• 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)

andyc

andyc

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Ian Bell bowling? I might eat my words if he gets a wicket, but isn't one of the best aspects of this side the fact that they have 5 bowlers?
 
luckyeddie

luckyeddie

Cricket Web Staff Member
andyc said:
Ian Bell bowling? I might eat my words if he gets a wicket, but isn't one of the best aspects of this side the fact that they have 5 bowlers?
Click to expand...
New ball due in 5 overs when he came on - now England will want Harmison, Hoggard and Flintoff to be relatively fresh for that, with Jones being incapacitated.

(I cannot believe I just had to explain that).
 
Adamc

Adamc

Cricketer Of The Year
luckyeddie said:
New ball due in 5 overs when he came on - now England will want Harmison, Hoggard and Flintoff to be relatively fresh for that, with Jones being incapacitated.

(I cannot believe I just had to explain that).
Click to expand...
Hoggard just went off, so it must be Harmison/Flintoff for the new ball. Giles and Bell will be bowling in tandem again if Hoggard doesn't come back soonish.
 
andyc

andyc

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
luckyeddie said:
New ball due in 5 overs when he came on - now England will want Harmison, Hoggard and Flintoff to be relatively fresh for that, with Jones being incapacitated.

(I cannot believe I just had to explain that).
Click to expand...
Didn't think of that. You could've just simply told me, however. He had three overs last night, when the old ball wouldn't have been coming in to play, so I don't think it was that stupid of a question.
 
luckyeddie

luckyeddie

Cricket Web Staff Member
andyc said:
Didn't think of that. You could've just simply told me, however. He had three overs last night, when the old ball wouldn't have been coming in to play, so I don't think it was that stupid of a question.
Click to expand...
I COULD have simply told you, but where's the fun in that? :)

The interesting thing now is that Hoggard's been off the field and the new ball has been due for a couple of overs. I wonder why?
 
FaaipDeOiad

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
luckyeddie said:
I COULD have simply told you, but where's the fun in that? :)

The interesting thing now is that Hoggard's been off the field and the new ball has been due for a couple of overs. I wonder why?
Click to expand...
Breakfast, obviously. Had to give the sub his fielding time.

This really is odd captaincy from Vaughan. New ball is due, and he's bowling Bell and letting Clarke leave 6 balls an over? If England take a wicket, they're on the verge of winning the test! Why would he let it slide?

Excellent 50 from Clarke too, needs to make it a hundred.
 
luckyeddie

luckyeddie

Cricket Web Staff Member
FaaipDeOiad said:
One would be inclined to wonder why he was chewing when he came back on then. He's an odd one, that Hoggard...
Click to expand...
Well, there were some big bits - and you don't want to waste those.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top