Shane Warne
Banned
Some kid went into the thread and told me that it should be posted in this one, so I assumed he would lock my original one.steds said:
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
***Official*** Australia in England (The Ashes)
- Thread starter James
- Start date
Shane Warne
Banned
As a black man, I find that offensive.Lillian Thomson said:
Scaly piscine
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Flintoff is our best bat?!?King_Ponting said:
Pietersen looked a class above everyone else in the England side, although everyone else was hopeless so it's not saying much. It would also have been nice if England had put some work into picking Warne's bowling variations.
Adamc
Cricketer Of The Year
Nice report; certainly got a lot of value out of 10.1 overs of play.FaaipDeOiad said:http://www.cricketweb.net/article.php?CategoryIDAuto=1&NewsIDAuto=556
Those match reports take longer than I thought.
Lillian Thomson
Hall of Fame Member
You really are away with the fairies.Shane Warne said:
FaaipDeOiad
Hall of Fame Member
Yeah, did that.PY said:Only one problem in an excellent article, you need to sort out your HTML code.
Shane Warne
Banned
Oh was it you? Sorry old man.PY said:Some kid? Cheers.
I would have done if I had the powers to but I don't so I can't.
I was gutted when Warne missed out on bowling Jones through the gate by a coat of varnish.
Would have put him on the Lords honors board for the first time.
BoyBrumby
Englishman
Seems to work ok for you blokes.....King_Ponting said:
Pretty terrible capitulation in the end. I think KP maybe should've tried to protect the tail a little bit more, but it would've only delayed the inevitable.
The scary thing is that Oz can only really get better, they've beaten us by 200 & plenty after being bowled out twice, playing with only 3 bowlers (effectively) & Langer, Hayden, Ponting & Gilchrist failing to make a 50 between them.
As for us, what changes can we make? Dropping Gilo for an extra bat or Read for Geraint? Sounds rather like rearranging the deckchairs on The Titanic to me. If Thorpe hadn't have spat the dummy he should come in ahead of Bell, but now that option has been removed. By retiring Thorpe has really justified the selectors decision to drop him; all his talk about being "commited to test cricket" has been shown to be just that: talk.
I expect to see the same 11 for the 2nd.
King_Ponting
International Regular
Geriant really needs to work out his keeping otherwise its curtains on his career. I'm pretty sure the selectors will give him a run in edgbaston but if he screws up as badly as he did in this test than he should serious wonder if he will play international test cricket again
Shane Warne
Banned
I read contrasting accounts on the Thorpe thing.
One story going around was that Thorpe had been told he was behind Key, Joyce and Collingwood in the pecking order.
One story going around was that Thorpe had been told he was behind Key, Joyce and Collingwood in the pecking order.
Adamc
Cricketer Of The Year
Not sure that McGrath will be so kind.King_Ponting said:
Seriously though, Jones was very ordinary with the gloves, and I'm not convinced that it's worth playing him over Read purely for his batting. Read seems a half-decent batsmen anyway, and by all reports his 'keeping skills are much better.
England really must be certain that they've got their best XI on the park for the next game - if they lose, it's basically impossible for them to regain the Ashes. Bell's form will no doubt be worrying, but with no Thorpe, I can't really think of any better option.
Any thoughts on what the Edgbaston pitch will offer?
King_Ponting
International Regular
Seam like it always does, i assume. And thats probably a good thing. the only way i see england winning the next match is if the curators dish up a green top and negate the warne effect. Theyre not really losing out as giles is a rubbish spinner and they could drop giles for a batsman and go in with a four prong pace attack. Thats their best chance of winning next matchAdamc said:Not sure that McGrath will be so kind.
Seriously though, Jones was very ordinary with the gloves, and I'm not convinced that it's worth playing him over Read purely for his batting. Read seems a half-decent batsmen anyway, and by all reports his 'keeping skills are much better.
England really must be certain that they've got their best XI on the park for the next game - if they lose, it's basically impossible for them to regain the Ashes. Bell's form will no doubt be worrying, but with no Thorpe, I can't really think of any better option.
Any thoughts on what the Edgbaston pitch will offer?
nick-o
State 12th Man
I expect, and hope, to see the same 11 for the 2nd and 3rd -- anything else would make a mockery of the selction policy of the last few years.BoyBrumby said:
As for Thorpe: if, after three tests, we've lost the series, there would never be any justification for recalling him anyway, while if after three tests we're still in with a chance, why would we change the line-up?
So his decision was right in that regard -- no place now, no place ever again given he'd already made clear that he was retiring after this summer.
The only issue is in the event of injury. If one of the current middle-order was forced out by injury --and people like Flint-o have a history here -- it would have been good to have Thorpe as a stand-by. That's the only scenario where the toys/pram criticism comes into play, and even then it would be more positive to choose a replacement looking forward not back.
I think the timing of his announcement was terrible, but the decision itself was basically correct.
