• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

*Official Third Test at Edgbaston

Son Of Coco

Son Of Coco

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Top_Cat said:
Yes and no. Even if he takes wickets, was a risky call. That's why I called it 'brave' rather than 'good'. :D Has gut-feeling written all over it and why, if he takes some scalps, I won't be running back into this thread saying "See!! Told yuuuuz!" at all the nay-sayers. None of you are saying stuff I really disagree with.

Not enough fool-hardiness in the world, tbh. I admire the entrepreneurial spirit, even in the face of all that is rational/logical. Can sometimes be all the motivation someone needs to buck the trend. Don't believe that all things need be based on cold numbers, even with a lot on the line. Sometimes there's a more intuitive logic which you might not be able to articulate at the time that informs decisions. This is why I was in favour of retaining Johnson.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I probably should have said it might justify the call rather than it being a good one. I was in favour of dropping Johnson because I think his numbers actually flatter him this series so far. He's bowled worse than having 8 wickets next to his name suggests. But if the gamble pays off then the selectors have done well. Guess we'll see sometime in the next couple of days.
 
Pigeon

Pigeon

Banned
Good to see the Watson experiment doing well for Australia. But for a majority of yesterday's play, English bowlers were clearly off steam, including Flintoff. A lot of deliveries were either far outside off stump to cause any harm or were outside the leg stump line.
 
four_or_six

four_or_six

Cricketer Of The Year
A bit bemused to hear Swann saying they weren't prepared to bowl to Watson and they didn't really know how he batted, so they'll be better prepared today. There's only 16 players in the Australian squad, 11 of whom play. I would hope we'd be prepared to bowl at any of them.
 
Son Of Coco

Son Of Coco

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
four_or_six said:
A bit bemused to hear Swann saying they weren't prepared to bowl to Watson and they didn't really know how he batted, so they'll be better prepared today. There's only 16 players in the Australian squad, 11 of whom play. I would hope we'd be prepared to bowl at any of them.
Click to expand...
:laugh:

Yeah, it's a strange comment. Bowling well would be a good starting point when you're bowling to anyone you'd think. And it's not the 1920's...it's not hard to get some video of someone in action.
 
jondavluc

jondavluc

State Regular
four_or_six said:
A bit bemused to hear Swann saying they weren't prepared to bowl to Watson and they didn't really know how he batted, so they'll be better prepared today. There's only 16 players in the Australian squad, 11 of whom play. I would hope we'd be prepared to bowl at any of them.
Click to expand...
I guess it explains why they were bowling to him like Hughes .Still very unacceptable reason from a test team.
 
Last edited:
Matt79

Matt79

Hall of Fame Member
In answer to the question someone asked, I guess in the very unlikely event that Manou injures himself and Haddin doesn't come up, Hughes could come back into the team as keeper. That's where he's previously fielded, yeah?
 
four_or_six

four_or_six

Cricketer Of The Year
superkingdave said:
Swann seemed to bowl alight to Watson himself though.

We just have a dud captain
Click to expand...
Yep, taking Swann off was inexplicable. I presume we will at least start with him this morning.

Flintoff's attempts at bouncers and intimidating stares were pretty daft too, especially once it was clear Watson wasn't bothered by them in the slightest.
 
GIMH

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
andyc said:
It's from the Australian movie The Castle. Definitely worth a watch if you can.

Anywho, I reckon there deserves to be more mention of the sportsmanship shown by Strauss and Andy Flower in allowing Manou to play, top stuff. I can't believe I missed Watto though.. I went to bed around 1:30ish, thinking there wouldn't be much chance of play. Lame.
Click to expand...
TBH, I think it would have been pretty ****ty of them to say no, I would hope that all captains would do it. But yeah, credit, I suppose.

four_or_six said:
I really hope so. I'm prepared to suspend my patriotism for 38 runs this morning.
Click to expand...
:ban:
 
Uppercut

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Graham Onions was taken out of the attack after three overs which went for 27 runs. As the side's fifth bowler, do the English fans feel he's a little surplus to requirements?
 
GIMH

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
Uppercut said:
Graham Onions was taken out of the attack after three overs which went for 27 runs. As the side's fifth bowler, do the English fans feel he's a little surplus to requirements?
Click to expand...
I think it's a fine line, because he doesn't seem to find rhythm in just a few overs. The thing with Onions though is that he is likely to be expensive, but also to take wickets. I don't think he's surplus to requirements, but can't help but feel that Strauss would rather have Harmison or Sidebottom there.
 
four_or_six

four_or_six

Cricketer Of The Year
Uppercut said:
Graham Onions was taken out of the attack after three overs which went for 27 runs. As the side's fifth bowler, do the English fans feel he's a little surplus to requirements?
Click to expand...
I think we can't have Fred as one of four bowlers, therefore someone has to be there. Whether Onions is the right person or not is another question, I guess.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top