• 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.

**Official** England in New Zealand

Leslie1

U19 Captain
Prefer to liken Sinclair to Yuvraj Singh. All the pretty shots, no brain. Ponting is once in a generation player, you can't put that tag to Sinclair.
 

Somerset

Cricketer Of The Year
Prefer to liken Sinclair to Yuvraj Singh. All the pretty shots, no brain. Ponting is once in a generation player, you can't put that tag to Sinclair.
Except Yuvraj Singh has scored 11 international hundreds and Sinclair has five...and has probably played about half as many tests as Sinclair. Bit harsh to label him as without a brain IMO.

Don't necessarily believe that Sinclair equals Ponting with regards to overall class though.
 

Jamee999

Hall of Fame Member
Composite XI for the series?

How
Cook
Fleming
Pietersen
Taylor
Oram
Ambrose+
Vettori
Broad
Sidebottom
Southee/Mills

IMO
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Might consider Patel over Sidebottom to strengthen the batting, but apart from that I reckon you're smack-on TBH.
 

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
Might consider Patel over Sidebottom to strengthen the batting
Seriously? Patel is no great shakes as a batsman and Broad is at 9 in that lineup anyway. Not to mention the fact that Sidebottom was comfortably the best bowler on show in the series IMO, and Patel, despite bowling well, probably would have come out the other end of the series averaging in the high 30s.

Is there an in-joke I'm missing or something? I'm highly surprised you'd suggest something so obviously wrong with such little reason to do so.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
:laugh: Oh dear, seems I'm culpable for the whooooooooossssssssshhhhhhh.

That comment was based on "Ben" (comment #14) here, which I laughed profusely at due to the randomness at the time, and which I have mentioned on CW before, possibly 2 or 3 times.

There's no way on Earth I'd remotely consider not having Sidebottom in any composite XI for this series - he'd be the first name on the teamsheet, with daylight second.

I do think Patel is a slightly better batsman than him, but that's about the only serious aspect to my previous post.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Composite XI for the series?

How
Cook
Fleming
Pietersen
Taylor
Oram
Ambrose+
Vettori
Broad
Sidebottom
Southee/Mills

IMO
I also have an inkling that it'd be more likely to be Cook-How rather than How-Cook, but wouldn't want to be completely commital on that.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Mills' performance quite comfortably > Anderson's.

And ITBT, even in a mere 3-match series, I don't really think you can pick someone for an Eclectic XI who only played 1 Test.
 

NZTailender

I can't believe I ate the whole thing
Collingwood a bit stiff. Was actually consistent.

1. How
2. Cook
3. Fleming*
4. Pietersen
5. Taylor
6. Collingwood
7. Ambrose+
8. Oram
9. Mills
10. Sidebottom
11. Patel
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Yeah, Southee the one I'd struggle to include because he only played a single Test.

Hence, ie, I'd have Mills for said spot.

And good spot by Gegmeister in having Oram at eight with an extra batsman.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
TBH, think I'd now go for:
Cook
How
Fleming
Pietersen
Taylor
Bell \ Collingwood
Ambrose
Oram
Broad \ Vettori
Mills
Sidebottom
 
Last edited:

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Yeah but he was also exactly the same Anderson we've always known - bowled superbly in his opening spell in the Second Test, and bowled pretty poorly thereafter, which was the vast majority of the time.

Bowling quickly is not of importance; bowling well is.
 

Top