• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Zimbabwe v England ODI series

Scaly piscine

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Anyone else a bit worried that England will manage to lose at least 1 of the 5 ODIs and do more harm than good as far the Mugabe situation goes?

England without Flintoff & Harmison will be a lot weaker and they usually throw in an awful game/spell in most ODI series.


PS out of the last 20 most recent threads 19 of the last posts were from Richard at 2:50pm BST, could we hear from someone else from a change?
 

Neil Pickup

Cricket Web Moderator
Just do what the rest of us do and ignore him :D

Pakistan on current form will probably lose beforehand anyway - it's quite possible we'll lose a game, but this lot are very, very bad and our side will be hungry to impress. Can't see it.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Sacly piscine said:
out of the last 20 most recent threads 19 of the last posts were from Richard at 2:50pm BST, could we hear from someone else from a change?
Yes - you, here.
As Neil says - you don't like it, don't bother yourself with it.
Neil Pickup said:
Pakistan on current form will probably lose beforehand anyway
Good job they're not playing them again, then, isn't it? :D I had a horrible feeling they were going to lose that last Paktel Cup game. Can't see Sri Lanka losing to them, so I doubt Pakistan are going to play them again.
Anyone who loses to Zimbabwe is inviting ridicule.
 

Scaly piscine

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
They're bad but England without Flintoff & Harmison has a rather plodding look to it on the bowling front at least (Gough, Wharf, Giles etc. can just see the Zimbabwe team shaking in their boots at that lot). Even against Zimbabwe's awful back-up bowlers I don't want England consistently having to score around 250 to win and England are still dodgy when batting first.
 

Sudeep

International Captain
England to win all five, although a couple of them might come rather unconvincingly...

Taibu to be the all-rounder for the series, since Flintoff (Read GOD) isn't going :p
 

Langeveldt

Soutie
Its such an abysmal situation, teams are obviously going to not bother with their front men, especially if they express doubts like Harmison.. So Zimbabwe aren't even playing proper international cricket, nor are the boneheads who have to play them...
 

SJS

Hall of Fame Member
Sudeep said:
England to win all five, although a couple of them might come rather unconvincingly...

Taibu to be the all-rounder for the series, since Flintoff (Read GOD) isn't going :p
Taibu to be the GOD (read one eyed individual amongst the totally blind) for the series , since Flintoff (read England's latest God) isn't going :D
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Sudeep said:
England to win all five, although a couple of them might come rather unconvincingly...

Taibu to be the all-rounder for the series, since Flintoff (Read GOD) isn't going :p
I'm backing Prosper and Elton, myself!
(No, I don't really think that much of Elton's bowling)
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Scaly piscine said:
They're bad but England without Flintoff & Harmison has a rather plodding look to it on the bowling front at least (Gough, Wharf, Giles etc. can just see the Zimbabwe team shaking in their boots at that lot). Even against Zimbabwe's awful back-up bowlers I don't want England consistently having to score around 250 to win and England are still dodgy when batting first.
Gough, Wharf and Giles will, mark my words, be more than enough for Zimbabwe's excuse for a ODI-class batting-line-up.
And Zimbabwe's back-up bowlers are far better than their front-liners - Hondo, Panyangara and Chigumbura are all appalling, 300 is a far-more-likely-than-not, even without Trescothick. Zimbabwe's one good bowler is Prosper Utseya, a fingerspinner.
You really do seem to have a rather inflated opinion of Zimbabwe if you think they can cause even a County Select XI (which this basically is) many problems.
 

Scaly piscine

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I knew I shouldn't have bothered to 'view' the last post, Utseya who averages 220 with the ball being their one good bowler... Hondo and Panyangara who've taken 5 wickets between them in each of the last 2 matches are appalling (I'd say they were of Gough/Wharf standard personally). The back-up bowlers after Utseya are basically batsmen who turn their arm over - ie cannon fodder or awful as I said.
 

