Matthew Wade

[uvelocity]

I don't like wade.

And wade is not a Victorian itbt

Maybe it was skiddy himself, his footy team is from tassie

 

[straw man]

I find it striking that people actually consider Wade a good bloke. Where did this come from?

seems to be completely countered by the fact he's a wicketkeeper itbt

 

[NUFAN]

There are two types of people in the workforce, even the cricket workforce.

The first type are those who are technically good at their job and look great, BUT are demanding, a pain the arse to work with, and therefore disrupt the work-flow of the department.

The second type are those who are less knowledgable and a bit slow. However, they are pleasant, good to be around, and try hard. They take longer to learn tasks and roles, but ultimately they benefit the department better in the long-run because they get on with everyone and are well motivated.

I think that Matthew Wade fulls into that second caregory because he seems like a genuine bloke who has the potential to come good. Give him a fair go.

What a bull**** post.

I mean seriously you think people can only fit into one of those categories. If anything I would say Wade would be a pain in the ass to work with.

 

[Philhughesisbes]

Wade will be persisted with rightly or wrongly.He obviously has talent with the bat and despite his below par glove work, he will improve given his attitude.How do people rate Nerville"s keeping?

 

[watson]

What a bull**** post.

I mean seriously you think people can only fit into one of those categories. If anything I would say Wade would be a pain in the ass to work with.

If you say so NUFAN then by definition it must be right.

(Looks like we have ourselves a literalist here. Therefore I should also say that far as the Zodiac signs are concerned- there really are only 12 exact personalty types).

 

[NUFAN]

Oh dear, you're a star sign guy.

Which category is Michael Clarke in? I just felt like it was such a random, inaccurate post to attempt to illustrate a point.

 

[watson]

Oh dear, you're a star sign guy.

Which category is Michael Clarke in? I just felt like it was such a random, inaccurate post to attempt to illustrate a point.

Dunno. Need to consult my oracle to answer that question. Or shall I cast some runes?

 

[NUFAN]

Whatever floats your boat.

 

[uvelocity]

gonna pick noofan in my cw atg posters XI #watsonthoughts

 

[howardj]

I thought Wade had a good 1st Test with the gloves in what were trying conditions

Good being he didn't drop any catches or miss any stumpings

Refreshing change

 

[uvelocity]

wasnt the last ball of the match a missed edge?

 

[Burgey]

Yes, and iirc there was one not long before the end of the match as well, though i wasn't watching at the time and was going off what was said on here.

 

[howardj]

Very rare that I am wrong, but in this case I defer to your superior recall

 

[Riggins]

yeah he dropped 2 catches in that second innings chase. one of them kind of difficult being flicking the pad and then the glove after, guy not playing a shot. But the ball hit im in the gut with not much deviation, how he didn't get even a glove on it...

 

[watson]

What a bull**** post.

I mean seriously you think people can only fit into one of those categories. If anything I would say Wade would be a pain in the ass to work with.

Do you know Wade personally? If not then your comment is just as likely to be speculative 'bull****'.

Sorry, but I still don't get this "let's sack Wade" mantra when he's only been in the job '2 mins'. If I remember rightly the English admin tried lots of chopping and changing in the 90s when they didn't get instant success with their team, and it certainly didn't help any. All it did it was create a sense of instability and decay morale.

If there was another Tallon or Healy waiting in the wings, then of course Wade would have to go. But it's not as if we are flushed for choices. IMO The top 3 batsman are far more of a problem than Wade. Especially Hughes who has had amples opportunities

 

[Spikey]

there were two chances, although the first one was impossible (was following the bounce of the ball, ball hit the glove which changed it's path = no chance) and i never saw a replay of the 2nd

 

[benchmark00]

Do you know Wade personally? If not then your comment is just as likely to be speculative 'bull****'.

Sorry, but I still don't get this "let's sack Wade" mantra when he's only been in the job '2 mins'. If I remember rightly the English admin tried lots of chopping and changing in the 90s when they didn't get instant success with their team, and it certainly didn't help any. All it did it was create a sense of instability and decay morale.

If there was another Tallon or Healy waiting in the wings, then of course Wade would have to go. But it's not as if we are flushed for choices. IMO The top 3 batsman are far more of a problem than Wade. Especially Hughes who has had amples opportunities

There are a number of very good wicket keepers in Australia actually.


None of them are named Matthew Wade.

 

[Riggins]

there were two chances, although the first one was impossible (was following the bounce of the ball, ball hit the glove which changed it's path = no chance) and i never saw a replay of the 2nd

nah not at all. made it look a lot more difficult than it was.

 

[Red]

There are a number of very good wicket keepers in Australia actually.


None of them are named Matthew Wade.

This is true. And most of them would basically match Wade for batting.

 

[benchmark00]

The thing is, if we're going to live by the sword with Wade we have to die by it too. He's clearly only in the team because he's seen as the best batsman who wears gloves with webbing in Australia. So there just can't be the argument that 'oh he's made two hundreds which is great for a keeper', if he doesn't consistently bat well, he should be shown the door, because we all know his keeping isn't keeping him in the side.