England v Sri Lanka

[Simster]

And one more thing, Panasar does not belong in the one day team either IMO. He's the closest thing to a slow wicket-taker we have, but in limited overs games you want your slow bowlers to *contain*, not take wickets. By the time the quickies and seamers have bowled, there simply isn't time for Panasar to "buy" wickets - although obviously you can see the value at test match level.

Plus of course, despite improving, he's still a shit fielder.

 

[CHAPPERS]

Bell is a liability in a one day side - he's a class test batsman and you do feel his orthodox style is suited to dropping anchor rather than racking up/chasing down a big total in limited overs.

Another IDIOT.

 

[Simster]

Another IDIOT.

what you say is what you are.

 

[CHAPPERS]

It seems everyone just wants a load of CRASH BANG WOLLOP players in the one day side. Chesney is right, Bell IS the perfect foil for Pieterson and if it wasn't for the unfortunate dimissal they could well have got England very close to winning that game. How he was become a liability is beyond me.

 

[Yoda]

Law 24, clause 3 defines a fair delivery with respect to the arm:

A ball is fairly delivered in respect of the arm if, once the bowler's arm has reached the level of the shoulder in the delivery swing, the elbow joint is not straightened partially or completely from that point until the ball has left the hand. This definition shall not debar a bowler from flexing or rotating the wrist in the delivery swing.

Even so, there were a few boarder line balls.

 

[keaton]

Double idiot. Panesar was expensive yesterday but it wasn't really a spinners's wicket, Murali only took one wicket and wasn't particularly economical.

 

[Chesney Christ]

There is some absolute nonsense being spouted on here, there really is. I think twenty-twenty cricket has totally fudged people's understanding of one day cricket.

Bell's innings yesterday was (almost) perfect under the circumstances. We were 11-2 and the best batsman in ODI was walking to the crease. The one thing we needed alongside the best batsman in ODI was someone to stay with him. That was all that mattered. Another quick wicket and the game was over.

I'll say it again: FOR PIETERSON TO PLAY HIS SHOTS HE NEEDS SOMEONE TO STAY AT THE OTHER END WITH HIM.

Bell did this. If he had got out early playing a silly shot Pieterson would have been royally f*cked. With Bell holding firm at the other end, Pieterson was able to play with fluency and style. At the same time, Bell was scoring at a healthy rate, and rotating the strike to get the main man facing. Bell was incredibly unlucky to get out how he did, but his innings was still a good one, and could have been a big contribution to us winning the match.

Presumably, most of you lot think that Rahul Dravid should be dropped from the India team?

 

[Chesney Christ]

Double idiot. Panesar was expensive yesterday but it wasn't really a spinners's wicket, Murali only took one wicket and wasn't particularly economical.

... and Monty still has an economy rate that matches with virtually any spinner on the planet in one dayers.

I think Simster must have started the Easter weekend drinking festivities a little early.

 

[Blackadder]

Bugger me, what a finale!

Shame about the result but can't complain about the drama

Can't disagree with that!

 

[CHAPPERS]

Simster can be such a DICK sometimes.

 

[tedebear]

Law 24, clause 3 defines a fair delivery with respect to the arm:

A ball is fairly delivered in respect of the arm if, once the bowler's arm has reached the level of the shoulder in the delivery swing, the elbow joint is not straightened partially or completely from that point until the ball has left the hand. This definition shall not debar a bowler from flexing or rotating the wrist in the delivery swing.

Thanks for that - my thinking was that the arm wasn't reaching the level of the shoulder before the ball was "slung" baseball style....

But then again I'm from the old school of the arm needing to brush the ear for a fair delivery....

Whatever the ruling it looks wrong and to me is a great shame to the game....

 

[tedebear]

It seems everyone just wants a load of CRASH BANG WOLLOP players in the one day side. Chesney is right, Bell IS the perfect foil for Pieterson and if it wasn't for the unfortunate dimissal they could well have got England very close to winning that game. How he was become a liability is beyond me.

I agree - Bell although not a quick scorer of runs is a necessity in the team...slow and steady can often win the race, thats in one dayers as well as test cricket...ESPECIALLY when the top order is in a woeful state...

 

[Chesney Christ]

I agree - Bell although not a quick scorer of runs is a necessity in the team...slow and steady can often win the race, thats in one dayers as well as test cricket...ESPECIALLY when the top order is in a woeful state...

Indeed. Its not as if he batted slowly yesterday anyway. His strike-rate was very close to Pietersen's in the end!

 

[CHAPPERS]

Yep.

Bell S/R 66.19
Pieterson S/R 72.50

 

[Simster]

Simster can be such a DICK sometimes.

 

[London Calling]

Bell is good but look at our own side - Sussex, we have the players who can stay and move the score along.

Bell did well yesterday, but I believe we have better players who can undertake the same role but marginally score quicker.