Stuart Law seeks British citizinship

[Richard]

Anzac, you say NZ could do with a player like Blewett? Right, a bits and pieces player at International level who can take useful wickets and contribute with the bat? I thought they had too many of them already :P

I'd say Blewett is just about good enough with the bat to displace most of New Zealand's excuses for ODI players. But not much of a bowler.

 

[Craig]

I bet you poms wish Adam Dale were English. Especially at Headingly he would of been in heaven and probably be a geniune match winner there. It really does complent his bowling style.

Actually I wonder why Yorkshire never signed him or he moved there.

 

[Richard]

Because we had Bevan, Lehmann and Elliott (and, for one let-down season, Blewett).
Simple as. We've preferred Aussie batsmen to an Aussie bowler. Though I don't doubt he would have been a fantastic bowler at Headingley, even better than he is (was?) at Brisbane.

 

[anzac]

Law has ruled it out, he said he was applying for citizenship so he could live over in England with his wife, who is from Lancashire, when he retires.

Anzac, you say NZ could do with a player like Blewett? Right, a bits and pieces player at International level who can take useful wickets and contribute with the bat? I thought they had too many of them already :P

maybe true but not one that is an established top order batsman which is what NZ is crying out for in both forms of the game & has been for some time.....plus he used to bowl medium pace / swing which offers another bowling alternative....

he has been a prolific opener for SA for some time with Lehman - just unable to compete with the likes of Slater, Elliott, Taylor, Hayden, Gilchrist & M Waugh for the opening spots, or Ponting, Martyn, S Waugh or Lehman in the middle order - but very few can....:P

 

[Rik]

So does England have enought bits and pieces players. Namely Michael Vaughan in one-day cricket.

Vaughan doesn't bowl himself enough to be a bits and pieces player. I don't feel he's done enough to keep his place in ODIs. He was given the captaincy when he had not shown any consistancy in the shorter game, and in my opinion he still hasn't.

 

[Rik]

I'd say Blewett is just about good enough with the bat to displace most of New Zealand's excuses for ODI players. But not much of a bowler.

Most of those "excuses" have good records, certainly more impressive than Blewett in either discipline.

 

[anzac]

NZ already has 3 ex pat Aussies in the squads in Vincent, Styris & Sinclair (admittedly b4 they became first class cricketers) - if Blewett or Law had wanted to come across a few years ago I'd have welcomed them.....

much like England did with their former Rhodesian / Zimbabweans like Hick & Lamb etc.......or how they chased Symonds several years back as well.......

:saint:

 

[marc71178]

If he was 7 years younger I'd take him if he wanted to play in 2 years time. In place of any of our current batting-line-up.

But he's not, and at 37 will not be worth selection.

 

[marc71178]

Vaughan doesn't bowl himself enough to be a bits and pieces player. I don't feel he's done enough to keep his place in ODIs. He was given the captaincy when he had not shown any consistancy in the shorter game, and in my opinion he still hasn't.

I wouldn't be so sure.

He's consistently getting into the 30's and 40's, but his career average has been blighted by his 1st 6 matches still.

 

[Rik]

I wouldn't be so sure.

He's consistently getting into the 30's and 40's, but his career average has been blighted by his 1st 6 matches still.

He gets a start but again, doesn't go on. Even if he gets to 50 (which is rare) he gets out just about straight after. But he won't get dropped because he's the captain, although I don't feel he's good enough to be just picked for that either.

 

[marc71178]

But he won't get dropped because he's the captain, although I don't feel he's good enough to be just picked for that either.

Well, looking at 2003, only 2 batsmen made more runs in ODI's for England (Tres and Fred) and only 3 averaged more than him (add Collingwood - 6 no's in 15 knocks)

So looks to me like he's in the team on merit.

 

[Pratters]

Law should have been selected more by Australia. He was wasted by them. And yes, he can play for England at 37 EASILY if he wants to. Stuart Law is a top quality player and 3 good years from 37-40 would bea positive step for English cricket even though law would be old.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Yep, he should have played many more times for Australia. 54* in his only test innings.

 

[Pratters]

54* has always intrigued me. I have been waiting for him to play another test ever since he made 54*. Guess that will never happen with Australia atleast. He didnt fail even once in test cricket.. pretty good achievment to have!

 

[Craig]

Because we had Bevan, Lehmann and Elliott (and, for one let-down season, Blewett).
Simple as. We've preferred Aussie batsmen to an Aussie bowler. Though I don't doubt he would have been a fantastic bowler at Headingley, even better than he is (was?) at Brisbane.

Well he was a under-rated one-day bowler who should of played more ODIs then he should of.

An England attack of Mullay, Croft, Ealham, Gough, Caddick/Flintoff and Dale (If he were English) would be a pretty good one.

 

[Bazza]

Except if you take Caddick not Flintoff, the average age of that bowling attack is about 34! It's possible none of those five will ever play for England again, though Gough (particularly) and Caddick have been great servants and the others all made a strong one day bowling attack (in my opinion) about 3-4 years ago.

 

[Mister Wright]

maybe true but not one that is an established top order batsman which is what NZ is crying out for in both forms of the game & has been for some time.....plus he used to bowl medium pace / swing which offers another bowling alternative....

he has been a prolific opener for SA for some time with Lehman - just unable to compete with the likes of Slater, Elliott, Taylor, Hayden, Gilchrist & M Waugh for the opening spots, or Ponting, Martyn, S Waugh or Lehman in the middle order - but very few can....:P

Blewett had several extended stints in the Australian team in the middle order and as an opener but wasn't able to perform consistently and cement his spot. He was not good enough for Australia, but New Zealand is a different story...

 

[Craig]

Except if you take Caddick not Flintoff, the average age of that bowling attack is about 34! It's possible none of those five will ever play for England again, though Gough (particularly) and Caddick have been great servants and the others all made a strong one day bowling attack (in my opinion) about 3-4 years ago.

I would have to agree with you there.

 

[Richard]

Except if you take Caddick not Flintoff, the average age of that bowling attack is about 34! It's possible none of those five will ever play for England again, though Gough (particularly) and Caddick have been great servants and the others all made a strong one day bowling attack (in my opinion) about 3-4 years ago.

The attack Craig named would be one of the best in one-day history.
When England had the attack of Caddick, Gough, Mullally, Ealham their team actually looked like resembling a decent make-up. Sadly, flawed selection soon put paid to that.

 

[Richard]

Well, looking at 2003, only 2 batsmen made more runs in ODI's for England (Tres and Fred) and only 3 averaged more than him (add Collingwood - 6 no's in 15 knocks)

So looks to me like he's in the team on merit.

As with the Harmison case, the substandardness of others and a comparative purple-patch doesn't make-up for the substandardness of one.