Jump to content

Theme© by Fisana
 

Photo

Cricket World Cup Thread


  • Please log in to reply
3815 replies to this topic

#3341 Agnostic

Agnostic

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9978 posts

Posted 03 December 2006 - 07:01 AM

...and God is in his heaven and all is right with the world.:Party: :D :kowt: :rockon: :ghug:
  • 0

#3342 zxb

zxb

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4574 posts

Posted 03 December 2006 - 02:31 PM

Not for long. Now we and you are being mullered again. :(
  • 0

#3343 Agnostic

Agnostic

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9978 posts

Posted 04 December 2006 - 03:53 AM

No problem mate.:D

Just think of it as net practice for next year's World Cup in the Caribbean. :cheers:

After bowling to second slip in the last match, Harmy has just given 3 extras, 1 wide and 2 no-balls in 25 overs.:respekt:

Now all you have to do is figure out how to get Clarke out.:scrollhah :bolt:
  • 0

#3344 Brendon

Brendon

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 13976 posts

Posted 05 December 2006 - 01:33 PM

Originally posted by Agnostic
...and God is in his heaven and all is right with the world.:Party: :D :kowt: :rockon: :ghug:



Heh, heh, heh.......:Bad:

God is in his heaven....now :kowt:




Is Freddie Flintoff Australian? He plays like it. Wouldn't give you two bob for the rest of them on today's performance.
  • 0

#3345 Brendon

Brendon

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 13976 posts

Posted 06 December 2006 - 09:08 AM

Warne on the last day was unplayable. As good as he has ever bowled. On a pitch that never favoured the bowlers. Giles couldn't get much out of it afterwards.
  • 0

#3346 Agnostic

Agnostic

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9978 posts

Posted 06 December 2006 - 01:03 PM

Is God from the land down under?:wonder:
  • 0

#3347 zxb

zxb

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4574 posts

Posted 06 December 2006 - 05:19 PM

Originally posted by Agnostic
Is God from the land down under?:wonder:


Don Bradman of course. Not WG or Sobers as we previously though. Oh well, it's not up to England to challenge Godly authority.

Much more importantly though, the handy Bangas win their OD series against the Zimbos., 3-0 after 3 out of 5. The 2 unofficial tests will be very interesting. 8-)
  • 0

#3348 Brendon

Brendon

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 13976 posts

Posted 06 December 2006 - 11:04 PM

Originally posted by Agnostic
Is God from the land down under?:wonder:



Nope. We just have the best team at the moment. And when you have the best team, things like that happen.

There was one dodgy decision given against the English when they were batting on the last day. But the worst decision that went against England was on day 4 when Warne was given out LBW. The replay showed he had clearly snicked the ball onto his pads from the bat. Warne was fuming and fired up about that, and about the jeers he got from the English team as he walked off.
  • 0

#3349 zxb

zxb

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4574 posts

Posted 07 December 2006 - 01:17 AM

We're just lulling you into a false sense of security. You'll lose by an innings in the next 3 Tests, I'm telling you. :bolt:
  • 0

#3350 Agnostic

Agnostic

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9978 posts

Posted 07 December 2006 - 06:30 AM

Brendon

Wait till the Poms pull a full Monty from their sleeves.;)
  • 0

#3351 Brendon

Brendon

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 13976 posts

Posted 07 December 2006 - 09:23 AM

They will have to sack Fletcher for us to see that, maybe...LOL

The reason Fletcher gave for picking Giles was ridiculous. He said Giles was a handy bat and Australia had handy batsmen all the way dow, so he feels his team has to match them in that way, and Monty isn't too good with the bat. So what do they do in the match? Declare 6 for 550 odd in the first innings....And was Monty or Giles supposed to hold the batting lineup together in the second innings?

Adelaide is a batsman's pitch. Why would Fletcher think they needed to bolster up the tail-end?

I think Fletcher just prefers Giles no matter what.

Monty is a handy bowler with a future. Test Ave 32.40 Best Figures5-72

If he drops a catch from Ponting like Giles did, it wouldn't make much difference though.

Batting Ave 10.20

Better than Pigeon, at least. Ha Ha.

He has to play in Sydney. Giles just isn't making anything happen. He bowled on the same day as Warne destroyed the English line up, and Giles didn't do much at all.

The thing is, if Giles plays Sydney, and he gets to bowl on the last day on one of those SCG turning wickets, and everthing falls his way, it might just be enough to hide Monty's omission.

Part-time spin bowlers have won games on the last day at Sydney. Border knocked over the West Indies on the last day at the SCG once, I think.
  • 0

#3352 zxb

zxb

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4574 posts

Posted 07 December 2006 - 05:53 PM

If Monty plays at Sydney Anderson will probably be dropped. Gilo is one of our better players this series. 3rd in bowling rankings and 4th in batting for England players.

