Age is a number IMO. If hes performing he deserves his chance. Play for the present not the futureFiery said:He's too old as well. Not exactly a progressive section.
You could say the same with many bowlers at the moment. He's a decent bowler, don't get me wrong, but would look out of his depth at international level.Blaze said:We will never know unless he is tried.
The same could be said for Jeff Wilson, so I have to agree with Blaze here in terms of age. At the moment, he doesn't look ready though and I certainly wouldn't select Hamilton.Blaze said:Age is a number IMO. If hes performing he deserves his chance. Play for the present not the future
Have to think about the future too. There are the odd exceptions, i.e, those who leave the selectors with no choice but to pick them, e.g Richardson or that dude in the movie The Rookie. Don't think Hamilton quite deserves to be there despite performing well in State cricket.Blaze said:Age is a number IMO. If hes performing he deserves his chance. Play for the present not the future
Poor old Billy has had a rough time of it lately. A bit humiliating to have his decision overruled. Nothing worse than that for an umpire. Poor bugga._Ed_ said:The run Bowden took off has been put back on...315 the target now.
Age does matter in ODIs as team have to build up to the WC every 4 years. You have to make sure that the players u select will be peaking at the time the WC comes around. You are better off picking a young guy who will be at his peak by the time the WC comes, rather then someone who will be dropping in performance.Somerset said:The same could be said for Jeff Wilson, so I have to agree with Blaze here in terms of age. At the moment, he doesn't look ready though and I certainly wouldn't select Hamilton.
I think the pitch might suit him if he's prepared to trust the bounce and play his shots. He has to really, chasing this total.zinzan12 said:Great .....Sinclair will miss or hit the field for the next 10 overs