Page 49 of 100 FirstFirst ... 3947484950515999 ... LastLast
Results 721 to 735 of 1492

Thread: *Official* VB Series - Australia, India & Zimbabwe

  1. #721
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Canberra (in body), Perth (in spirit), Nagoya (in the future)
    Posts
    1,258
    Did it ever occur to you, Rik, that the World Cup was last year and means nothing in the way of selections for current matches?

  2. #722
    Rik
    Rik is offline
    Cricketer Of The Year Rik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Shropshire, England
    Posts
    8,353
    Originally posted by furious_ged
    Harvey has played 3 times as many ODIs. Watson has barely had enough time to adjust to the international scene. If you look at his first class and list a figures they're not too shabby. Give him the chance to play 65 ODIs and he'll eclipse Harvey. Watson has come back with a better and stronger action. The only way that average is going is down.

    Besides, Ricky Ponting has said that Shane Watson is part of his and the selectors long-term plans, so you can take it up with him.
    Oh yes of course his bowling average is going down, just like his bowling average in FC cricket has gone up 2 runs in the last year...

    When I 1st saw Watson's record he averaged over 50 in Domestic OD cricket, but then of course since you said he's rarely played any ODIs and taken less wickets than ODIs he's played when Harvey takes more from less games...of course you must be right :rolleyes:

    Harvey is an attacking and often very accurate bowler, people have told me Watson's basically a trundler. I'd go for Harvey any day, especially from his performances in OD cricket over here, where I've basically seen him bowl several times every year and he's been fantastic.
    "Age is just a stupid number"

    20...that's a rather big number :(:(:(

  3. #723
    Rik
    Rik is offline
    Cricketer Of The Year Rik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Shropshire, England
    Posts
    8,353
    Originally posted by furious_ged
    Did it ever occur to you, Rik, that the World Cup was last year and means nothing in the way of selections for current matches?
    Yes of course it did, but it still doesn't seem to have occured to you that Harvey's performances in the World Cup were under more pressure than he's facing now, and therefor show his ability as a bowler.

  4. #724
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Canberra (in body), Perth (in spirit), Nagoya (in the future)
    Posts
    1,258
    Very true. Allan Border wasn't so bad 15 years ago. Doesn't mean he's good now. Doesn't mean I'd pick him, either.


  5. #725
    Hall of Fame Member age_master's Avatar
    Plasmanaut on Fire Champion!
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Sydney, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    15,777
    Originally posted by furious_ged
    And he very nearly lost it for us yesterday by giving India a truckload of runs (his last over goes for 22 and he's one of the best death bowlers?)
    that was good batting, not bad bowling, could have happened to anyone
    Member of CW Green
    Kerry O'Keefe - Worlds funniest Commentator

  6. #726
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Canberra (in body), Perth (in spirit), Nagoya (in the future)
    Posts
    1,258
    Wouldn't have been as bad for a really good death bowler.

  7. #727
    Rik
    Rik is offline
    Cricketer Of The Year Rik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Shropshire, England
    Posts
    8,353
    Originally posted by furious_ged
    Very true. Allan Border wasn't so bad 15 years ago. Doesn't mean he's good now. Doesn't mean I'd pick him, either.
    Now you are just being pedantic. The World Cup was only about a year ago. Of course you wouldn't pick Border, seriously what a stupid comment! The guy's retired for starters! But also there is a big difference between performing in a WC a year ago and not performing since, and performing in a WC a year ago and performing for the next year after that as well, which, unless you really have been living in a cave, you'd realise Harvey has been doing.

  8. #728
    Tim
    Tim is offline
    Cricketer Of The Year Tim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Auckland
    Posts
    7,888
    Harvey's death bowling yesterday was actually pretty good, but it was just sensational batting...on any other day Harvey could have taken 2 wickets in that over or only conceded 5 or 6 runs.

  9. #729
    State Vice-Captain mavric41's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Ipswich, Queensland, Australia
    Posts
    1,081
    I'll solve this. Harvey is for now. Watson is for the future.

    (p.s. Rik - Watson is not a trundler - he is more like Bichel speed)
    Only two states to be in - Queensland and drunk.

  10. #730
    Hall of Fame Member age_master's Avatar
    Plasmanaut on Fire Champion!
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Sydney, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    15,777
    Originally posted by Tim
    Harvey's death bowling yesterday was actually pretty good, but it was just sensational batting...on any other day Harvey could have taken 2 wickets in that over or only conceded 5 or 6 runs.

    exactly

  11. #731
    Tim
    Tim is offline
    Cricketer Of The Year Tim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Auckland
    Posts
    7,888
    I don't really think you can call Ian Harvey an all-rounder at international level..but then again I don't think you could play both Harvey & Watson together, unless they dropped Clarke and the selectors were surpremely confident Watson could do the job with the bat.

    Harvey may not be one of the most glamourous players around so no doubt the finger 9/10 is going to be pointed at him for not producing the goods but I think you could also look at some of the bowlers & ask why they didn't do the job?

  12. #732
    Rik
    Rik is offline
    Cricketer Of The Year Rik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Shropshire, England
    Posts
    8,353
    Originally posted by furious_ged
    As I said, Harvey has his own legs and his own mouth. He ran himself out.
    All reports point towards Clarke running Harvey out. I'm pretty sure all the press there, who said that Clarke ran Harvey out, can't just be wrong. But then, of course they must, because according to you it was all Harvey's fault! Supporting a player is all good and fun, but not defending them every time when they are definately at fault, it just makes you look like a twit.

  13. #733
    Hall of Fame Member age_master's Avatar
    Plasmanaut on Fire Champion!
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Sydney, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    15,777
    Originally posted by Rik
    All reports point towards Clarke running Harvey out. I'm pretty sure all the press there, who said that Clarke ran Harvey out, can't just be wrong. But then, of course they must, because according to you it was all Harvey's fault! Supporting a player is all good and fun, but not defending them every time when they are definately at fault, it just makes you look like a twit.
    andre disagrees with me on this one but i really dont think harvey ran hard enough early and as such was caught short

  14. #734
    U19 Debutant CDAK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    India
    Posts
    320
    Harvy is a very good oneday bowler and writing him off just on a single expensive over is improper. I'm sure it's not Harvy's fault, but Yuvraj's batting flexibility scored those 22 runs. More over I personally feel that Indians find Harvy more difficult to handle( because of his less pace) than any other bowler. No need to replace Harvy. THis AUS team is very good except for the form-out Martyn and the third seamer.( McGrath has to come back)
    Also, 0/68 is better than 1/83. and 4/204
    the real cricket-fan

  15. #735
    Request Your Custom Title Now! Mr Mxyzptlk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Trinidad and Tobago (Trinidad)
    Posts
    36,795
    Originally posted by CDAK
    Harvy is a very good oneday bowler and writing him off just on a single expensive over is improper.
    I wouldn't say Harvey is a very good ODI bowler. His economy is passable at 4.71 and his average decent at 30.13. His a decent, even good ODI bowler at best.

    Also, 0/68 is better than 1/83. and 4/204
    And? That still doesn't make it good! That's like comparing a century to the standard of a triple century.
    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."


Page 49 of 100 FirstFirst ... 3947484950515999 ... 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
  •