I'll put it this way - I don't think the bowling of Watson and North is less likely to have an impact on the series than the difference between the batting of Hauritz/Johnson and Broad/Swann.
Rejecting 'analysis by checklist' and 'skill absolutism' since Dec '09
Rejecting 'selection deontology' since Mar '15
The double negative in your post hurts my brain
I know what you're saying, but i guess my point is that if I had to pick to just have four bowlers or to declare at seven down each time, I'd go with the former. I'm aware that I am stretching it there though and given that Watson can be considered frontline well bowling well, then the filth defo have the edge in terms of bowling depth
No doubt, Australia is carrying good form into the Ashes.....
On Pattinson, I actually thought he did ok on debut leaving all the controversy over his selection aside.Im not sold on Bresnan either, not sure why he's been given an extended run in the side over some superior bowlers.
Tendulkar = the most overated player EVER!!
Beckham = the most overated footballer EVER!!
Vassell = the biggest disgrace since rikki clarke!!
Yes I think Onions will be a miss for us, he bowls swiftly and consistenly on a tight off-stump line with just enough seam movement to trouble the batsman. He'll run in all day and be at the batsman. If we fail to win the series, I don't think he is that integral to the side at this stage to say it would be because he wasn't available, but he would strengthen the side if he was fit.
How appropriate, no Onions to make the Aussies cry.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)