Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: NatWest Series Preview: England (article)

  1. #1
    Cricket Web Vice Administrator
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Kent, UK
    Posts
    7,190

    NatWest Series Preview: England (article)

    Hi Neil

    I have just read your article about NatWest Series, and I think I will have to disagree with your probable team against Sri Lanka, I think that the team that will start will be

    Batsmen

    Trescothick - (part-time bowler if required)
    Knight
    Hussain (c)
    Thorpe
    Vaughan - (part-time bowler if required)
    Stewart (w)

    All Rounders

    Irani - 4th bowler (where you said Collingwood)
    Flintoff - 2nd or 3rd bowler

    Bowlers

    Giles - 5th bowler
    Tudor - 2nd or 3rd bowler
    Hoggard - 1st bowler (where you said Kirtley)

    Batting goes right down to 10 with only Hoggard being the only weak link, and the team would have 5 out and out bowlers and 2 part-timers.

    [Edited on 6/23/02 by Neil Pickup]

  2. #2
    Cricket Web Staff Member / Global Moderator Neil Pickup's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Oxford, England
    Posts
    26,854
    Well, these things are always debatable. I'll put the either/ors on the preview if it makes you happy - and we'll see who's picked come Thursday.
    MSN Messenger: minardineil2000 at hotmail dot com | AAAS Chairman
    CricketWeb Black | CricketWeb XI Captain
    ClarkeWatch: We're Watching Rikki - Are You?

    Up The Grecians - Exeter City FC

    Completing the Square: My Cricket Web Blog

  3. #3
    International Debutant Kimbo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    london
    Posts
    2,835
    sorry rich, just thought it was only fair that you know, its article not artical.
    Trescothick - (part-time bolwer if required)
    Knight
    Hussain (c)
    Thorpe
    Vaughan - (part-time bolwer if required)
    Stewart (w)

    All Rounders

    Irani - 4th bolwer (where you said Collingwood)
    Flintoff - 2nd or 3rd bolwer

    Bolwers

    Giles - 5th bolwer
    Tudor - 2nd or 3rd bolwer
    Hoggard - 1st bolwer (where you said Kirtley)

    Batting goes right down to 10 with only Hoggard being the only weak link, and the team would have 5 out and out bolwers and 2 part-timers.
    also.. this is a little more obvious. bowler, not bolwer.
    sorry, i have no intelligent remarks on the england side
    life's a gift thats why they call it the present

  4. #4
    Cricket Web Staff Member / Global Moderator Neil Pickup's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Oxford, England
    Posts
    26,854
    Sorted all those typos I'd have thought you could have spelt bowler right at least once, with it being a fundamental part of cricket and all..


  5. #5
    Cricket Web Vice Administrator
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Kent, UK
    Posts
    7,190
    Hey you are lucky that there were only those few, I wrote the post in under 2 mins, as I have one of these connections that Disconnect after 2 hours and I only had 2 mins left before it ran out.

    And as you saw I didn't get chance to spell check it.

  6. #6
    Cricket Web Staff Member / Global Moderator Neil Pickup's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Oxford, England
    Posts
    26,854
    Well, after today it doesn't look like Hoggard. 7-0-63-0! Against Wales! Appalling at best. He's not a one-day bowler anyway, I'd rather have had Mullally in the squad.

  7. #7
    Cricket Web Vice Administrator
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Kent, UK
    Posts
    7,190
    He's not a one-day bowler anyway, I'd rather have had Mullally in the squad.
    Agree

  8. #8
    Eyes not spreadsheets marc71178's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    England
    Posts
    57,690
    Hey you are lucky that there were only those few, I wrote the post in under 2 mins, as I have one of these connections that Disconnect after 2 hours and I only had 2 mins left before it ran out.

    And as you saw I didn't get chance to spell check it.
    If it disconnects, I wouldn't have thought it automatically closes the browser - Back in the days of crappy 56k modems, mine never did!

    Marc (smug with his relatively new braodband connection)
    marc71178 - President and founding member of AAAS - we don't only appreciate when he does well, but also when he's not quite so good!

    Anyone want to join the Society?

    Beware the evils of Kit-Kats - they're immoral apparently.

  9. #9
    Cricket Web Vice Administrator
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Kent, UK
    Posts
    7,190
    If it disconnects, I wouldn't have thought it automatically closes the browser - Back in the days of crappy 56k modems, mine never did!

    Marc (smug with his relatively new braodband connection)
    No I don't think it does close the browser, but it brings up that page can't be displayed. I think

    Give me 40 mins 15 sec and I will tell you

    [Edited on 6/24/02 by Rich2001]

  10. #10
    Eyes not spreadsheets marc71178's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    England
    Posts
    57,690
    Can you not reconnect before clicking post?

  11. #11
    Cricket Web Vice Administrator
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Kent, UK
    Posts
    7,190
    Can you not reconnect before clicking post?
    Yes, but I had other things to do anyway to didn't have time to.

  12. #12
    Cricket Web Vice Administrator
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Kent, UK
    Posts
    7,190
    Can you not reconnect before clicking post?
    Yes, but I had other things to do anyway to didn't have time to.



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
  •