nah you gotta be jokingKing_Ponting said:if we're gonna go actual specialist batsman and or all rounders, i'd say Watson.
Oh nothin, it was just a poor joke at your expense. Nevermind me.sqwerty said:um.... yes why?
Agreed....that was disgraceful and totally disrespectful to New Zealand the way the british press carried on after that series in 99.....I remember it well. Rather than giving ANY credit for NZ playing well.......all the focus was on how crap Eng were in that series....but you are quite right......NZ had some excellent in-form players in that series. Cairns was on top of his game and lead with the ball along with Nash with some excellent support from O'connor, Vettori, Doull and Allott. Should have really won 3-1 if it wasn't for the rain in the manchester test.Chubb said:Because it was New Zealand. And the british cricket press always assume New Zealand are rubbish, despite the fact we had a world-class allrounder, a more-than-useful attack, the best non-subcontinental finger spinner in the world, a brilliant, intuitive captain and a strong top order. Three of those things England lacked, and the captain, well, Nasser was sold down the river in that series.
.
Haha. You're kidding, aren't you? The guy averages nearly 50 in first class cricket!King_Ponting said:if we're gonna go actual specialist batsman and or all rounders, i'd say Watson. Martin for the tail enders
FaaipDeOiad said:Haha. You're kidding, aren't you? The guy averages nearly 50 in first class cricket!
What chris martin averages 50??? Yeh i was joking, but i still think watson is hugely overratedFaaipDeOiad said:Haha. You're kidding, aren't you? The guy averages nearly 50 in first class cricket!
I am looking forward to a lot of people having to eat their words about himHit4Six said:ian bell
really cant see how, but it your view trent can kill you for that......King_Ponting said:Yeh i was joking, but i still think watson is hugely overrated