"Adelaide is a batsman's pitch. Why would Fletcher think they needed to bolster up the tail-end?"

Proballt because we have the most collapse prone batting line in the world. Fletcher wanting a capable batsman at 8 is perfectly reasonable. When Gilo came in at Adelaide England had gone from a sexy 468/3 to a less impressive 491/6. We might have been dismissed for 500 without Giles. Every half decent side in the world has a tail who can bat a bit, so naturally we want one too.

I think Monty should play in the 3rd Test however, so I'll be interested to see how he does in the tour game, that could decide it.

Also, as a finer point of interest, "Reports have suggested coach Duncan Fletcher wanted to pick Panesar for Adelaide before being subsequently over-ruled by captain Andrew Flintoff". Flintoffs captaincy is another thing I'd like to see changed. :chok:
  • 0

#3353 Brendon

Brendon

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 13976 posts

Posted 08 December 2006 - 12:55 AM

Originally posted by zxb
Reports have suggested coach Duncan Fletcher wanted to pick Panesar for Adelaide before being subsequently over-ruled by captain Andrew Flintoff"[/url]. Flintoffs captaincy is another thing I'd like to see changed. :chok:



Obviously leaked by Fletcher. Who else could. So he got the captain falling on his own sword. How nice. :rolleyes:

Fletcher will be remembered as the coach who betrayed his captain rather than take a hit for the team.
  • 0

#3354 Agnostic

Agnostic

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9978 posts

Posted 08 December 2006 - 06:08 AM

Quit arguing you damned Anglo-Saxons.;)

Monty will be there to prove that white men can't play spin.


:angel: :Party: :goodbad: :Potstir: :scrollhah

And now I do my vanishing act...

:bolt:
  • 0

#3355 zxb

zxb

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4574 posts

Posted 08 December 2006 - 11:03 PM

Originally posted by Brendon Obviously leaked by Fletcher. Who else could. So he got the captain falling on his own sword. How nice. :rolleyes:


If Flintoff wasn't wielding his sword to the degredation of the side, he wouldn't be able to fall on it. It would explain why Monty bowled only 3 overs in the first game of this tour. It also means that much of the criticism the coach has received is unfounded. Considering how much of an asset he has been over the past few years, it seems unlikely that he suddenly gone completely nuts. Unfortunately, as yet, Flintoff hasn't resigned the captaincy, and so hasn't fallen in his sword as you seems to think.

Fletcher will be remembered as the coach who betrayed his captain rather than take a hit for the team.



He took us from bottom in the world rankings to second and helped the side to a very rare Ashes win. That is what he will be remembered for. Also, why should he take a 'hit for the team' if he hasn't actually done anything much to take a hit for? And betraying the captain? Flintoff is a rubbish captain anyway. Most people here would rather have Strauss in charge.
  • 0

#3356 Brendon

Brendon

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 13976 posts

Posted 09 December 2006 - 12:34 AM

Originally posted by zxb
If Flintoff wasn't wielding his sword to the degredation of the side, he wouldn't be able to fall on it. It would explain why Monty bowled only 3 overs in the first game of this tour. It also means that much of the criticism the coach has received is unfounded. Considering how much of an asset he has been over the past few years, it seems unlikely that he suddenly gone completely nuts. Unfortunately, as yet, Flintoff hasn't resigned the captaincy, and so hasn't fallen in his sword as you seems to think.



You are missing the point. So what if Flintoff pushed Anderson forward. Fletcher has obviously done the same with the spin bowler Giles. Monty is a spin bowler. Australia did not need two spins at Adelaide. Fletcher has said categorically he preferred Giles over Panesar. Flintoff was right to have only one spin bowler. Giles proved he is not the man on the last day of the last test.




Originally posted by zxb
He took us from bottom in the world rankings to second and helped the side to a very rare Ashes win. That is what he will be remembered for. Also, why should he take a 'hit for the team' if he hasn't actually done anything much to take a hit for? And betraying the captain? Flintoff is a rubbish captain anyway. Most people here would rather have Strauss in charge.



I always thought it was a bit much to expect an all rounder to captain the side too.

Fletcher getting all the credit for English's emergence at a top flight team is hilarious. After Rod Marsh went to your academy I said "Watch out for England in a few years." I'm not giving Marsh all the credit either. But every body concerned with developing your young players.


Your academy is what has provided selectors, captains, and national coaches with the talent to rise to the top.

As for Fletcher taking a hit for the team, thats what he was supposed to do. Whether it was Flintoff's fault or not. The captain has all the pressure where it counts as far as the tour goes. You don't nobble your own captain. If he goes down, the team will follow. Thats the opposition bowlers job. Why do you think they always target the opposition captain.
  • 0

#3357 zxb

zxb

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4574 posts

Posted 09 December 2006 - 01:33 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Brendon
[B]Fletcher has said categorically he preferred Giles over Panesar. Flintoff was right to have only one spin bowler. Giles proved he is not the man on the last day of the last test.

