Cook
Strauss (c)
Bopara
Pietersen
Collingwood
Prior (wkt.)
Flintoff
Broad
Swann
Anderson
Onions/Panesar
This twelve will win the Ashes. That is all.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
A rabble of ill-informed blow-hards spit their cricket-related diatribes of cuntishness onto an unsuspecting public.
Posts
16 comments:
onions will play - panisar has done nothing, and i see that rashid got a spanking today.
i think that we should be able to bowl the fuckers out no problem. but,
i'm not sure how comfortable i am with two spinners playing - maybe its good, maybe its asking for trouble. but with 3 quicks, its shouldn't be a problem. its needs a change of mindset - we shouldn't need 4 seamers in uk conditions, and if its spinning, as cardiff promises to do, then why not play two slow-mos?
batting worries me.
i watched vaughn on the 20-20 highlights, and, dare i say it, he's over man. 1st ball - beautiful off drive. couple of singles later, reverse sweep to straight one. it looked silly. and he seems to be old now.
if you close your right eye, and read out the first 9, the batting seems very strong.
if you then switch, and close your left eye, and do the same, it appears that once you get to flintoff, its all over. i fear clarke the bowler most. on an English seaming wicket, he could get to 6 very quick, and then we'll be in a world of trouble.
we've got to 300 most first innings of recent (long gone are the days when i thought that 240 was a good score). and if we can get over 350 first innings consistently, then i think we'll win.
starting to loose all interest in everyday tasks, like eating and sleeping, and talking to lisbeth, now that its fast approaching...
actually, I erred in my original selection- I forgot to pick a newly fit Sidebottom. And I also forgot to strengthen the batting. you're right ben, it really does depend on which eye you use as to whether it looks ok or not. the only way to field a balanced side is, as usual, to field 12 players.
actually, the problems in the balance of the team all stem from the same place. flintoff. not fit/reliable enough to play as an out and out bowler in a test, not good enough to bat at 7.
perhaps we should drop him. play 6 batsmen, prior and four bowlers. you know, like a normal cricket team would. collingwood and pietersen can bowl if necessary.
getting jolly excited. bought last day tickets for cardiff, just in case. only 25 quid.
Play Flintoff as a bowler, who can bat. Which, of course, is what he is...
Cook
Strauss
Bopara
KP
Bell
Collingwood
Prior
Flintoff
Broad
Swann
Anderson
I'd like to get Sidebottom in the side, if he's fit. However, there's no bowler to drop in order to play him.
KP can do provide extra spinner duties.
Meanwhile, Bopara and Collingwood need to pull their fingers out in the "hold up an end with some decent dibbly-dobblers" department.
However, having said all that, I think Jarman's original 11 is likely to be pretty close to what the selectors go for, except with Sidebottom taking the Onions/Panesar spot, if he's fit enough. Pretty much picks itself, until the penny drops about Flintoff's batting and the unnecessarily defensive attitude of playing an extra bowler.
Oh, and I disagree with your assertion, Jarms, about Freddie's capacity to play as a bowler - that's what he's been doing for several years; only batting too high. He consistently bowls plenty of overs - too many to be considered a batting allrounder.
that's better - all calm and crickety.
The fact is, Flintoff doesn't take enough wickets. (I know broad doesn't either, but he has to play because fetch has dubbed him 'not a twat')
You could have Broad at 7 rather than Flintoff with little difference in the actual runs scored, then you could play sidebottom, who I think if he's in tip top nick will take more wickets than flintoff.
oh, and can we have a moment's silence for the test career of Michael Vaughan.
Are you seriously suggesting we are to pick Broad over Flintoff? If that is the case, I'm afraid that you are both fucking morons.
Broad may well be "not a twat" but, then, neither is Flintoff.
Bowling figures in Test matches:
Flintoff - avg 32.07 and econ 2.95
Broad - avg 37.95 and econ 3.21
Oh, and I'd rather have Flintoff in the slips.
I'll take your over-sensitivity to that suggestion as acknowledgement that, deep down, you know it's valid, but you you find it hard to face an unpalatable truth.
And actually, I think that Freddie is 'a bit of a twat' on the quiet, certainly on the criteria that saw Broad described as 'not a twat'. And other criteria.
'both fucking morons'? what have i done?
i don't think that flintoff should be dropped - yet - but i do think that he's one bad series from being so.
i also think that he is a twat - but not in the same way as an australian. he's a sort-of-twat because:
a) he's very good;
b) he's very out of form;
c) he doesn't get back into form because he acts, sometimes, like a twat (e.g. peddleos).
he can redeem himself - and i'm sure he will. its kinda like - its not like he doesn't try; its just that he acts a bit twatishly. and that's not good enough, because i want him to be really good all the time. am i making any sense? probably not.
PJ Hughes (cunt rating 7 out of 5). b Sandri for 15.
i hope this was top of off stump - and that it will happen many more times this summer. fucking-backing away-flailing-back-foot-chancing-eye-no-technique-tosser.
I notice that both of you weighted your responses almost exclusively towards the "twat" issue, as opposed to, say, the palpable difference in class between their bowling.
I'm not saying Broad is bad, let's be clear on that - he is, after all, in my eleven.
My sole point is that if there were one bowling position left and you had to choose between Broad or Flintoff, any sane human with a semblance of knowledge regarding the game would choose Flintoff.
I'd go for Broad!
Seriously?
OK, we're going to have to work this one through.
Let me precis what your arguments have been so far.
Firstly, it's because Broad is not a twat, whilst Flintoff is a bit of a twat.
Secondly, it's because Flintoff doesn't take enough wickets. Although his average is better than Broad (as well as being more economical).
Why Broad before Flintoff? Please, explain it to me...
in what circumstances would i HAVE to choose between broad and flintoff? Single wicket? OK, i'll admit, if i had to chose one guy to represent England in the SW World Cup, i may choose flintoff.
there are 11 players in a normal team. So if i had to pick a team, with both broad and flintoff up for contention, i would drop someone else - maybe onions or sidebottom. but then why would i do that? currently, there appears to be room for all, unless the plan was to go in with an extra batsman - looking something like the side Kris called. but that's too defensive/negative; and my worry would be that we ain't going to bowl a side like australia out - our bowlers just aren't good enough/in tip-top-form to go in with just 4. And bopara and colly aren't up to much in test cricket.
the bowling success of the recent australian side was that they could attack for every over, all day (i.e. warne bowling 45 overs) - using these two gives the batting side a let off.
And flintoff would have to bowl a lot of overs; and apart from injury concerns, he's better in short, very quick bursts. using him has a stock bowler, in my opinion, is what curtails his wicket taking ability.
On another matter:
'Lower order props up Australians'
Sounds familiar.
I agree with all of that.
I'm back and going to put something very funny on fetch this afternoon.
Luke said to me earlier on that he'd only join fetch if it became more puerile. After all, he is only a child...
Post a Comment