I don't think Casson will be a long term solution, but if they are going to go with a spinner, his 2nd half of the domestic season where he averaged mid-20s at least gives him some form.
Right...when it places more pressure on the rest of the team if they let you down in both areas. The safe option's not to pick a proven performer in a batsman (some of whom were considered to be able bowl a bit as well while not being genuine all-rounders) than go with someone who in the first instance is unproven, and in the second and third instances has failed before? That's interesting.
Much like Mark Ramprakash, really.
Didn't said "half" amount to something like 2-and-a-half matches? Or was it 3-and-a-half?
Oh no, Bevvo's problems were temperamental. The perception that he was weak against short ones was not really based in fact.
Yeah, he was a wanker...that's temperamental
Really?
Wasn't in Test matches; they only played one Test against each other in Sydney and Fraser got him caught behind in both innings.
Whoa you two, I'm not saying Bevvo was a fantastic player of the short ball. He didn't play the pull or hook all that often so bouncing him wasn't the best tactic because he'd just duck. For that reason it's wrong to say all you had to do was pitch the ball short and he would panic before popping up a catch to short square leg.
My mistake, meant Gough of course. That giant of a bowler. Actually don't recall too clearly the two Fraser dismissals, but they could've been short deliveries.
So you've stopped using people's first names if they ask you not to then?BTW, please don't attach Lillian Thomson's name to my posts.
So you've stopped using people's first names if they ask you not to then?
I've never used the first-name of someone who asked me not to - have used the surnames on a couple of occasions, because those people had been dicks to me beforehand. But I don't know nor want to Lillian Thomson's actual name, so that's irrelevant really.
I certainly hope you have met him in person before making a comment like that.Yeah, he was a wanker...that's temperamental
BTW, please don't attach Lillian Thomson's name to my posts.
Technical.
You reckon he wasn't bounced very often in the FC game? Issues with the short ball are about as mental related an issue you can get in cricket.
Not entirely sure what how much he was bounced in the domestic game has to do with whether short-ball issues are temperamental or technical, but yes, I do think he would've been bounced plenty in the domestic game (though obviously not as much and not to anywhere near the level he was at the international because it's a step down) and that's why I can't really believe it was a fault he never solved.Technical.
Yeah I have. Wanker's possibly a bit strong though, 'a bit of a tosser' is probably more accurate.