard's becoming a parody of himself now, "no-one had any reason to suspect either would bowl as well as they have done." What crap. He pre-supposes his own correctness and then doggedly refuses to accept that actually he might've been wrong, despite the overwhelming weight of evidence to the contrary.

    No-one had any reason apart, of course, from the selectors who actually made the ballsy call to bring in Hilfenhaus. Much as he'd like to think otherwise chaps like Messers Boon, Hughes, Cox and Hilditch who've actually seen the bloke play on a semi-regular basis saw something in him which (hey!) gave them reason to suspect he would bowl as well as he did.
    Cricket Web's current Premier League Tipping Champion

    - As featured in The Independent.

    "Ben Stokes, that most unlikely saint, worked the second of the two miracles he needs for his canonisation." - The Guardian's Andy Bell on the England all-rounder's Headingley ton

  2. #77
    International Coach
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    england
    Posts
    10,324
    The "tally" stands at 0-0. Onions would have been (and always will be) fodder on a good wicket against good batsman. Australia might chosen Clark, but it was not a glaring "error" not to.

  3. #78
    Request Your Custom Title Now! Uppercut's Avatar
    Tournaments Won: 1
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    .
    Posts
    30,102
    Quote Originally Posted by Lillian Thomson View Post
    The "tally" stands at 0-0. Onions would have been (and always will be) fodder on a good wicket against good batsman. Australia might chosen Clark, but it was not a glaring "error" not to.
    Even if Onions wasn't the right call, Monty Panesar was still a mistake. I'd have backed Gary Keedy or Shaun Udal ahead of him. They might have taken figures along the lines of 1/150 too but at least they'd have been less of a liability with the bat and in the field.

  4. #79
    World Traveller Craig's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Super Happy Fun Sugar Lollipop Land!
    Posts
    34,127
    I absolutely can't stand Hauritz. I mean in the first innings he gets smacked around by Swann and Anderson, and hell they even reverse sweep him (that has to be a insult to Hauritz) and yet in both innings he ends up with reasonable figures and his Test stats are not that bad. I wish Australia were touring India so they could pick him, and Sehwag, Gambhir, SRT, Laxman, and Dhoni can hit him into the stands on a regular basis.
    Fred Tetanus likes this.
    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.


  5. #80
    International Coach
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    england
    Posts
    10,324
    Quote Originally Posted by Uppercut View Post
    Even if Onions wasn't the right call, Monty Panesar was still a mistake. I'd have backed Gary Keedy or Shaun Udal ahead of him. They might have taken figures along the lines of 1/150 too but at least they'd have been less of a liability with the bat and in the field.
    England don't have any Test quality spinners. Swann has done well against moderate opposition but like it or not Panesar is still the best spinner (best of a poor bunch). Udal and Keedy shouldn't be considered under any circumstances. If England actually had high quality seamers they wouldn't have played two spinner despite all the talk about the pitch.

  6. #81
    Request Your Custom Title Now! Uppercut's Avatar
    Tournaments Won: 1
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    .
    Posts
    30,102
    Look at Monty's record this season, and in every test he's played in the last year, and in every test he's played on a pitch similar to the Cardiff one in his career. If England felt he was going to take any wickets, they're ****ing stupid. If they didn't then they should have played an extra batsman. Bad decision either way.

  7. #82
    International Coach tooextracool's Avatar
    Dick Quicks Island Adventure Champion!
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    not far away from you
    Posts
    14,433
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    Like it or not, no-one had any reason to suspect either would bowl as well as they have done. Anyone who claims they did is lying.

    And no, no-one deserves the slightest credit for either Hilfenhaus or Hauritz bowling well and reasonably respectively than the bowlers themselves.

    Still, not many are going to accept that no selector has the power to look into the future, so there's little point me wasting my time arguing the matter with said minded people.
    Like it or not, the selection of Hilfenhaus was a master-stroke that took a lot of b8lls to pull off. To drop a bowler who is on ranked one of the top 5 test bowlers in the world for an unproven bowler like Hilfenhaus might not have seemed like the right decision at first, but given the conditions that we got at Cardiff it was very plausible that Clark would have been rendered ineffective.
    Tendulkar = the most overated player EVER!!
    Beckham = the most overated footballer EVER!!
    Vassell = the biggest disgrace since rikki clarke!!

