Mr Mxyzptlk
Request Your Custom Title Now!
There's no evidence that Rikki Clarke will be persisted with in a Flintoff-esque fashion.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Selectors
- Thread starter gibbsnsmith
- Start date
gibbsnsmith
State Vice-Captain
Re: Re: Selectors
not exactly what my mates book of averages [of english county cricket says]
wagh has an overall average of 43 according to this and knight 29 in 17 tests.
But anyway, on the point by someone about tresco being calle3d up despite having an ordinary average beinmg a right decision...did i say that it was wrong, just questionable
Bazza said:
not exactly what my mates book of averages [of english county cricket says]
wagh has an overall average of 43 according to this and knight 29 in 17 tests.
But anyway, on the point by someone about tresco being calle3d up despite having an ordinary average beinmg a right decision...did i say that it was wrong, just questionable
Langeveldt
Soutie
marc71178 said:
Flintoff - Although to extent this is starting to pay off I agree...
Rikki Clarke
Rob Key wouldnt have lasted that long a few years ago
Steve Harmison - I know you will disagree but he could well have been given the chop permanently if he was playing a few years back, with the selectors desperate hunger for instant success...
James Foster - persevered with for a while
marc71178
Eyes not spreadsheets
2 of those 5 are beginning to come off (Flintoff in a big way) though.
Clarke never did anything that wrong for England yet - didn't really get a batting chance to be fair.
Key showed guts in Aus, so deserved another go.
With Foster, there wasn't really a chance to dump him as there wasn't the cover really.
Clarke never did anything that wrong for England yet - didn't really get a batting chance to be fair.
Key showed guts in Aus, so deserved another go.
With Foster, there wasn't really a chance to dump him as there wasn't the cover really.
Rik
Cricketer Of The Year
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Selectors
I'm wrong? On what charge? I said he was not that old when Gough and Caddick were in their prime, I said that to Eddie and surely that could have made you realise what I ment after I made a mistake? I mean, people don't usually keep on talking about something like that if they mean something different? I think you will find that when Gough and Caddick were in their prime Bicknell was only around 30-31, so therefor no mistake has been made except the wrong quote which I then explained to Eddie. My point is not wrong Marc, so your comment, and this arguement, was and is not needed.marc71178 said:
Rik
Cricketer Of The Year
Re: Re: Selectors
So that's why Bicknell's age and Gough and Caddick were being discussed not only in the same thread but also the same post? That's why I'm posting about something totally different which includes 2 of the points I'm using? The old "I'm wrong because Marc says so" again? I might have guessed.
Yes Marc, of course Marc, 3 bags full Marc!marc71178 said:
So that's why Bicknell's age and Gough and Caddick were being discussed not only in the same thread but also the same post? That's why I'm posting about something totally different which includes 2 of the points I'm using? The old "I'm wrong because Marc says so" again? I might have guessed.
marc71178
Eyes not spreadsheets
Re: Re: Re: Selectors
The fact here is you are wrong because you can't read - it was clear what I was talking about.
I try to reply to posts by cutting them up into small portions where more than one point needs replying to - nobody else gets confused by it.
And if you read the post you were quoting you would clearly see that the 34 was referring to why he wasn't called up when the likes Jones and Anderson were.Rik said:
The fact here is you are wrong because you can't read - it was clear what I was talking about.
I try to reply to posts by cutting them up into small portions where more than one point needs replying to - nobody else gets confused by it.
Rik
Cricketer Of The Year
Re: Re: Re: Re: Selectors
I don't expect this level of pettyness, not even from Chris. Marc, you know full well I can read, so why drag yourself down to such a level? And as for what you were talking about, yes it was clear, but I was talking about something, although not totally on topic, which was related to what you said. Therefor I am not wrong or right.marc71178 said:
marc71178
Eyes not spreadsheets
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Selectors
His non-selection when Jones and Anderson have been selected has absolutely nothing to do with how well Gough and Caddick were bowling 2 or 3 years ago, not least because they were injured when one (or both in the case of Gough) were selected.
It was not related to what I was talking about since you were talking about things 3 or 4 years ago when I was clearly talking about the last 6 months, a fact clearly borne out by the age I placed on him.Rik said:
His non-selection when Jones and Anderson have been selected has absolutely nothing to do with how well Gough and Caddick were bowling 2 or 3 years ago, not least because they were injured when one (or both in the case of Gough) were selected.
