***Official*** New Zealand in England series 2013

[Howe_zat]

You can't expect him to get up and watch cricket that isn't on in the summer

 

[flibbertyjibber]

You can't expect him to get up and watch cricket that isn't on in the summer

Well he was there wasn't he?

 

[KungFu_Kallis]

You think England is good enough to treat a test series against a side they struggeld to draw with two months ago as nothing more than a warm up for another series?

I thought there was only one Scaly.

I was quietly agreeing with you about their greatness

 

[grecian]

This attitude is pretty weird.

1. The fact England ended up winning isn't the point, you judge the decision objectively not in hindsight.

2. Its a cricket forum full of cricket nerds who think they would all be awesome cricket captains. Debating captaincy decisions, particularly in a rain affected game, is just natural.

3. Other than the few who are saying England are pussies etc. the majority haven't gone over the top with their criticisms of Cook. The point isn't that he should have risked losing to win. The point is the loss was already impossible an hour before he declared.

I think it's not just the talk here TBH, it's everywhere, the pundits, the Media, social media, it has been slightly wearying and really annoying. All for a decision, in the great scheme of things is a bit meh.

I would have done things differently, but then I know ****.

I think the 4 bowlers plays a big part in our decision you know. Particularly with them all looking key for the coming Summer. The weather is pretty ****, really is the time that you could pull muscles if you strain too much. Swann and Broad are particularly injury-prone, and Jimmeh didn't look 100%. They've really got a lot of cricket to play in the next 7 months or so.

 

[Jono]

I think it's not just the talk here TBH, it's everywhere, the pundits, the Media, social media, it has been slightly wearying and really annoying. All for a decision, in the great scheme of things is a bit meh.

That's fair.

 

[Howe_zat]

Yeah. It's all over the mainstream media as well, like this piece of tosh from Nicholas

Mark Nicholas: England must end insularity to become great | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[LongHopCassidy]

I don't mind people bigging up the team or players but ridiculous false statements like Swann is number 1 do my head in.

Ditto. It takes a lot of effort to upend Nathan Lyon.

 

[Stapel]

Had to laugh at Boring Bob on Sky Sports News last night, bigging up how England will thrash Australia and once more claiming Swann was clearly the best spinner in the world because he had taken 10 in the match. Did he not see Ajmal spin us into oblivion in the last series then?

I don't mind people bigging up the team or players but ridiculous false statements like Swann is number 1 do my head in.

Though one can agree or disagree with the statement Swann is the best spinner in the world, it is by no means a ridiculous statement, is it?

 

[Cricketismylife]

Though one can agree or disagree with the statement Swann is the best spinner in the world, it is by no means a ridiculous statement, is it?

That's at least arguable and nowhere near as bad as when Willis claimed that Anderson is in "the Mcgrath class of bowling". Comparing a good to very good bowler with an all time great bowler is shameful.

 

[luckyeddie]

That's at least arguable and nowhere near as bad as when Willis claimed that Anderson is in "the Mcgrath class of bowling". Comparing a good to very good bowler with an all time great bowler is shameful.

Anthony McGrath was NEVER a good to very good bowler.

 

[Viscount Tom]

Slanderous lies Gripper was an ATG bowler and you know it.

 

[hendrix]

Though one can agree or disagree with the statement Swann is the best spinner in the world, it is by no means a ridiculous statement, is it?

Both Herath and Ajmal are leagues above Swann.

Swann is perhaps on the level of Ojha.

 

[Jarquis]

wot.

 

[hendrix]

fwiw, I think Ojha (and Swann) are very good bowlers.

Just quite far behind Herath and Ajmal.

 

[Neil Pickup]

How can you put daylight between Swann (222 wickets @ 28.5) and Herath (200 wickets @ 29.5)?

I could see the argument for rating Herath over Swann - personal preference and all that, and he did have a fantastic year in 2012 - but daylight?

 

[hendrix]

How can you put daylight between Swann (222 wickets @ 28.5) and Herath (200 wickets @ 29.5)?

I could see the argument for rating Herath over Swann - personal preference and all that, and he did have a fantastic year in 2012 - but daylight?

It's my personal preference to put daylight between Herath and Swann!

Herath just has more skill as a bowler. He has greater deception through the air, bowls more unplayable deliveries and has more variety up his sleeve.

There are very few deliveries from Swann that I would call unplayable, and I do think he benefits somewhat from being part of a very good bowling attack. I think he's a good bowler, but Herath is quite significantly better.

 

[hendrix]

I know this isn't an Ashes thread, but there isn't one as yet, and I just wanted to share a laugh.

Ashes 2013/2014 Subforum

 

[Tom Halsey]

This attitude is pretty weird.

1. The fact England ended up winning isn't the point, you judge the decision objectively not in hindsight.

Agree, but I seem to recall that when Clarke made a debatable declaration in the Australian summer, the vast majority of the forum defended it on the basis that they won. I find the difference in attitude now very interesting.

 

[Spark]

Well the point there is that the debate was whether Clarke had declared too early, not too soon. So it's pretty much the opposite situation to here.

 

[Howe_zat]

Well the point there is that the debate was whether Clarke had declared too early, not too soon. So it's pretty much the opposite situation to here.

Because it passes for acceptable with the "get on with it" army doesn't make it an inherently better decision. It's pretty much the perfect example really.