vic_orthdox
Global Moderator
Been massive doing that though, lot of wickets have fallen down the other end or the spell after his.Watson will do his usual; be accurate and swing it a bit but take **** all wickets.
Been massive doing that though, lot of wickets have fallen down the other end or the spell after his.Watson will do his usual; be accurate and swing it a bit but take **** all wickets.
So basically Bailey with more Shield runs?Yes and no. The number of runs and that he scored in a variety of circumstances and conditions should hold him in good stead but I don't think his play outside off stump was really tested this year and Anderson could wreck him. Still think he tends to fence. If he scores against the counties he'll be in with a massive chance but in no way should he be a shoe-in even if he plays in the WI.
tbf he doesn't have to be great, just better than shaun marsh.Yes and no. The number of runs and that he scored in a variety of circumstances and conditions should hold him in good stead but I don't think his play outside off stump was really tested this year and Anderson could wreck him. Still think he tends to fence. If he scores against the counties he'll be in with a massive chance but in no way should he be a shoe-in even if he plays in the WI.
As much as I like Bailey, surely he has to be replaced by one of Marsh and Voges. I would like to see the veteran being given a shot.
Mate, seeing that we had watson at three before I'm sure technique is not a criteria the selectors look at.
Except I never said he shouldn't bat at 3. I think he should. But it remains that 4-7 is a bit of an unknown quantity for the Ashes.To be honest, every Indian side would have looked better with Dravid at 5 instead of 3 too... But it is not always about how it looks, is it? Now, if you are saying you are still not sure if he can do the job of being solid at 3 given that his technique being so unorthodox is prone to unravel quicker than the traditional ones, I will agree.
meh not reallyThese anti voges sentiments remind me of the anti rogers ones and rogers turned out alright so I'm not going to trust your lots assessments again.
Were you around back then when a lot of CWers were saying he'd fail?meh not really
Rogers hasn't been a complete disaster but I wouldn't call him a huge success either
Except I never said he shouldn't bat at 3. I think he should. But it remains that 4-7 is a bit of an unknown quantity for the Ashes.
Yeah he's been exactly what Australia have needed. Has helped Warner settle in at the top of the order, imagine if there had been an England-esque revolving door.Yeah, especially considering how bad Australia's batting was when he came in.