Broad Replaces Lewis

[GIMH]

Maybe it's best if this thread is locked like the Whatmore one was. Disappointed with Rodgie tbh.

 

[Ash_A55]

Maybe it's best if this thread is locked like the Whatmore one was. Disappointed with Rodgie tbh.

Is that not a wee bit OTT?

 

[GIMH]

no

 

[_Ed_]

Maybe it's best if this thread is locked like the Whatmore one was. Disappointed with Rodgie tbh.

Agreed.

 

[Dark Hunter]

This whole thing reminds me of a guy in my Year 8 class who copied an article from a page on the net, pasted it into word, and handed it in as his project for history. Of course, being the idiot that he was, he forgot to delete the underlined words that linked to other pages, the authors name, and website link at the bottom of the page.

 

[marc71178]

I find it funny how I am a better writer than you.

In whose opinion?

Because I can only see one of the 2 of you who consistently writes coherently and intelligently, even if I disagree with some of the things he says...

 

[FBU]

To veer off of the subject -

Lewis started off in Australia and they found that he doesn't bowl at the death and had to bowl his 10 overs straight off. Also after the first few overs the keeper had to stand up. They are wanting a bowler to take wickets in the middle of the innings. Lewis was good opening but all he did was be economical when he was tried in the middle of the innings. So that leads us to Plunkett.

Plunkett was lucky to have ideal conditions in Australia bowling under lights and picked up good wickets. So the plan was to open with him. Different conditions and no night bowling. Took early wickets but when brought back same as Lewis no wickets but more expensive. They were still looking for a wicket taker in overs 15-40 and as Mahmood was bowling well in the nets he was the next to be tried.

Mahmood brought in because he has pace and variety. Well if you can call it variety and his pace has rarely got about 85mph. His variety I would say is slower balls. Hasn't looked to take wickets in opening overs and has outfoxed some batsmen as they don't know what to expect from him and he doesn't know how the ball is going to come out either. He has taken loads of wickets on the A tour in the West Indies but still a gamble, which brings us to Broad.

Knows where he wants to put the ball. Has height and hates being hit for runs. His fantastic economy in 20/20s worked for a while in his first ODIs and then he also started to go for over 5 an over. In Bangladesh he was the leading wicket taker and took wickets in most of his first overs. Can bat. So can we play Anderson, Broad and Mahmood in the same match?

 

[Scaly piscine]

Why would anyone want to play Mahmood?

The main difference between the West Indies conditions and Australia conditions is the pitch scuffs the ball up quicker so the window for when the ball swings (orthodoxly) is much smaller. But Plunkett can still bowl at the near death or death quite well, it's just Vaughan would rather stupidly use him for a short burst at the start then give him the odd 1-2 over burst in the middle.

 

[Prince EWS]

Lewis started off in Australia and they found that he doesn't bowl at the death and had to bowl his 10 overs straight off.

If you're going to bowl your 10 overs straight off, in the PowerPlay overs mind you, and end with figures of 10-40-2, then so be it, IMO. It's not like England have an embarrassment of riches in terms of one day fast bowlers - they are playing Saj Mahmood for crying out loud! Anyone who can do a job like Lewis has so far in his career should be like gold to England and yet they continually discard him for no apparent reason.

 

[FBU]

Why would anyone want to play Mahmood?

The main difference between the West Indies conditions and Australia conditions is the pitch scuffs the ball up quicker so the window for when the ball swings (orthodoxly) is much smaller. But Plunkett can still bowl at the near death or death quite well, it's just Vaughan would rather stupidly use him for a short burst at the start then give him the odd 1-2 over burst in the middle.

Yes I also thought Plunkett bowled very well at the death in Pakistan. They needed 40 runs from 40 balls and between Anderson and Plunkett they did the job without Flintoff. I am not keen on Vaughan's captaincy in the ODI game. Our plan for the opening bowlers used to be 6 + 2 + 2 with one of the openers bowling at the death with Flintoff. Now Anderson is bowling 8 + 2 in the middle overs. Mahmood bowling 3 or 4 overs at the beginning and 3 overs in the middle and death. The last person I want to see bowling at the death is Mahmood. He has no experience at all. I'd rather have Collingwood.

 

[Barney Rubble]

In whose opinion?

Because I can only see one of the 2 of you who consistently writes coherently and intelligently, even if I disagree with some of the things he says...

Only Rodgie could induce a post like that.

 

[Richard]

Admirable sentiments.

 

[cric_manic]

Whatever happend to that bowler tremlett(sp?)he always does well for me on ICC 2005

 

[Perm]

Played a game or two in the CB series, looked pretty average but he did have decent height and pace. I'm sure we'll see more of him in the future.

 

[FBU]

Broad arrived last night. Rumours that Plunkett might play tomorrow.

 

[shortpitched713]

Plunkett should play, and between him and Mahmood it should have been Mahmood who should have sat out so far.

 

[FBU]

No, not instead of Mahmood but as well. Graveney said there wasn't much spin in the wicket and they will have to have a think about it. I think Vaughan could always bowl any spin needed and we could have Anderson, Plunkett, and Mahmood as the bowlers.

 

[Richard]

Played a game or two in the CB series, looked pretty average but he did have decent height and pace. I'm sure we'll see more of him in the future.

Most people have been being sure of that for the last 6 years.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Ah, such a good thread.

 

[Richard]

Ah, Rodgie... He Shalt Plagiarise...