Page 3 of 331 FirstFirst 123451353103 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 4957

Thread: *Official* Second Test at Lords

  1. #31
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by Jamee999 View Post
    Strauss
    Cook
    Bopara
    Pietersen
    Collingwood
    Prior
    Flintoff
    Swann
    Onions
    Harmison
    Anderson
    Swap the just-about-acceptable-at-nine Anderson and the rank eleven rabbit Onions around and you've got England's most sensible team at the current time, and the one that beyond question should have played the First Test (bar Broad who clearly had to play there). Though as I say above, that Broad will be omitted is pretty unlikely.

    There is no way on Earth that any of the top seven, nor Anderson, nor Swann, should be dropped. There would be a fair case for playing Swann, on tactical basis, if it was an obviously seaming, obviously non-turning, deck - not that I think such a thing will happen in either case.

    How on Earth anyone continues to press for Rashid's inclusion is beyond me, now that everyone has seen at first hand how anodyne he generally is in the First-Class game, with the Lions-Australia match.
    Last edited by Richard; 11-07-2009 at 05:31 PM.
    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. #32
    Eternal Optimist / Cricket Web Staff Member GIMH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    On a trip to the moon
    Posts
    48,440
    Bopara has to play, averaging 43 in the series according to FCA
    Quote Originally Posted by DingDong View Post
    gimh has now surpassed richard as the greatest cw member ever imo

    RIP Craigos. A true CW legend. You will be missed.

  3. #33
    Global Moderator Matt79's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Colll----ingggg---woooooodddd!!!!
    Posts
    17,426
    That lbw was not mote unrealistic than some dropped catches that make the cut for FCA sometimes. In anycase Doctrove's mistake has distracted conversation away from just how poor an effort that 'shot' from Bopara was.

    Anyway the suggestion from me to drop him was in jest. Think he has enough about him to be worth persisting with for a while, but not sure he's a #3 against a decent attack.
    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.

  4. #34
    International Coach PhoenixFire's Avatar
    Curveball Champion!
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Bitch please, I'm from West Yorkshire
    Posts
    14,988
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    Swap the just-about-acceptable-at-nine Anderson and the rank eleven rabbit Onions around and you've got England's most sensible team at the current time, and the one that beyond question should have played the First Test (bar Broad who clearly had to play there). Though as I say above, that Broad will be omitted is pretty unlikely.

    There is no way on Earth that any of the top seven, nor Anderson, nor Swann, should be dropped. There would be a fair case for playing Swann, on tactical basis, if it was an obviously seaming, obviously non-turning, deck - not that I think such a thing will happen in either case.

    How on Earth anyone continues to press for Rashid's inclusion is beyond me, now that everyone has seen at first hand how anodyne he generally is in the First-Class game, with the Lions-Australia match.
    Are you saying we should pick Harmison then??
    Quote Originally Posted by Top_Cat View Post
    1) Had double pneumonia as a kid, as did my twin sis. Doctors told my parents to pray that we lived through the night. Dad said **** off, I'm an atheist, you ****s better save my kids, etc. Then prayed anyway.


  5. #35
    Eternal Optimist / Cricket Web Staff Member GIMH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    On a trip to the moon
    Posts
    48,440
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt79 View Post
    That lbw was not mote unrealistic than some dropped catches that make the cut for FCA sometimes. In anycase Doctrove's mistake has distracted conversation away from just how poor an effort that 'shot' from Bopara was.

    Anyway the suggestion from me to drop him was in jest. Think he has enough about him to be worth persisting with for a while, but not sure he's a #3 against a decent attack.
    Haha yeah, knew you were joking, but you know me, take something and run with it (a bit like good arld Burgey and mints). I definitely think he is worth persisting with (35, and an unlucky to be out 8 is certainly not an instant dropping offence IMO) but you're probably right about him not being a 3. In truth I think the selectors would probably prefer him to be in the middle-order, but we have nobody to bat at 3. I'd be happy to see Pietersen bumped up one but it clearly won't happen.

  6. #36
    International Coach PhoenixFire's Avatar
    Curveball Champion!
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Bitch please, I'm from West Yorkshire
    Posts
    14,988
    Yeah, I see Bopara as a 4/5/6/ rather than a 3 TBH, but as you said, it's more of a case of not having anyone else we can stick at 3 other than KP.

  7. #37
    Global Moderator Matt79's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Colll----ingggg---woooooodddd!!!!
    Posts
    17,426
    Could Collingwood do the job?

