*Official* England in Bangladesh Thread

[Richard]

LMAO. I await the response...

Liam, haven't you been listening? I tried to explain...
Stats are more than domestic averages.
Really, they are.
Please. Believe me.

 

[chris.hinton]

NO CROFT

 

[gibbsnsmith]

NO CROFT

i think thats a good lil qiuck point.

WHY CROFT?

 

[marc71178]

A Test economy-rate of under 2.4-an-over.

Yet in another thread you say you cannot judge someone on their economy rate.

Caddick got a very prompt, and totally justifiable, recall. Croft is very unfortunate if he has been penalised for his withdrawl.

Caddick got a recall because he was better than the other bowlers in his position.

Croft is no better and Fletcher was fuming at his cry-off.

 

[Rik]

Lol.. Clarkes dismissal really was comical, even if the ball had turned a bit it would probably have bowled him... Good leave mate, you are probably one of the softest allrounders England has produced since Darren Maddy lol....

After watching Englands spin attack and Bangladesh's.. IMO Bangladesh's is far more impressive than Englands...

Harmison just bowled a snorter to get rid of Saleh, who set off like he had a bus to catch...

Maddy's turned himself into an all-rounder. He was an opening batsman when he was picked for England. I think he's a good reserve player, certianly better than Clarke but vying with Collingwood for the back-up all-rounder's spot.

 

[Richard]

Yet in another thread you say you cannot judge someone on their economy rate.

You sure know how to twist words, don't you. I say you can't judge someone on their economy-rate. I say you can select them on it alone.

Caddick got a recall because he was better than the other bowlers in his position.

And Croft is better than the other bowlers in his style.

 

[JohnnyA]

The thing is: why is he bowling a leg-stump line? I can't imagine he, or any coach, is stupid enough to believe that's a good line? All I can think, as I recently mentioned, is that the change in angle has created problems in his aim.
As for Croft; constantly drop it short outside off? He doesn't. Honestly. He mightn't be the greatest spinner, even the best fingerspinner, but he's nothing if not accurate. A Test economy-rate of under 2.4-an-over. As for the India tour, Caddick got a very prompt, and totally justifiable, recall. Croft is very unfortunate if he has been penalised for his withdrawl.

Most of the time he is accurate. But when the pressure has been on in test match cricket, he chokes ... simple as that. That's were the "drop it short outside off stump" comes from.

He's another England bowler who has actually gotten worse over the years. I thought spinners were supposed to mature and improve :rolleyes: When he first burst into the team, he spun the ball a lot, and was very aggressive. Then he turned into a negative defensive spinner ... and that doesn't work in this day an age ... too many batsmen are adept at milking spinners due to ODI cricket.

But I think if he was given a fair run in the team that he could do better than we've seen from either Giles or Batty ... and he is a determined lower order batsman.

 

[marc71178]

You sure know how to twist words, don't you. I say you can't judge someone on their economy-rate. I say you can select them on it alone.

So what is selecting them then if it's not judging their better than others.

Oh, and when has any player ever been selected for a Test side on the basis of his economy rate?

 

[Richard]

So what is selecting them then if it's not judging their better than others.

Oh, and when has any player ever been selected for a Test side on the basis of his economy rate?

They haven't - someone just made a point about his accuracy and I said economy-rates generally give a fairly accurate impression of accuracy - hence, Croft is pretty accurate. If you ask me, anyway.
Selecting is concerned with trying to win matches. You don't have to select the best players, you just have to select those who have proven to do best.

 

[chris.hinton]

The thing is is that Robert Croft has never been any good in my view, as someone told me a couple of days ago about his shoulders are the saem as warne and that he should flight the ball more as he has the bulid for it

 

[gibbsnsmith]

BWHAHAHAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA

.

Ah, ive waited long for another flighted spin comment.

So, tell me, Chris...Why doesnt Kumble bowl flighted spin..his shoulders dont seem demeneted in any way.

 

[luckyeddie]

The thing is is that Robert Croft has never been any good in my view, as someone told me a couple of days ago about his shoulders are the saem as warne and that he should flight the ball more as he has the bulid for it

Well, he's got the same number of shoulders as Warne - that is, unless hydrochlorothiazide and amiloride are mutagens, of course

 

[Richard]

Well, he's got the same number of shoulders as Warne - that is, unless hydrochlorothiazide and amiloride are mutagens, of course

A little OT, but:
hydrochlorothiazide? Chemical formulae, please?
And significance?

 

[marc71178]

They haven't - someone just made a point about his accuracy and I said economy-rates generally give a fairly accurate impression of accuracy - hence, Croft is pretty accurate.

Funny how many times people have been on here complaining about Harmison spraying the ball all over the place (which to be fair he has done on occasion), yet he was still bowling economically.

Also, Giles is very economical in Tests when he bowls to a plan, so what basis do you have to pick Croft the chicken?

 

[luckyeddie]

A little OT, but:
hydrochlorothiazide? Chemical formulae, please?
And significance?

Cut and pasted from the 'original' drugs report regarding Warney's mum's visit to the chemists.

Chemical formula? Haven't a clue.

Significance? Oh, come on. Context.

 

[Richard]

Funny how many times people have been on here complaining about Harmison spraying the ball all over the place (which to be fair he has done on occasion), yet he was still bowling economically.

Also, Giles is very economical in Tests when he bowls to a plan, so what basis do you have to pick Croft the chicken?

The chicken? Come on, if you're having to resort to "he's a chicken because he wouldn't go to India so don't pick him" your case against his being the best spinner in the country must be on rocky turf.
Giles is economical (most of the time) when he bowls, rather than to a plan, with his normal accuracy, and he, like Croft, spins it enough to be a threat on typical subcontinent wickets. However, in the recent Bangladesh Test he wasn't exactly up to his normal standards.
Harmison was as economical as he was in Australia mainly because he speared it down leg so often. If balls down leg were wided in First-Class-cricket he'd have gone for much closer to 4-an-over. In his last 3 Tests his accuracy has been commendable and his economy has been earned almost solely through good bowling. However, it hasn't improved his penetration. He's got 13 wickets (for 112 runs) in his last 2 innings, 1 through a ball that he created it's realistically unplayable nature solely (ie without assistance from uneven bounce), Kirsten at The Oval.
I criticise him for his lack of penetration, not his waywardness as this could possibly be considered a thing of the past. His first spell in domestic-FC-cricket this season was about 2.2-an-over. Sadly, in the next spell he threw it all over the place.

 

[Richard]

Cut and pasted from the 'original' drugs report regarding Warney's mum's visit to the chemists.

Chemical formula? Haven't a clue.

Significance? Oh, come on. Context.

Sorry, didn't realise. Chemical formula is of irrelevance.

 

[luckyeddie]

Sorry, didn't realise. Chemical formula is of irrelevance.

No problem. Warney is just a standard 'target' - and any laughs I get at his expense are cheap - by definition. Don't need to be clever in his case (well, no more clever than Shane anyway)

 

[Top_Cat]

hydrochlorothiazide? Chemical formulae, please?

C7 H8 Cl N3 O4 S2

There you go.

 

[luckyeddie]

C7 H8 Cl N3 O4 S2

There you go.

Just reading it, my double chin is disappearing fast. Thanks, mum