Paul Nixon

[jammay123]

nixon is a great character good keeper and he'll put on a few useful runs at the end of an innings

 

[aussie]

will never agree with his selection since he's not the best option, but its too late he's going to the world cup.

 

[Jamee999]

Good player.

 

[Richard]

Bizarre that people imagine having a homosexual in your avatar will make people assume you're gay. I've got an American in my avatar...

Obviously I can only speak for myself but if I understand the content of an avatar (which I categorically don't with yours at the time of this post) I'll always associate that person with what's in it.

 

[Richard]

Well I've had Morrissey & Mark Eitzel (by my own volition, unlike Mr Mercury) as mine previously & I don't think they would make anyone assume that I'm gay. Moreover I couldn't give an arse if they did.

I honestly didn't even know that either were gay. It's not simply about having a gay person as an avatar - it's about having someone who's homosexuality is their most obvious character-trait. Some make a big song-and-dance about it, others don't. And if someone featured someone who did make a big song-and-dance about it, it would make me wonder. Not, of course, that (to borrow a quote) I'd "give an arse" about it.

Luckily I'm not one to take offense (often...), but you should be careful what you accuse people of.

D'you really think I don't know that? You've forgotten the Matt-Panesar-racist incident?

I had absolutely no intention on either occasion of accusing either of you of racism or homophobia. But it appeared as though I had both times.

 

[Richard]

Haha, not sure about that claim, Richard. I think your concern about being perceived as gay might set you back around the middle of the pack, TBH.

I don't give a damn if I'm perceived gay. But I wouldn't actively encourage that perception.

 

[irfan]

I don't give a damn if I'm perceived gay. But I wouldn't actively encourage that perception.

Oh God. I thought this thread was about Paul Nixon

 

[wpdavid]

will never agree with his selection since he's not the best option, but its too late he's going to the world cup.

I'd be pushed to see what he gives us better than Read, apart from better sledging. And I'm not convinced that had a lot to do with the turnaround in our fortunes. Personally, until the last 4 games he just reminded me of the defeated knight in Monty Python's "Holy Grail", all four limbs hacked off by a superior opponent but still demanding that the victor come back and fights like a man.

As you say, there'll be no dropping him now though.

 

[roseboy64]

Oh God. I thought this thread was about Paul Nixon

Same here.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Hands up if you care about Dickinson's ***uality.

 

[open365]

Hands up if you care about Dickinson's ***uality.

He sounds like a queer to me...

I have no idea why journalists are saying one of the plus points of this tour has been Paul Nixon.

I'm sorry, but no, just no.

He wasn't the best choice of wicket keeper when they picked him, and since he's been in the side i haven't seen anything that's made me think he's the best choice now, he'll play in the world cup because he's played now, but i have serious doubts of the sanity of the English selectors when Nick Pothas the best Wicket keeper batsman in England is not even in line for a spot behind a 36 year old county player who's biggest selling point is his gum guard and sledging techniques.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Paul Nixon averaged 11................

 

[viktor]

Yeah I have a complete tosser in my avatar

So it does work sometimes, then ?

edit:

Re the topic.. I think he is probably what England needed at this point..may be sometime in the future his batting average will work against him but at least in this series, he might just have given the "attitude" on the field..something Read may not have been capable of

 

[open365]

So it does work sometimes, then ?

edit:

Re the topic.. I think he is probably what England needed at this point..may be sometime in the future his batting average will work against him but at least in this series, he might just have given the "attitude" on the field..something Read may not have been capable of

So now we've been reduced to rationailizing a players selection on attitude and dis regarding ability have we?

 

[PY]

Well the picking on talent thing becomes void when it's about our wicketkeeper status IMO.

We needed something different and while he may not be brilliant at batting or stupendous with the gloves, he's full of energy and confidence which England badly needed after the Test shocker (lest we forget). The other options were hardly pushing their CVs forward were they?

Credit where it's due, Nixon didn't do much but I don't reckon his replacements would've either so maybe the confidence/arrogance shown was worth calling up a 36yo?

 

[viktor]

So now we've been reduced to rationailizing a players selection on attitude and dis regarding ability have we?

A player's attitude is definitely an important aspect to be considered for selection though not, usually, at the expense of ability. However, I'm guessing the selectors took a punt that Read wasn't much more likely to win matches off his own bat than Nixon while Nixon might be able to bring that attitude back into the England side that Read was not likely to do.

 

[open365]

Well the picking on talent thing becomes void when it's about our wicketkeeper status IMO.

We needed something different and while he may not be brilliant at batting or stupendous with the gloves, he's full of energy and confidence which England badly needed after the Test shocker (lest we forget). The other options were hardly pushing their CVs forward were they?

Credit where it's due, Nixon didn't do much but I don't reckon his replacements would've either so maybe the confidence/arrogance shown was worth calling up a 36yo?

http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/ci/content/player/46780.html

Pothas had an FC average of 50 last season i believe.

His attitude and arrogance is just an illusion, when we win everybody goes "Oh Paul Nixon did so much work by looking happy and thinking he's great, what a gun" and ignores what his acctual contribution to the game and when we lose everyone does the same still.

I don't give a toss how much he shouts behind the stumps, you pick players on ability, not perceived character traits which make a good headline.

 

[open365]

A player's attitude is definitely an important aspect to be considered for selection though not, usually, at the expense of ability. However, I'm guessing the selectors took a punt that Read wasn't much more likely to win matches off his own bat than Nixon while Nixon might be able to bring that attitude back into the England side that Read was not likely to do.

What the hell is 'that attitude' you keep talking about??

It's not as if Paul Nixon walks into the English dressing room and everybody goes "By golly lads, look at this guy, he believes in himself, maybe if we believed in our selves we wouldn't suck as much".

It's a media fad put around by Nasser body language Hussain, and it is certainly not worth consideration when picking players.

 

[viktor]

What the hell is 'that attitude' you keep talking about??

It's not as if Paul Nixon walks into the English dressing room and everybody goes "By golly lads, look at this guy, he believes in himself, maybe if we believed in our selves we wouldn't suck as much".

It's a media fad put around by Nasser body language Hussain, and it is certainly not worth consideration when picking players.

okay.

 

[Richard]

Oh God. I thought this thread was about Paul Nixon

Same here.

Ever heard of "evolution of discussion"?