A very nice piece Adam. Apt description of the ever-frustrating Ricardo Powell: "the explosive/implosive Ricardo Powell...".Adamc said:
Any thoughts on King and Dillon's performances in the warm-up games? I'm assuming they'll be competing for one spot with the other 10 places to be taken by:garage flower said:
Don't believe everything you read.tooextracool said:err yes i know, obviously, no human is capable of being slower than a snail. but the fact is hes not slow, otherwise he wouldnt be one of the best runner between the wickets in the history of the game
which is why he spent so much time at mid off isnt it?
and of course there have been times when hes been fielding at point
maybe you should watch cricket more closely? personally i doubt you've watched more than 1/4th of his career.
certainly only someone who watched 1/4th of his career would call him a snail in the field, despite the fact that he was the best runner in the entire side.
i can show you many articles other than his cricinfo profile that state that hes a brilliant fielder:
http://www.thisiscricket.com/aus/michaelb/bevan.html
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/cricket/1999/world_cup/news/1999/06/19/notebook/
age_master said:
if im not supposed to believe everything i read,then how the hell can i believe you?Mister Wright said:Don't believe everything you read.
I watched well over a quarter of his career, if not all of it. so..
The snail remark was a comment for his speed towards the end of his career, if I didn't say that - I meant to.tooextracool said:
while quick running does not make you a brilliant fielder, if you can stop balls that not many other people can stop and save several boundaries, its really quite obvious that you are quite a decent fielder(certainly not poor). and considering he had while not the safest pair, not poor and he has pulled off a few blinders. not only that but bevan also had a relatively good arm, more reasons as to why he was made to field at the boundary.Mister Wright said:
which is really pointless to the overall direction of the argument. ive never said that he was anything more than an average fielder towards the end of his career. but even then he wasnt slower than most other fielders,but because his arm had gotten visibly worse, his lower speed made him look really bad.Mister Wright said:
most journalists actually know a lot about cricket, certainly i cant say anything about the other 2 people who've backed up your claims, because its quite possibly that just like you they havent watched most of bevans career.Mister Wright said:
ive explained that in my previous post.Mister Wright said:
IMO Collins has to be there. He's our best allround bowler.bryce said:
I don't see it that way but i believe the selectors did the right thing by listening to the coach and captain. There is no point in selecting a player in whome the captain and coach have no faith.Both Bob and Inzi are still not convinced that Danish can be an effective oneday bowler, had he been selected for the VB series, he wouldn't have got many chances to play in the matches.Linda said:
When on tour, there tends to be only one selector who makes the trip, and of the players selected in the squad, the captain, coach and on-tour selector make the decisions most of the time.Choora said:
Yes they were. There were only two Pak bowlers who impressed in the Australian tour, one is Akhter and the other one was Danish. Akhter is injured and i don't think there shoulld be any doubt that he won't be able to play all the matches in the VB series, as such the need was greater to retain a wicket taking attacking bowler like Kaneria.Unfortunately for Pakistan, Inzi and Bob can't see that.parttimer said:
