I agree - this whole game has basically been a war of attrition with hardly any creativity shown (although Flintoff is at least changing the bowlers regularly)FaaipDeOiad said:And that's where the approach of setting defensive fields and relying on accurate bowling comes undone, like it did for Australia with KP and Collingwood. Giles has actually looked a bit more threatening than people here are saying IMO, but aside from Flintoff none of the bowlers look like manufacturing a wicket. There's no significant reverse swing for whatever reason, and if England don't take a couple with the new ball it'll get tough for them to force a victory.
In an attempt to keep this debate above the usual level of mud-slinging, would you care to point out the obvious candidates to replace these so-called "inadequate players"? By that I expect more than "Panesar should be playing".BingLeeElectric said:Because your coach keeps picking inadequate players. It's your own fault.
*Cough, cough* Ian Bell.Barney Rubble said:Also, Hussey seems determined to keep his ridiculously over-inflated average going for as long as he can. Damn him.
Any other spinner who cant take wickets but can catch.Barney Rubble said:In an attempt to keep this debate above the usual level of mud-slinging, would you care to point out the obvious candidates to replace these so-called "inadequate players"? By that I expect more than "Panesar should be playing".
Hussey's better than most of our batsmen, yes. But my point is he's not good enough to average anywhere near 77 in Test cricket. Pay attention.BingLeeElectric said:*Cough, cough* Ian Bell.
Hussey is better than all your batsman.
Care to suggest some names? I'm looking for proof you know enough about English cricket to talk credibly about it, just in case you didn't realise.Any other spinner who cant take wickets but can catch.
Rules Panesar out then.BingLeeElectric said:Any other spinner who cant take wickets but can catch.
Giles is bowling straighter than Warne. The balls would hit the stumps if left alone, Warne's were always missing and way wider.BingLeeElectric said:Giles bowling negative, boring over the wicket stuff again. But unlike Pietersen, the Aus batsman have the ability to use their bats quite a lot & not just pad it all away, tediously.
Wonder if Michael Holding's watching. If so I'll be interested to hear his views today.
his average just hit 80.00 with his 55*Barney Rubble said:Hussey's better than most of our batsmen, yes. But my point is he's not good enough to average anywhere near 77 in Test cricket.
Credit for the first and last use of the name Pietersen in conjunction with the word "tedious". I'm assuming you'd fallen asleep by the time he hit his 222 Test boundaries and 33 sixes!BingLeeElectric said:Giles bowling negative, boring over the wicket stuff again. But unlike Pietersen, the Aus batsman have the ability to use their bats quite a lot & not just pad it all away, tediously.
Wonder if Michael Holding's watching. If so I'll be interested to hear his views today.
Seriously? That's a blow to the ego.pasag said:Ban Rubble and ShaneWarne imo, both trolls.
Does Boycott's grandmother answer to Tendulkar/Ponting or Mohammed Yousef?social said:from cricinfo
Monty asks ... "Is it illegal in Australia to throw greasy palmed, slow left-arm bowlers who couldn't get Boycott's grandmother out on a good day, to the crocs?"
I suspect it was out behind Jones's gloves but since they were in the way benefit of the doubt had to be given.Matteh said:Well, how close was that?
Half a video frame in it.