Langeveldt

Soutie
They only have a couple of players with any potential, let alone international ability..

Ill put my neck on the line and say the only players worth bothering about at all are Vermeulen, Chigumbera, Taibu and Taylor..
 

Langeveldt

Soutie
Mr Mxyzptlk said:
Matsikenyeri certainly has the talent to succeed. Whether he does or not we shall see.
I didnt like the look of his technique at all against England last year, batted well though
.. Hope I get proved wrong

Another one with talent is Hamilton Masakadza.. I guess he is still in the UCT though..
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Scaly piscine said:
I knew I shouldn't have bothered to 'view' the last post
There's a surprise, more sarcastic crap. This one's worse than that raju idiot.
Utseya who averages 220 with the ball being their one good bowler...
Yes, because if you knew a thing about one-day cricket you'd realise that you can have as high an average as you want if your economy-rate is good, and Prosper's is - far, far, far better than anyone else within sight of the team since Streak.
Hondo and Panyangara who've taken 5 wickets between them in each of the last 2 matches are appalling (I'd say they were of Gough/Wharf standard personally).
What a ludicrous statement. Wow, two good matches - lets see how good they are once they start going for 6-an-over and getting maybe a wicket every 15 overs or so.
Whaf's not very good, but let me assure you - he's better than Panyangara.
The back-up bowlers after Utseya are basically batsmen who turn their arm over - ie cannon fodder or awful as I said.
And? I commented on them when?
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Langeveldt said:
They only have a couple of players with any potential, let alone international ability..

Ill put my neck on the line and say the only players worth bothering about at all are Vermeulen, Chigumbera, Taibu and Taylor..
As Liam says, Masikenyeri certainly has something more than some of the rest, and I'm personally not at all sure about either Taylor or Vermeulen.
I do like Utseya as a one-day bowler, though.
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
Richard said:
Yes, because if you knew a thing about one-day cricket you'd realise that you can have as high an average as you want if your economy-rate is good, and Prosper's is - far, far, far better than anyone else within sight of the team since Streak.

You still need to be able to take wickets.

Especially if you're "the side's only good bowler"

Just look at England vs India when Harbhajan conceded 14 from 10 overs, England just saw him off and went after the others.
 

Scaly piscine

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Richard said:
And Zimbabwe's back-up bowlers are far better than their front-liners
Richard said:
Scaly Piscine: The back-up bowlers after Utseya are basically batsmen who turn their arm over - ie cannon fodder or awful as I said.

And? I commented on them when?
See that's why you're on my ignore list, you can't even be bothered to read your own posts (I shall do likewise) - there's no point arguing with someone who can't be bothered to read/listen and just rambles in large volumes to compensate.

I agree with marc that ODI teams need wicket-takers, you need a balance of tight bowlers and wicket-takers in any ODI side. Get too many wicket-takers and you can get hammered on a decent track and have to bowl part-timers because the wicket-takers won't be bowled through their full 10 or you can have what happened to England when you have too many 'tight' bowlers - you don't finish teams off.

I'm still worried that England's under-strength team will lose a game - I guess the games against Sri Lanka will be a better indicator than the games against Pakistan.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
If I'm on your ignore list I'm only too glad, if it means I don't have to read this rubbish you keep posting at me. Here, those quotes make absolutely no sense whatsoever. If you're going to use the site, better learn to use it properly.
I read your post perfectly clearly and I responded perfectly clearly. If you're determined to manufacture "rambling" and such by creating non-existent quotes I really couldn't care less. No-one else has ever had any problems.
In Zimbabwe's case, they have few wicket-takers and few bowlers capable of keeping the rein on things.
Hence, someone with an average of 220 and an economy-rate of 4.08-an-over will be considered by most sensible people to be better than bowlers with records such as ER 5.56 and average 36.12 (Hondo) and ER 5.46 and average 32.78 (Panyangara). Both have taken a few wickets recently so we can reasonably expect those averages to go up in imminent games.
 

Top