Yeah and were skittled twice by NZ and got 47 against SA in recent times.
Can't say that I have (your time zone sucks
) but it's an interesting theory. I can't imagine maintaining a ball in any sort of condition is easy when you've got a bowler as random as Johnson. 
I'd select every NZ bowler who played at Hobart plus Vettori over Panesar tbh.
I remember at the MCG there was a lot of talk about the fuller length but when they showed the pitch map he was actually still quite short most of the time. Reckon the Indian ****ness and the pitches may have created an illusion to some extent.
That's fair comment re Langer, most definitely.
Considering only two batsmen have passed fifty, I'm not too concerned about that. A lot of them got some very good nuts.Yeah and were skittled twice by NZ and got 47 against SA in recent times.
So losing every member of the order 3-7 for under 20 against this India attack today is good is it?
I think you are over estimating your own side's batting against bowling not dissimilar to their own.
Wait; you'd select Martin, Bracewell, Boult and Southee over Tremlett?I'd select every NZ bowler who played at Hobart plus Vettori over Panesar tbh.
And I don't see why England having lots of good bowlers degrades our attack?
Fair enough if you don't think much of them. Apart from Martin and Vettori, who are solid but unspectacular, they're all very young and very raw. They still have a lot to prove against South Africa and beyond. However, Doug Bracewell was exceptional at Hobart and in Zimbabwe (where he saved us from embarrassment by himself) and Boult was excellent on debut.
We didn't win the Hobart test because Australia were crap. They were cruising to victory until Doug bowled a matchwinner, and everyone defended a **** total in the first innings.
I don't disagree with you that they're unproven, and knowing NZ in general I won't be getting overexcited just yet, but they bowled well in Hobart and your logic in saying why they're not very good seems itstl.
That's not what I said at all. I said I'd pick the lot over Panesar.
Would be confident though if you compared that to him, say, a year ago there would be still far more short stuff back then. All that says to me as well, is that he can improve even more. He knows what he has to do now.
Ahh, mis-read your poorly worded sentence.
Quite like this theory.
At least on both occasions we bounced back in the next Test and performed strongly. Our team is not sublime or clinical as it was for so long, but we can beat any country in the world with the group of players that are Test standard in our country.Yeah and were skittled twice by NZ and got 47 against SA in recent times.
So losing every member of the order 3-7 for under 20 against this India attack today is good is it?
I'm trying to find a report or something making mention on it, but it's hard to locate.Can't say that I have (your time zone sucks
I'd imagine thudding through into the keeper's gloves instead of smashing repeatedly into the fence is better for the ball as well.
Reads pretty easily to me tbh. You're just a hopelessly inept spambot.
Yeah it's a good one. Well played Nufan
Lol @ Cribb "reading". Does't see, he just has green and black numbers running across his visor.Reads pretty easily to me tbh. You're just a hopelessly inept spambot.
Current Tremlett is bowling medium pace in sun glasses because his eye is still ****ed
