** CWXI Tour of India **

[Neil Pickup]

so i may as well kiss my test career goodbye because of 3 tests?
think of Australia everytime a player has a poor series like Martyn, Langer, Mark Waugh, Hayden people call for their heads, the selectors stick with them because they were/are the best people, thats why they were picked in the first place...

The difference is they keep their places as they are established at the top level with an outstanding record - there is no-one in the CWXI with that 'luxury' - possibly Cloete and myself - but neither to the extent of the Aussies. A more pertinent example was Matt Elliott.

 

[lord_of_darkness]

Which is only right, seeing how ridiculous the sign-ups got.

Too true.. nowadays they just sign up to be better than the rest and to fill up batting or bowling gaps to whatever necessary to suit their advantage being a team..

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Asked to comment on Simon Fitzsimmons, Liam Camps stated via phone:

"Simon is a quality batsman and team player. He's not in the best of touch at the moment, but the selectors have no intention of casting anyone from their thoughts on the basis of a poor series in India. We need only remember Ricky Ponting."

 

[lord_of_darkness]

Simon :P dont get your bp up so high man.. the board doesnt cover health insurance

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Asked to comment on Simon Fitzsimmons, Liam Camps stated via phone:

"Simon is a quality batsman and team player. He's not in the best of touch at the moment, but the selectors have no intention of casting anyone from their thoughts on the basis of a poor series in India. We need only remember Ricky Ponting."

Ponting doesn't average 29.92 over 43 Tests, though.

 

[Simon]

Ponting doesn't average 29.92 over 43 Tests, though.

cant argue with the numbers can you, whatever happens, happens. I just hope if im dropped my replacement gets a fair go and does better than i have in recent times...

 

[dinu23]

I think there's a big gap between our dev league standard and International cricket standard. a good example to that is Simons last season.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Ponting doesn't average 29.92 over 43 Tests, though.

Consider that relative to the typical CW Test average though.

 

[Mister Wright]

Kyle that was quite uncalled for and I'm surprised no one even picked you up for it! Considering you're basically just criticising me...

I haven't once criticised you or anyone else! All I'm saying is that if the bowler's can't seem to break a partnership then it's worth giving marc (if he's playing) or anotherp art-timer a go. Particularly when you consider Marc averaged 20 against SA.

It wasn't a shot at anyone, partnerships always happen in cricket. If the bowler's just can't seem to get the break through, it's surely worthy trying someone else...

We would be in a much better position if the fielders took their catches. We have had so many dropped catches it really is not funny. The figures would be a lot better and the batsman would have less to chase. So leave the bowlers alone, it isn't easy on these pitches then to see good balls being dropped makes it even harder.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Consider that relative to the typical CW Test average though.

Makes it acceptable, does it?

 

[Travis_Teh]

For Aggression the batters start defensive .. except for players such as sehwag who start a little more aggressive than others.. and as the batsmen get their touch they slowly move up.. similar to bowlers except they dont start too defensive as when they are fresh they have a bit of firepower but not too strong.. and say if a team is near collapse the bowling will be a little more than defensive and not too aggressive as the fielding side will be looking to get the last few wickets..

But please neil.. i dont see why you have to scrutinize us each time.. you think we get some sick pleasure out of this? There is no motivation..

I don't understand... Why isn't there any -really- aggressive bowling? Like 100%. Who cares if they go for runs at the start? atleast more chances will be showing. Plus if you sim all the opening batmsne (other than sehwag???) as slow pokes, wouldn't the bowlers be out to get on top real early with -a lot- of aggression??

Plus, are you saying that the bowlers are set to low aggression to try and finish off a team?
WOuldn't they be bowling as hard as they could to get RID of the last few wickets? Doesn't make sense to me hehee.

 

[cricketboy29]

hmm, can't really say anything, but everyone knows what a huge mountain, India is to climb, even the all conquering aussies said so. I mean did you see the reilef on gilchrist's face, after they won the series. So, i think we should stomach the losses, and move on, and personally i dont know much about the selection process, but lets not chop and change to much, i mean, hakon was doing a bit badly, with some ducks and sub-10 scores, he came back with 78. Im sure, everyone else will pull together, under the guidance of all these wise old men. (no offence)

 

[Jamee999]

Which is why you'd drop him after a poor tour, yet you wouldn't drop Kyle?

Sorry.. a case of double standards here.

Just dropping so many people isn't going to, and never will, achieve anything. India are a damn good team, we're slowling getting better but we have to come to terms with hiccups like these along the way!

3.83 with the bat for a specialist isn't as bad as 46.14 for a bowler.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

3.83 with the bat for a specialist isn't as bad as 46.14 for a bowler.

Really? 3.83 with the bat on decks that Sehwag is slamming a century per innings is worse than going for less than 50 per wicket? Something's wrong with that reasoning...

 

[Mister Wright]

Really? 3.83 with the bat on decks that Sehwag is slamming a century per innings is worse than going for less than 50 per wicket? Something's wrong with that reasoning...

That's what I thought, however I thought it was a typo.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Makes it acceptable, does it?

If you've got batsmen seemingly unable to perform consistently at better than 30 runs per innings it's acceptable by force.

 

[Jamee999]

Really? 3.83 with the bat on decks that Sehwag is slamming a century per innings is worse than going for less than 50 per wicket? Something's wrong with that reasoning...

Ooops, typo. I meant the other way round

 

[Buddhmaster]

Ooops, typo. I meant the other way round

sure you did

 

[Jamee999]

I've been wanting Simon out, and then changed my mind on Kyle, WOE would I mean the other way round?

 

[lord_of_darkness]

I don't understand... Why isn't there any -really- aggressive bowling? Like 100%.

Then either side starts crumbling faster..

Who cares if they go for runs at the start? atleast more chances will be showing.

That would be less realistic... we are playing a test match here... they wouldnt go for that many runs at the start ie Indian bowlers vs a team like bangladesh and bangladesh wouldnt get that many chances at the start either..

Plus if you sim all the opening batmsne (other than sehwag???) as slow pokes, wouldn't the bowlers be out to get on top real early with -a lot- of aggression??

No as i said they dont start out too defensive.. i never said they start of with a lot of aggression.. you tell me what the norm would be then? bowling with a lot of firepower is unrealistic and bowling defensively at the start would be unrealistic aswell..

Plus, are you saying that the bowlers are set to low aggression to try and finish off a team?
WOuldn't they be bowling as hard as they could to get RID of the last few wickets?

If we had max aggression we would have teams crumbling even faster in the lower order.. and that doesnt happen in test cricket where after a day or 2 of bowling , the bowlers can sum up to have max aggression.. but they certainly bowl with a lot of heart which is a low aggression scale..