Well what are you supposed to say when the wickets are a drag-on by a batsman who doesn't use his feet, an LBW down legside, and the spinner's wickets are a superb stumping off a very ordinary ball and a good catch from a very ordinary ball and poor shot?Rich2001 said:
Fair enough, though it certainly didn't come across that way.PY said:Was only jesting anyway. Forgot to add some smilies in my post.......:saint:. Apologies.
Just seemed like you were ignoring the fact that Corey is a very well-respected guy on the forums.
Rich2001 said:
I would say who cares, he got the wicket they all count... if he earnt it or not doesn't really matter at the end of the day it's still going to show as a wicket in the scorebook and that's all that really counts isn't it?Rik said:
The main asset of Collymore IMO is his ability to swing the ball. He's at his best in this and other regards when he's 100% fit though. He's not been that way for half a year or so now.Langeveldt said:
Interesting to see Jacobs and not Read. That's the only one I can see obvious problems with. (That is of course discounting Smith, Lara, Chanderpaul, Best and Collymore in.Mr Mxyzptlk said:TESTS
Michael Vaughan
Devon Smith
Shivnarine Chanderpaul
Brian Lara *
Graham Thorpe
Andrew Flintoff
Ridley Jacobs +
Tino Best - for his batting
Steve Harmison
Corey Collymore
Matthew Hoggard
:saint: ).I think the major problem with Collymore is his attuide, I know facing the Australians and South Africans isn't the nicest at the best of times, but watching on TV at times he just looked like he couldn't be bothered and would rather have been sitting on a beach somewhere. (Or does he always look that wayMr Mxyzptlk said:
)
It's just obvious that those wickets weren't deserved so it's 2 (poor in my view) bowlers getting away with another poor performance that the selectors will turn round into a decent performance using the stats to justify their selection, so they don't look silly. Harmison troubled some of the batsmen yes, but he tended to bowl far too wide, hence the econ rate. Hoggard's was higher because he went searching for wickets instead of taking the easy option most of the time and bowling wide enough to be left, although at the end he was admittedly lacking, bowling far too wide to the tailenders. Certainly neither of Giles' wickets had anything to do with him bowling, and Harmison was very fortunate Bowden didn't look at the LBW long enough and Gayle could have edged that ball anywhere. When there's a lack of good bowlers in the England side, the last thing I want is 2 bowlers getting even more luck going their way. In the context of the game I'm glad those wickets were taken, but to me it also means we are going to have to cope with substandard players for a while longer. But then, with this England selection board, if you bowl fast or your name is Giles, you can't be dropped anyway.Rich2001 said:
I'd go along with this, which seems to be pretty much the consensus view.badgerhair said:
All fair comments (although i really think Jones can be the best english bowler for years if he can just keep injury free and stay in the team), but who would you have replace these bowlers then?Rik said:
commone darren ganga scored 2 centuries against u guys and u couldnt even defend 415 odd in the 4th innings!!Shane Warne said:
I don't know which Collymore you've been watching, but he's one of the most dedicated players I can think of. He always seems to bowl and bat with heart and effort.Rich2001 said:I think the major problem with Collymore is his attuide, I know facing the Australians and South Africans isn't the nicest at the best of times, but watching on TV at times he just looked like he couldn't be bothered and would rather have been sitting on a beach somewhere. (Or does he always look that way
The West Indies batting lineup is not bad at all. With Lara, Chanderpaul, Sarwan and Gayle all potent runscorers and Smith (Devon) and Ryan Hinds showing they can chip in too, it's pretty good.Shane Warne said:
