Hurricane
Hall of Fame Member
Not a bad idea at all. He looked the business in one list A game at the end of the season and bowled some mesmerizing peaches.Jeets in rotation? Could be an okay idea.
Not a bad idea at all. He looked the business in one list A game at the end of the season and bowled some mesmerizing peaches.Jeets in rotation? Could be an okay idea.
Well, that maybe the case, but it's a damn sight better than people not scoring runs and us getting bowled out for 200-odd. He didn't lose that match, FFS, how about all the rest of the bats that didn't get over 34, or Dirtbag going for 87, or Bres for 73. Least culpable of the lot of them IMHO. The worst case of #blameTrott perhaps ever.He needs to be able to lift his game at the fag end of an inning to be a number 3. He lost one game against us despite scoring a century because he didn't prioritise scoring quickly above risking his wicket. As an opener figure he can bat 40 overs - score a century and then get out and let Morgan and company do what they do best.
Eh? England lost that game because after Trott's century, the next highest score was 34. That and conceding 359 when bowling.He needs to be able to lift his game at the fag end of an inning to be a number 3. He lost one game against us despite scoring a century because he didn't prioritise scoring quickly above risking his wicket. As an opener figure he can bat 40 overs - score a century and then get out and let Morgan and company do what they do best.
He needs to be able to lift his game at the fag end of an inning to be a number 3. He lost one game against us despite scoring a century because he didn't prioritise scoring quickly above risking his wicket. As an opener figure he can bat 40 overs - score a century and then get out and let Morgan and company do what they do best.
haha okBoult should be the first bowler picked IMO. Forget his overall record, he's barely played any one day stuff even domestically over the last few years. Doesn't do him enough justice now.
Forget Mills, we ain't winning squat if he's in the playing XI. Boult although unproven in ODI's has the ability to take 4/5 wicket hauls, ya know WIN you a game. Boult, Southee, Henry and Mitch M. With Milne being given plenty of chanes leading up to the tournament.
no he wasn'tJeets was a quite decent one day bowler back in the day.
Although not an identical scenario, having been through this in the past with Trescothick, I'm fairly sure they won't be calling up Trott.He was an huge asset at number 3, consistency in actually scoring runs quite good for a batsman I reckon. We've missed him hugely since he's been gone.
Having said that I worry about a recall, going to the place he had troubles before, and with the big pressure of the World Cup.
I don't think the Mills hate is to do with, er, his bowling figures.Jeets was a quite decent one day bowler back in the day.
Don't get the Mills hate, if he bowls out before the 35th over hes a 40/2 bowler, which any side in the world would take
It does from Howsie.I don't think the Mills hate is to do with, er, his bowling figures.
Sehwag is legit required.Crazy poll results on Cricinfo:
Nah I can't see sledger getting picked in timeI'd put money on Henry to top the WC wicket-taking tally, provided he:
a) Gets picked before hand to get used to ODI cricket
b) Doesn't get injured.
Especially at the juicy odds I assume he would get.
Need quality fire power this tournament, not back of a length 1-50 bowlers to go along with out unthreatening spinner in McCullum.
He's no Boult or Southee, and he sure as hell ain't a third seamer. Picking up 2/50 every ODI in meaningless games might be okay but come the World Cup it ain't good enough for an opening bowler.
Don't get the Mills hate, if he bowls out before the 35th over hes a 40/2 bowler, which any side in the world would take
Well, that maybe the case, but it's a damn sight better than people not scoring runs and us getting bowled out for 200-odd. He didn't lose that match, FFS, how about all the rest of the bats that didn't get over 34, or Dirtbag going for 87, or Bres for 73. Least culpable of the lot of them IMHO. The worst case of #blameTrott perhaps ever.
True he didn't lose the game. But he didn't seem to care about winning either. He was more concerned with being not out than having a dirty unbecoming hoik in the 40th over when that was what the doctor ordered. If you have your eye in and are seeing it like a beach ball then you need to have a dig at the total rather than wiping your hands clean and saying "Hey I am just the anchor man its not in my job description to slog".Eh? England lost that game because after Trott's century, the next highest score was 34. That and conceding 359 when bowling.
Plus the 2 against the West Indies, he is just in terrific form and he has also added a yard of pace since he last played ODI's. The way he was bowling in the last 20/20 any batsman would of stuggled...We're basing all this on what, a couple of Champions League matches against teams from countries renowned for coping with swing bowling?....