The "I told you so" and "I was wrong" Thread.

[Burgey]

I always imagine Burgey waking up and hearing that Bell scored another ton to be like that clip from Downfall where they're giving Hitler bad news.

Nah, not at all. But I'm still yet to see him make a ton of any real worth. Until i actually see it for myself, he remains the pathetic downhill skier he always has been.

 

[Burgey]

Though I think I may have inadvertantly given him some credit somewhere in one of the match threads. If I did, I was wrong on that occasion.

 

[Spikey]

With Bell scoring 3 tons in this series, and 4 tons in his last 5 tests against Australia, surely its time to ask if Burgey was more wrong about Bell than Spikey was about Hilfenhaus.

One would have thought Spikey and Hilfenhaus could never be challenged. But Burgey is seriously tasting.

He keeps on doubling down

 

[dermo]

haddin's 71 at TB better than any of bell's cheap runs imho

 

[Jono]

The best bit about Bell making runs is its happening against Australia and in consecutive winning Ashes series. His biggest critics have always been Australian, and yet now there are Cricinfo headlines and articles about Bell's "Ashes legacy". It really is the biggest **** you by Bell, not only does he now have a seriously good record and stats with the bat, he is going to go down in Ashes folklore. Its ****ing hilarious in fact.

 

[GIMH]

Bell shot to legendary status when I sang his name in the back of a black cab during the Saffa series in 09-10 and that's a fact

 

[vic_orthdox]

Yeah, I've been wrong about Bell. He's controlled the tempo of the games, where in the past he's been one to thrive when the tempo of the game suits him.

 

[Flametree]

Burgey was hardly alone in not rating Bell. Was it CMB-something or other who did a bit of posting for a while before the trip to India I think? Haven't seen him around here much lately.

 

[Bahnz]

Yeah, I didn't expect Bell to do badly in this series or anything, but he has been just phenomenal.

Swann has been predictably vital throughout the series even when he hasn't been bowling that well. Does anyone seriously still think that Anderson is England's most valuable bowler?

 

[Spark]

Yeah, I've been wrong about Bell. He's controlled the tempo of the games, where in the past he's been one to thrive when the tempo of the game suits him.

Yeah indeed. Don't really know how else we could have bowled to him, which speaks volumes.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Yeah, I didn't expect Bell to do badly in this series or anything, but he has been just phenomenal.

Swann has been predictably vital throughout the series even when he hasn't been bowling that well. Does anyone seriously still think that Anderson is England's most valuable bowler?

Would have gone 1-0 down without him and his performance at TB probably won us the 2nd test as well. He is still the leader and the man Cook goes to even when off form.

 

[Bahnz]

Would have gone 1-0 down without him and his performance at TB probably won us the 2nd test as well. He is still the leader and the man Cook goes to even when off form.

...as opposed to Swann's 9 wickets?

I agree that Anderson was the match-winner for England in the first test, but Swann also played a vital role for England in that game, chipping in with crucial breakthroughs in both innings (especially the two late wickets on the 4th evening). If it hadn't been for a third umpire ****-up Swann would've finished up with first innings figures of 3/20 and the result likely would've been as one-sided as the Lord's test.

For me, the four wickets that he grabbed in this test sum up how important he is. Removing Rogers and Haddin before the 2nd new ball was taken effectively knee-capped Australia's chances of reaching a comfortable first innings lead. Then in the second innings when it really looked like none of England's bowlers were threatening, he wrenched upon the door that Broad and Bresnan subsequently ran through. He's the only bowler in the England side who can consistently be relied upon to change the momentum of a match when things are going against them, regardless of the conditions. Anderson is an excellent bowler too, but I think England would cope a lot better without him than they would without Swann.

 

[Furball]

Yeah, I didn't expect Bell to do badly in this series or anything, but he has been just phenomenal.

Swann has been predictably vital throughout the series even when he hasn't been bowling that well. Does anyone seriously still think that Anderson is England's most valuable bowler?

Yes. Anderson being England's most valuable bowler isn't arguable for reasons I explained earlier in the series.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

...as opposed to Swann's 9 wickets?

I agree that Anderson was the match-winner for England in the first test, but Swann also played a vital role for England in that game, chipping in with crucial breakthroughs in both innings (especially the two late wickets on the 4th evening). If it hadn't been for a third umpire ****-up Swann would've finished up with first innings figures of 3/20 and the result likely would've been as one-sided as the Lord's test.

For me, the four wickets that he grabbed in this test sum up how important he is. Removing Rogers and Haddin before the 2nd new ball was taken effectively knee-capped Australia's chances of reaching a comfortable first innings lead. Then in the second innings when it really looked like none of England's bowlers were threatening, he wrenched upon the door that Broad and Bresnan subsequently ran through. He's the only bowler in the England side who can consistently be relied upon to change the momentum of a match when things are going against them, regardless of the conditions. Anderson is an excellent bowler too, but I think England would cope a lot better without him than they would without Swann.

Anderson winning the first test meant Australia were on the floor for the 2nd so we won easily. If Australia had won that TB test then they'd have been on a high and Anderson would have been burnt out anyway.

 

[Biryani Pillow]

We were told that if Anderson didn't get wickets England would be in a bad way.



And the turnabout by some on here re Bell

Mind you, a couple of 'quiet' games and the "what have you done for me lately" types will be calling for him to be dropped again.

 

[Cabinet96]

Just like how two games make James Pattinson a meh operator.

 

[Biryani Pillow]

Just like how two games make James Pattinson a meh operator.

I never judge someone on just two games - Pattinson included.

I also take into consideration pitch conditions and other factors.

 

[Bahnz]

Anderson winning the first test meant Australia were on the floor for the 2nd so we won easily. If Australia had won that TB test then they'd have been on a high and Anderson would have been burnt out anyway.

Dwta, and tend to think that Swann's bowling to dismiss Oz for 120 in their first innings probably had more to do with the ease of England's victory than any ghosts of Trent Bridge.

 

[the big bambino]

Yeah, I didn't expect Bell to do badly in this series or anything, but he has been just phenomenal.

Swann has been predictably vital throughout the series even when he hasn't been bowling that well. Does anyone seriously still think that Anderson is England's most valuable bowler?

10 wickets in a skinny 1st test win which gave England the head start - yeah.

EDIT: Agree about Swann being pivotal to Eng's success.

 

[morgieb]

Looks like I was right about Khawaja after all. Ditto Rogers.