Our coach has categorically said that he wanted Monty in the side but was overruled by Flintoff. We had bigger problems than Giles as the stats show. We have 2 fast bowlers who can't even bowl economically, let alone take wickets and that would have been partly resolved by playing both spinners as Fletcher presumably wished. Seems fair enough to me as we don't appear to have any seamers who can be relied upon to do better.

[quote]Fletcher getting all the credit for English's emergence at a top flight team is hilarious.[/quote]

I don't give him all the credit. Marsh deserves some, Nasser deserves some, Vaughan some and everyone involved earns the plaudits. However I am not strongly inclined to ignore Fletchers influence when things are going well and blame him for anything that goes wrong. That would just be goofy.

[quote]Your academy is what has provided selectors, captains, and national coaches with the talent to rise to the top.[/quote]

It provided some no doubt, however one thing that made us truely great in 2004-2005 was having Troy Cooley coaching our fast bowlers and as England coach Fletcher would have been partly responsible for securing his aid. Fletcher also plucked some very handy performers out from relative obscurity like Vaughan, Tresco and such like. Not all credit should go to the academy, valuble though it is.

[quote] You don't nobble your own captain. If he goes down, the team will follow.[/quote]

He's hardly been nobbled. And it is not true that if the captain should fall the team would follow (whatever that means?). When Botham fell we hit back and stole an Ashes. When Nasser fell, the floodgates of victory opened for 2 years until mass casualties put an end to it.
  • 0

#3358 Brendon

Brendon

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 13976 posts

Posted 10 December 2006 - 01:00 PM

Originally posted by zxb
If Flintoff wasn't wielding his sword to the degredation of the side, he wouldn't be able to fall on it. It would explain why Monty bowled only 3 overs in the first game of this tour. It also means that much of the criticism the coach has received is unfounded. Considering how much of an asset he has been over the past few years, it seems unlikely that he suddenly gone completely nuts. Unfortunately, as yet, Flintoff hasn't resigned the captaincy, and so hasn't fallen in his sword as you seems to think.. ...

....Flintoff is a rubbish captain anyway



Your sentiment towards Flintoff proves my point. Gongrats to Fletcher for saving his own skin.

Please feel free to criticize and harp on other players (other than Fletcher's bum buddies) who are out battling in the field... and remember your coach is sancrosanct. :kowt: :angel:

And Giles is a God. Do keep him in your team. His mediocrity, and medium achievments, are an inspiration to us all. When he is called on to change a gear, his determination to stay average is a lesson to all those who want keep their positions. :D

And yes, Strauss would have got Giles to catch a Ponting gimmie and get all the Aussie batsmen out with his "Fletcher Approved" tactics. Strauss's tactics would have made all the difference.. :rolleyes:
  • 0

#3359 Brendon

Brendon

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 13976 posts

Posted 10 December 2006 - 01:14 PM

Alan Border wasn't a captain's backside. He was thrust into the position because there was no-one else after mass retirements and the South African rebellion.

The ACB put in Bob Simpson as coach to help Border.

Simpson took all the heat. He was a great tactician. He nursed Border thru tough times. And I would never think he would leak anything derogotary about Border. He would protect Border no matter what. And the Aussie side got thrashed every which way for years under Border.

But Border had a stubborn never-say-die trait that the ACB and Simspson protected and encouraged and hoped would carry over into to the team. And it did. When you see the Australian side win against the odds, or get defeated - but fight all the way - that is Border's legacy.

But that was in part because Border, who was never groomed to be captain, was looked after. The guys that followed (Waugh, Taylor, Ponting) just knew how to fly the thing. Border built it. But with a lot of help and protection.
  • 0

#3360 zxb

zxb

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4574 posts

Posted 10 December 2006 - 03:03 PM

Originally posted by Brendon
Your sentiment towards Flintoff proves my point. Gongrats to Fletcher for saving his own skin.

Please feel free to criticize and harp on other players (other than Fletcher's bum buddies) who are out battling in the field... and remember your coach is sancrosanct. :kowt: :angel:

And Giles is a God. Do keep him in your team. His mediocrity, and medium achievments, are an inspiration to us all. When he is called on to change a gear, his determination to stay average is a lesson to all those who want keep their positions. :D


Are you feeling alright old chap? :crazy:

And yes, Strauss would have got Giles to catch a Ponting gimmie and get all the Aussie batsmen out with his "Fletcher Approved" tactics. Strauss's tactics would have made all the difference.. :rolleyes:



When Strauss was captain we were playing Monty. Now he isn't, we aren't playing Monty any more. The chances are that we would have played Monty in the second test instead of Giles had Strauss been captain. In the first test possibly not, but it would have made no difference.
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Copyright © 2016 Pravda.Ru