  8. #83
    International Coach
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    england
    Posts
    10,324
    Quote Originally Posted by tooextracool View Post
    Like it or not, the selection of Hilfenhaus was a master-stroke that took a lot of b8lls to pull off. To drop a bowler who is on ranked one of the top 5 test bowlers in the world for an unproven bowler like Hilfenhaus might not have seemed like the right decision at first, but given the conditions that we got at Cardiff it was very plausible that Clark would have been rendered ineffective.
    That's not how it works in Richard's world though. There's no such thing as a master-stroke. It's just an error that came off. It remains in the error tally nonetheless.

  9. #84
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by Pup Clarke View Post
    Interesting that you somehow get to see Aussie Domestic cricket rather regularly...
    I don't, but I do take note of it. In that, I read scorecards and read what people write.

    What's more, domestic cricket isn't the only cricket Australians play.
    Fred Tetanus likes this.
    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

  10. #85
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by Lillian Thomson View Post
    The "tally" stands at 0-0. Onions would have been (and always will be) fodder on a good wicket against good batsman.
    So if you had the choice between Onions and Panesar you'd have picked ten men?
    Fred Tetanus likes this.

  11. #86
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by tooextracool View Post
    Like it or not, the selection of Hilfenhaus was a master-stroke that took a lot of b8lls to pull off. To drop a bowler who is on ranked one of the top 5 test bowlers in the world for an unproven bowler like Hilfenhaus might not have seemed like the right decision at first, but given the conditions that we got at Cardiff it was very plausible that Clark would have been rendered ineffective.
    It's also very possible that he would've been rendered effective. People are essentially saying "Hilfenhaus bowled well and Clark might not have bowled well so the decision was the right one". Which, clearly, makes as little sense as the notion that selectors know how someone is going to bowl.
    Fred Tetanus likes this.

  12. #87
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by BoyBrumby View Post
    Richard's becoming a parody of himself now, "no-one had any reason to suspect either would bowl as well as they have done." What crap.
    Actually it isn't. Read the posts of every single person at the time the game started. The number of people expecting Hilfenhaus and Hauritz to bowl well could be numbered approximately zero. Ergo, it makes perfect sense to say that no-one had reason to suspect it - because they didn't. Evidence all pointed in the other direction. Now that hindsight can be used, and we know that something happened which there was little indication was going to happen, we can be wise after the event.
    He pre-supposes his own correctness and then doggedly refuses to accept that actually he might've been wrong, despite the overwhelming weight of evidence to the contrary.
    There's no evidence at all about how Clark would have bowled on that deck - because he didn't bowl on it. Ergo, I, or anyone else, cannot be and am not wrong in supposing that he could have bowled better than Hilfenhaus.
    Fred Tetanus likes this.

  13. #88
    Hall of Fame Member aussie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Fine Leg/Technical Area
    Posts
    17,446
    Quote Originally Posted by Craig View Post
    I absolutely can't stand Hauritz. I mean in the first innings he gets smacked around by Swann and Anderson, and hell they even reverse sweep him (that has to be a insult to Hauritz) and yet in both innings he ends up with reasonable figures and his Test stats are not that bad. I wish Australia were touring India so they could pick him, and Sehwag, Gambhir, SRT, Laxman, and Dhoni can hit him into the stands on a regular basis.
    Haaa, real talk yo...
    Fred Tetanus likes this.

  14. #89
    International Coach tooextracool's Avatar
    Dick Quicks Island Adventure Champion!
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    not far away from you
    Posts
    14,433
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    It's also very possible that he would've been rendered effective. People are essentially saying "Hilfenhaus bowled well and Clark might not have bowled well so the decision was the right one". Which, clearly, makes as little sense as the notion that selectors know how someone is going to bowl.
    No one, not even the selectors, know for sure how anyone is going to bowl. The bottom line was that Hilfenhaus was a conditions related selection, which involved thoughtful thinking because in terms of percentages, the Australian selectors knew that he was more likely to do better than Clark given Clark's recent appalling performances on the slower tracks.

  15. #90
    International Captain Pup Clarke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Glasgow
    Posts
    6,677
    People are actually forgetting that Hilfenhaus was the man in possession - not Clark, so did Clark really deserve to be selected?
    Proud member of the Twenty20 is boring society


    E-Mail - liamhowgate@yahoo.co.uk
    MSN - liamhowgate@hotmail.com

Page 6 of 24 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Posting Permissions

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