You're saying Udal's looked more threatening?DanielFullard said:I dont see the point in putting Monty in. He hasnt looked very threatening throughout the innings and at this stage we need these taileneders out and to be out under pressure and even though Monty has bowled well with a good economy, hes not what we need attacking these tailenders right now
Udal couldn't be look threatening if he had a balaclava, an AK-47, some rope and a clamping device.Samuel_Vimes said:You're saying Udal's looked more threatening?
Quoted for the typo.steds said:Udal couldn't be look threatening if he had a balaclava, an AK-47, some rope and a clamping device.
NoSamuel_Vimes said:You're saying Udal's looked more threatening?
*cough*DanielFullard said:I dont see the point in putting Monty in. He hasnt looked very threatening throughout the innings and at this stage we need these taileneders out and to be out under pressure and even though Monty has bowled well with a good economy, hes not what we need attacking these tailenders right now
Hey, Im not one to shy away when I am wrong. Im glad I was. We needed that wicket.andyc said:*cough*
What typo? Oh wait. I see it.andyc said:Quoted for the typo.
Anyone on cricbuzz? Look out for me.
Haha yeah fair enough. It's not as if I've been right all the time (looks at Langers' sig). Spinners often do have a knack of getting out tailenders, though.DanielFullard said:Hey, Im not one to shy away when I am wrong. Im glad I was. We needed that wicket.
Imagine the shame of the poor chap who has to have that on his CVLangeveldt said:Udal took a wicket!!