andruid
Cricketer Of The Year
In a Jason Roy kinda way though...most of the rest of the team Can Bat though
In a Jason Roy kinda way though...most of the rest of the team Can Bat though
Yeah it's a good example of how sometimes quantifying or attaching numbers to something can make it unnecessarily complicated or confusing. The basic theory is something no sensible cricket fan would disagree with.It wasn't really his theory though. And y'know what, he's kind of right in the sense that long periods without rotating the strike will generally cause a batsman to do something silly or get a ball with your name on it.
Yeah, they can bat a bit.most of the rest of the team Can Bat though
I mean I didn't expect him to be the one bowling dry with a 77 over old ball but he's doing a good job of it so I'll take it. Don't see how Siddle gets into this again.I have waited far too long for a Patto demolition job.
It's not actually a stat though right? I always assumed it was just something McGrath came up with to exaggerate a logical point, that building pressure increases the chance of a batsman making a mistake.It's the only stat he likes
Theres several passages in Warne's books which mentioned how much he liked to simply bowl a "negative" or containing line but complement it with an attacking field with lots of fielders in catching positions. Basically just not giving singles away and simply banking on the batsman doing something really stupid.It wasn't really his theory though. And y'know what, he's kind of right in the sense that long periods without rotating the strike will generally cause a batsman to do something silly or get a ball with your name on it.
Injuries might help, but then again I expect Starc to do better in Australia and Richardson will be back. His one saving grace might be the other back-to-back Test.I mean I didn't expect him to be the one bowling dry with a 77 over old ball but he's doing a good job of it so I'll take it. Don't see how Siddle gets into this again.
Was Buchanan.It's not actually a stat though right? I always assumed it was just something McGrath came up with to exaggerate a logical point, that building pressure increases the chance of a batsman making a mistake.
That's a favourite theme of his commentary too. "Attacking field, defensive bowling"Theres several passages in Warne's books which mentioned how much he liked to simply bowl a "negative" or containing line but complement it with an attacking field with lots of fielders in catching positions. Basically just not giving singles away and simply banking on the batsman doing something really stupid.
Oh. I try not to listen these days tbhThat's a favourite theme of his commentary too. "Attacking field, defensive bowling"
100 more runs to go.Sweepstakes - England score
68 - MW1304
127 - stephen
156 - Fuller Pilch
162 - Burgey
163 - trundler
171 - Uppercut
182 - flibbertyjibber
207 - morgieb
237 - Compton
238 - Marcuss
247 - duffer
255 - Spikey
266 - NUFAN
272 - ajdude
310 - GoodAreasShane
320 - Second Spitter
361-7 - GIMH
And that's a wrap.
I feel like he's less annoying than what he was. Still not exactly good, but probably a little bit harshly treated by CW.Oh. I try not to listen these days tbh
Would be interesting to see the numbers tbhIt's not actually a stat though right? I always assumed it was just something McGrath came up with to exaggerate a logical point, that building pressure increases the chance of a batsman making a mistake.
He’s such a ****. Slipped in a slagging of Buchanan while doing soEven harsher given that Warne was literally talking about the 3 maidens theory not 10 minutes ago. Well, here it is in action.
He definitely is not as bad as he was with Ch9. But, then again, who was?I feel like he's less annoying that what he was. Still not exactly good, but probably a little bit harshly treated by CW.