TBF Broad has held his hand up in the "Lions" (
) fixture. 4/66 off 19 overs & a 50 is useful form, especially given the length of our tail.
I'll happily take you on on Bell to score more chanceless runs than Collingwood. Other thread, though.
Miracle has happened, I think - I agree with DB's disdain for something fairly trivial."Lions" (
I hope and pray that if Strauss is dropped, it doesn't mean Vaughan opens.
Ind33d on both counts.
Not saying it should happen, but I think Shah would be likely to be given another go if Strauss's services are dispensed with, so that means either MPV or possibly even Bell would be opening.
No, indeed. However, for a bowler who spins the ball (which Kumble does - just not all that often using sidespin) uneven bounce + spin is better than uneven bounce with no spin or spin with no uneven bounce.
That's the whole thing of a flat track, though, that almost no-one usually performs. If we take the start of Kumble's renaissance as that famous SCG game where he took 12-279, here are the games that stand-out:
And the idea of Bell at the top makes me cringe even more than Vaughan.
The point is, Kumble doesnt need a spin wicket to be effective. You said he is ineffective without spinning tracks. So whether he is far more effective on x or y or z is irrelevent.
So you will take flat tracks to prove Kumble is ineffective on all tracks except spinning tracks? Gosh.
Don't do so much pyschoanalysis. Save yourself the trouble. Take all his tests abroad from the Australian series in 2003/04 except Bangladesh, Zimbabwe. He has a good average which means he has done well on tracks not supporting spin abroad at points which proves you wrong.
I didn't, actually, I said he's still often someone who struggles on less spin-receptive or not-uneven wickets. Well, if that wasn't exactly what I said, it was what I meant.
Well, a pitch either spins or it doesn't...
I prefer to look at things on a proper, match-by-match, basis, rather than the simplstic view of just looking at an overall record overseas. I never once mentioned countries, I mentioned type of pitch. Just having a (relatively) good average overseas doesn't mean you've bowled well on non-spinning pitches.
I can't figure out your inner meanings or your abberations. I am not a super natural being. Debate with clarity or people will assume you are trying to weasel out of points. You never used often and defended it with vigour. Now you try to weasel out by bringing in often.
So you will justify your stance of ineffectiveness of a player on non spin tracks on tracks where no one is effective? Again, that is just ridiculousWell, a pitch either spins or it doesn't...
Then look at match by match properly rather than saying it was a good pitch for bowlers and so he can take wickets there and all.
A good average abroad would 99% times mean that the spinner has been effective on non spin conditions at times given the countries he played in.
It's not a changed stance, really, but anyway... we know what the contention is now, so...I can't figure out your inner meanings or your abberations. I am not a super natural being. Debate with clarity or people will assume you are trying to weasel out of points. You never used often and defended it with vigour. Now you try to weasel out by bringing in often.
And even your changed stance doesn't hold good. When you are saying he is often ineffective on non spinning tracks, please prove that he is where other bowlers have also taken wickets. If Kumble is ineffective on non spinning tracks, so is almost every other international bowler by your standards where you will
a) Take into account all flat wickets.
b) Discount wickets where bowlers take wickets.
No, not no-one, as I say above.
I don't neccessarily believe that to be the case, we've seen spinning pitches in most parts of The World in the last few years. The matches I gave were, as I said, pitches where I'd hope he'd take good figures on. But there were other games, not all on obscenely flat pitches where 600 was the norm, where he didn't take wickets. I'm not for a second saying he's totally incapable of being effective in non-spinning\uneven conditions. I've tried to state that all the way through - that he's better than he used to be, but still well capable of being ineffective.Then look at match by match properly rather than saying it was a good pitch for bowlers and so he can take wickets there and all.
That is a very normal stance. I have no problem with it which I can see.
If he averaged well, he did perform well in non spin conditions abroad at least at times. So the earlier ineffective stance which I understood you were taking was my problem. The current stance in the earlier problem, I have no problem with.
He does require an up-and-down pitch, though.
???
u r getting Star Cricket in Mumbai? Isn't CAS implemented there? So is Star Cricket a FTA channel or do u have to get it only through your set top box?
Yeah, I'm in one of the CAS designated areas. I called up my cable operator (InCablenet) and asked them to activate the channel and they did so within 72 hours. I guess they will bill me next time they come, but it'll be just Rs. 5 per month. It isn't FTA.
I live in Chennai, which is fully under CAS. But there is only one MSO here and those guys are not providing us Star Cricket. And these are greedy idiots. They will ask us the payment in advance and make us go through all sorts of rubbish before they give us the channel.
I agree that Tresco's return would be the answer to a failing Strauss. However, Strauss had a decent 2nd innings in the Lion's game. I wouldn't wrighr him off so quickly.
