Tendulkar = the most overated player EVER!!
Beckham = the most overated footballer EVER!!
Vassell = the biggest disgrace since rikki clarke!!
The Lewis decision is fair, I'm a big fan of his but his time has definitely come and gone for international cricket.
Yep, I am over that as well. However he should have played in every game of the 2007 world cup and it is only due to sheer incompetence that he didnt.
Would probably be the best squad avaliable IMO.
RIP Craig Walsh (Craig) 1985-2012
Proudly supporting the #2 cricketer of all time.
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."
No Trott is a complete aberration.
Mahmood has 2 wickets @77.5 in List A this year with an ER of 5. Please don't tell me they are picking him on twenty20 form.
Out of left field Kyle Hogg has 10@18 with ER 3.76 and a much better career record and also has email@example.com. In reality though he'd probably have to open the bowling and sometimes bowl striaght through (a la Jon Lewis) but with Sidey in the side that's not going to happen. Still a damn sight better than Mahmood in any case
I'm far from keen on the idea of Kyle Hogg playing ODIs, but there are many I'd rather not have than him. Yes, Mahmood is obviously one.
Always liked the look of Hogg as a one-day cricketer at domestic level.
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.
I suppose it's fair to exclude his first 5 games as I generally tend to do such a thing when it's divorced from the rest of a career, but even so, he was hardly an outstanding player. For starters, he was supposedly a decent lower-order bat, which was for a while very far from the truth, then a little more true then for a short time towards the end a little more true again.
Then to the suit which really mattered - his bowling.
In 2000/01 he went OK (4 games, ER 4.21-an-over, average 46.33);
In 2001/02 he was mostly poor (8 games, ER 4.76-an-over, average 33.33);
In the summer of 2002 and the autumn of 2002/03 he was poor bar a couple of games at Lord's (7 games, ER 5.23-an-over, average 32.86; excluding the two Lord's games 5 games, ER 6-an-over, average 72)
In the summer of 2003 he started poorly (first 5 games producing an ER of 4.26-an-over and an average of 175) before doing better at the very end (last 2 games producing 10-29-0 and 3-3-2);
Then his only particularly good work came in the summer of 2004 (8 games, 2 in which he didn't bowl, ER 3.5-an-over, average 25.57);
In 2004/05 and the summer of 2005 he was pretty poor (13 games, ER 4.52-an-over, average 55.33).
Really, I think Giles' worth in ODI cricket was overestimated. For someone who mostly took so few wickets, he had to be conceding less than 4-an-over, and he wasn't. Even though he was almost always bowled at the right times (outside Powerplays, not at the death).
Last edited by Richard; 04-07-2008 at 09:03 AM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)