Paul Nixon

[tooextracool]

I read a rather interesting blog on Paul Nixon recently:

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/sport/2007/02/07/why_i_love_the_badger.html

I think most people would agree that based on skill alone Paul Nixon is clearly not good enough to be making the national side. Hes certainly riled plenty of Australians already. But with no English wicket keepers standing up recently and the selectors largely waiting for Steve Davies or whoever to come in anyways, do you think Nixon was the right selection? Do you think he should play ahead of Read in the world cup?

 

[BoyBrumby]

Decent article, even if I thought it was possibly intended a bit of a conversation starter (as I guess on-line papers' blogs would be) & not necessarily what the writer thinks, but it does contains a couple of pieces of real insight:

"On the pitch, Nixon is a breath of fresh bull****. A man who admitted that he had no qualms about sledging Mike Hussey for not walking yet would never walk himself. The most abrasive and irritating cricketer to play for England since Dominic Cork."

&

"Unlike Cork, Nixon does not have the talent to back up his attitude."

However, in answer to your questions: no & no. If we wanted to annoy the Aussies couldn't we just rub some Ralgex into their jock-straps or make chimp noises when Punter's around? Moreover it was a massive kick in the nads to younger, more talented keeper/batsmen (I'm thinking Read & Foster mainly) who would've automatically assumed they were higher in the pecking order than Nixon.

 

[Stumped]

and also the fact that he is the most annoying player at the moment..closely followed by collingwood

 

[wpdavid]

. If we wanted to annoy the Aussies couldn't we just rub some Ralgex into their jock-straps or make chimp noises when Punter's around?

So that's where we went wrong. Failing that, we could have flown over some under-10s to wave flags as they ran onto the field, which pretty much did for them in 2005 IIRC.

 

[TT Boy]

"Unlike Cork, Nixon does not have the talent to back up his attitude."

 

[andyc]

I read a rather interesting blog on Paul Nixon recently:

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/sport/2007/02/07/why_i_love_the_badger.html

I think most people would agree that based on skill alone Paul Nixon is clearly not good enough to be making the national side. Hes certainly riled plenty of Australians already. But with no English wicket keepers standing up recently and the selectors largely waiting for Steve Davies or whoever to come in anyways, do you think Nixon was the right selection? Do you think he should play ahead of Read in the world cup?

He has?

 

[Jono]

He was picked solely on his ability to sledge with a mouthguard on.

When Nixon gets to the age of losing his teeth, so in about 10 months time, he'll be pretty good at talking with his false teeth, what with his mouthguard experience and all.

I wouldn't want to play against Nixon in an old folk's retirement village, things could get ugly with him chatting behind the stumps.

 

[Slow Love™]

Is Paul Nixon any relation to James Nixon?

 

[Neil Pickup]

A man who admitted that he had no qualms about sledging Mike Hussey for not walking yet would never walk himself.

Um, isn't that completely normal? I did that to a 14 year old last summer. Does that make me a bad person?

 

[PY]

That's because you're a hypocrite and a general gob about town.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Neil aside, it's not hypocrisy if you expect to be sledged in return.

 

[Barney Rubble]

Is Paul Nixon any relation to James Nixon?

Are either of them related to Richard Nixon?

Speaking of which, some mates and I have taken to referring to England's Nixon as "The President" during this series. We feel it makes for a better nickname than "Grandad".

 

[steds]

Could you please point out to me how that is amusing?

 

[PhoenixFire]

Could you please point out to me how that is amusing?

I just find the idea of Dominic Cork playing cricket cricket amusing.

 

[Richard]

Err............

Why?

Given that he did and does - often very well.

 

[Richard]

However, in answer to your questions: no & no. If we wanted to annoy the Aussies couldn't we just rub some Ralgex into their jock-straps or make chimp noises when Punter's around? Moreover it was a massive kick in the nads to younger, more talented keeper/batsmen (I'm thinking Read & Foster mainly) who would've automatically assumed they were higher in the pecking order than Nixon.

Why would Foster have assumed such a thing?

Nixon has always been a superior one-day batsman to him - not to mention a superior gloveman.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Why would Foster have assumed such a thing?

I'm gonna go ahead & say it's the being a decade younger & having played for England before.

Plus he actually did ok in one-dayers last year. Don't get me wrong, I think Read was the pick, but if Dunc vetoed him (& I think it's a fair assumption by now that he doesn't fancy Read as a player even vaguely) I would've thought Foster was the more likely shout.

Pothas notwithstanding, obv.

 

[Richard]

I honestly don't see how being a decade younger matters in the slightest when the World Cup is just months away. Nor does having played for England before make you any better a chance (does, if you were rubbish at such a time, decrease your chances - as it patently has with Read).

Forgot Pothas... again...

 

[Jono]

This article was in The Age the other day, my mate cut it out and showed it to me at cricket today and I recognised the "mad for it" and "Dominic Cork" quotes.

 

[Richard]

Why do so many Aussies (even if they're Indo-Aussies like you) have Nixon as an avatar at the moment? :