He had the cheek to call me a 'sarky twat' when I commented on his ill-informed jibe at England being boring.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
England are the most BORING cricket team on the planet
- Thread starter Chesney Christ
- Start date
He had the cheek to call me a 'sarky twat' when I commented on his ill-informed jibe at England being boring.
dougdeep
New member
And we won again. HOW BORING.
Horton's halftime iceberg
Blooming Marvellous
We won on day 4 with about 3 days play, terrible should be winning by tea on day one. Sort it out Moores..
BensGrandad
New member
I think that it was Mike Atherton in the commentary came up with a good idea that when assessing biowlers the selectors should look at the victims that they got rather than the actual figures. It is quite possible for a man to finish up with 3 wickets for afew runs but those 3 wickets are nos 9, 10 and 11. Does that make him a better bowler than somebody who only took 2 but they were 2 of the top order batsmen.
Horton's halftime iceberg
Blooming Marvellous
New Zealand messed around with this theory, they took out our top order, but failed to knock over the tail.
England could just do with a consistent bowler, Harmisson looked fantastic at Hove but like many put him in a test match he bowls wide and wayward.
Chesney Christ
New member
- Thread starter
- #86
We're all cricketing geniuses in hindsight aren't we?
As much as a home victory against the MIGHTY New Zealand is the stuff that dreams are made of, I think that South Africa might, just MIGHT be a tougher proposition.
Regardless, I stand by what I said in the opening post of the thread. Cast your minds back to the 1st innings of the 2nd test. The total of 202 that we crawled to on that opening day was one of the most tedious and negative England batting displays I have witnessed since the dark days of Atherton's captaincy. Since then, we have played a lot better. Against the worst test side in the world (barring West Indies and Bangladesh). Whoopee f***ing doo.
If we bowl as well as we bowled in the 3rd test (and bat a lot, lot, lot, lot, lot, lot better) then we might have a chance of giving South Africa a game. If we bat and bowl like we did for most of the 1st two tests we will thrashed out of sight.
As for James Anderson, it is good that he has officially become a world class bowler overnight, after getting the wickets of cricketing GODS like Jamie How, Chris Martin and Daniel Flynn but I would say it will be a while until Ricky Ponting, Michael Hussey and Michael Clarke will be quaking in their boots. God forbid he should lead the attack against the Aussies in 2009.
I'm willing to give credit where it is due and we played well in this match and half of the 2nd match, but how does that fact make any difference to my original post bemoaning England's negative batting at the start of the 2nd test match. It is still true.
As much as a home victory against the MIGHTY New Zealand is the stuff that dreams are made of, I think that South Africa might, just MIGHT be a tougher proposition.
Regardless, I stand by what I said in the opening post of the thread. Cast your minds back to the 1st innings of the 2nd test. The total of 202 that we crawled to on that opening day was one of the most tedious and negative England batting displays I have witnessed since the dark days of Atherton's captaincy. Since then, we have played a lot better. Against the worst test side in the world (barring West Indies and Bangladesh). Whoopee f***ing doo.
If we bowl as well as we bowled in the 3rd test (and bat a lot, lot, lot, lot, lot, lot better) then we might have a chance of giving South Africa a game. If we bat and bowl like we did for most of the 1st two tests we will thrashed out of sight.
As for James Anderson, it is good that he has officially become a world class bowler overnight, after getting the wickets of cricketing GODS like Jamie How, Chris Martin and Daniel Flynn but I would say it will be a while until Ricky Ponting, Michael Hussey and Michael Clarke will be quaking in their boots. God forbid he should lead the attack against the Aussies in 2009.
I'm willing to give credit where it is due and we played well in this match and half of the 2nd match, but how does that fact make any difference to my original post bemoaning England's negative batting at the start of the 2nd test match. It is still true.
Chesney Christ
New member
- Thread starter
- #87
You are a genuinely sad individual. You just plough on saying the same things over and over again, regardless of the facts.
Have you actually followed the test match career of James Anderson so far? What are your own personal highlights of it, prior to this series?
I'd still drop Anderson for the SA series. If it's not swinging he becomes tired very quickly and goes for a lot of runs. If Jones and Flintoff are both fit then they come back in at the expense of Anderson and a batsman, most likely Collingwood.
A bowling attack of Flintoff, Jones, Sidebottom, Broad and Panesar should hopefully have enough to take 20 SA wickets.
A bowling attack of Flintoff, Jones, Sidebottom, Broad and Panesar should hopefully have enough to take 20 SA wickets.
Perry Milkins
Just a quiet guy.
And a batting attack of Vaughan, Cook, Strauss, Peiterson, Bell and Ambrose will not be capable of giving them a total to bowl to.
I think you were replying to me.
19 wickets at 11.73 so far this season and bowling quickly and accurately.
I still think you can add Flintoff's batting to that, even if he is having a poor season. We can't go into the SA tests with only 4 bowlers.
COR I'd forgotten all about my HERO, thought he was lost to the injury scene! delighted to see that average and that must be pushing the selectors choice, although I cant see them budging on Anderson.
Chesney Christ
New member
- Thread starter
- #94
Finally, some reason is introduced to this thread.
James Anderson has always been outrageously expensive as a bowler, has a far poorer bowling average than virtually any England seamer in the last ten years, and against the good sides is always cannon fodder.
Forget all that though, because he got wickets against the incredible, the mighty, the err SEVENTH BEST SIDE IN THE WORLD in seamer-friendly conditions and all of a sudden NSC wants him knighted.
Not that the people on this site are fickle at all...
Chesney Christ
New member
- Thread starter
- #95
Perry Milkins
Just a quiet guy.
CC you speak a lot of sense in your analysis of JA. On this point I must disagree with you. If we have to rely on Broad and Flintoff to 'wag the tail' against an infinitely better attack that the Black Caps then we are asking for trouble.
Chesney Christ
New member
- Thread starter
- #97
But against the Aussies in 2005 we played a five man bowling attack awith Flintoff batting 6, Geraint Jones at 7 and Ashley Giles 8. Would you say that
6. 2005 Flintoff
7. G Jones
8. Giles
is that much better than
6. Ambrose
7. 2008 Flintoff
8. Broad
?
Flintoff isn't the batsman he was- granted - but Broad is better than Giles and Ambrose probably as good as Jones, although still hard to say. I see your point though.