The Franklin selection is just to infuriate Wellington.
Can't Win Anything Lately Not Even a Toss
In New Zealand's last 10 matches in all forms of the game they have won the toss 5 times and lost it five times. In their last 6 matches they have lost the toss 5 times.
Still that isn't so bad now is it?
In Test matches we haven't won a toss since 2009, and have lost the toss 5 times in a row. In the last 10 matches we have only won the toss twice (against Pakistan and the last match against India in NZ).
Why does God hate us?
Um, until this match didn't Dhoni have a 10 in a row losing streak?
~ Cribbertarian ~
Rejecting 'analysis by checklist' and 'skill absolutism' since December 2009
Franklin should improve the team IMO. Drop Watling for him, even if that just means batting Franklin at 3.
McIntosh is so, so dire.
Originally Posted by Burgey
Franklin would mean we could keep going with our 2 man seam attack meaning Jeets may get another.
But Franklin having to bat 3 would be ITSTL. Would we move Williamson to 3 on his 2nd Test? No point in batting Franklin or Hopkins at 9 so one of Taylor, Ryder, Williamson has to bat 3.
Franklin might not play.
I seriously think he'd be a better selection than Watling there, although I think Watling is a lot ****ter than most people so it probably won't happen. It'd improve the team without making wholesale changes to the middle order. It's a bit out of the box, but it's not like it'd be messing with the career of a promising young batsman - he's tried and failed as a specialist batsman and recalled based on the balance his allround skills would give to the team, so he can bat where he's told IMO.
Last edited by Prince EWS; 08-11-2010 at 06:06 PM.
I would also rather Franklin at 3 TBH. Cannot be a more hopeless player of spin than ****ling.
Last edited by Halfpast_Yellow; 08-11-2010 at 06:42 PM.
My theory is that this is the moment where Bennett injured his groin.
Here are the stats from the first test for NZ's 3 main (fit) bowlers:
51 overs, 138 runs, 6 wickets, Avg 23, Econ rate 2.7
93 overs, 199 runs, 6 wickets, Avg 33, Econ rate 2.1
52 overs, 207 runs, 3 wickets, Avg 69, Econ rate 3.9
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)