  8. #38
    Cricket Spectator alw1971's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    West Yorkshire, England
    Posts
    45
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    How on Earth anyone continues to press for Rashid's inclusion is beyond me, now that everyone has seen at first hand how anodyne he generally is in the First-Class game, with the Lions-Australia match.
    I don't think this such a bad decision.

    Monty is not good enough, can't bat or field.

    Swann did not get a wicket although he did get runs.

    Rashid is young, attacking, will get better and can bat.

    The problem we have is getting wickets, Swann did not get any, who is going to get them?

    If you select Swann for the next test and he fails with ball again, what would you then decide?

    Our spinners failed on a turning pitch, can't see Rashid being any worse myself?

    JMO

  9. #39
    BARNES OUT dontcloseyoureyes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    WILDCARD, BITCHES
    Posts
    28,289
    inb4 avatar deletion
    The one, the only CW Black
    Code:
    47.3 W Coppinger to Heads 
        Smacked the ball straight into the groin of Iwuajoku who has fallen over, 
        miraculously with the ball still caught in his scrotal area! Out!

  10. #40
    Cricketer Of The Year zaremba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Burgess Hill
    Posts
    8,932
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    Swap the just-about-acceptable-at-nine Anderson and the rank eleven rabbit Onions around and you've got England's most sensible team at the current time, and the one that beyond question should have played the First Test (bar Broad who clearly had to play there). Though as I say above, that Broad will be omitted is pretty unlikely.

    There is no way on Earth that any of the top seven, nor Anderson, nor Swann, should be dropped. There would be a fair case for playing Swann, on tactical basis, if it was an obviously seaming, obviously non-turning, deck - not that I think such a thing will happen in either case.

    How on Earth anyone continues to press for Rashid's inclusion is beyond me, now that everyone has seen at first hand how anodyne he generally is in the First-Class game, with the Lions-Australia match.
    Loving your endorsement of Prior

  11. #41
    Hall of Fame Member TT Boy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    .
    Posts
    16,568

    Icon2

    Quote Originally Posted by Matt79 View Post
    Could Collingwood do the job?
    No. KP should bat 3 but like fellow South African Allan Lamb, he doesn't fancy it.

  12. #42
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt79 View Post
    That lbw was not mote unrealistic than some dropped catches that make the cut for FCA sometimes.
    Ironic that you pointed-out Corrin's inadequate English just a matter of hours ago...

  13. #43
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by alw1971 View Post
    I don't think this such a bad decision.

    Monty is not good enough, can't bat or field.

    Swann did not get a wicket although he did get runs.

    Rashid is young, attacking, will get better and can bat.

    The problem we have is getting wickets, Swann did not get any, who is going to get them?

    If you select Swann for the next test and he fails with ball again, what would you then decide?

    Our spinners failed on a turning pitch, can't see Rashid being any worse myself?

    JMO
    Rashid can quite easily be just as bad. All evidence points to Swann being better at this point in time. Rashid is currently a not-particularly-effective bowler. No, he is not an excellent attacking option at all.

  14. #44
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by PhoenixFire View Post
    Are you saying we should pick Harmison then??
    As I said...
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    Harmison for Broad would have some merit (can't see Harmison being successful really, but nor can I see Broad being), but I feel Plunkett for Broad would possibly make more sense... and that's virtually none whatsoever. At least Plunkett is a hopeless bowler who can bat a bit, same as Broad. Though he's nowhere near as good as Broad with the bat.

  15. #45
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by TT Boy View Post
    No. KP should bat 3 but like fellow South African Allan Lamb, he doesn't fancy it.
    Why should he bat three if he doesn't fancy it? If your best player wants to bat four and feels his potential is maximised there, that's probably the best bet. And why on Earth should Lamb have batted three when Gower was the automatic choice there for 90% or more of his career?

Page 3 of 331 FirstFirst 123451353103 ... LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. The best minnow basher of this decade
    By Shri in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 84
    Last Post: 10-12-2009, 02:04 PM
  2. CW XI Test History
    By Mr Mxyzptlk in forum Statistics and Records
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 29-11-2007, 05:34 AM
  3. Which was the best decade of the twentieth century?
    By cover drive man in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 81
    Last Post: 08-07-2007, 03:48 AM
  4. Go for 50 Tendulkar
    By Pratters in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 72
    Last Post: 16-12-2004, 09:16 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
  •