That drink must have gone straight through him.Well, one of them had only been out there 30mins or so, took a drinks break THEN ran off to the toilet. So not entirely sure they were completely innocent of not timewasting.
That drink must have gone straight through him.Well, one of them had only been out there 30mins or so, took a drinks break THEN ran off to the toilet. So not entirely sure they were completely innocent of not timewasting.
I've said it for four years. He will take wickets on any surface. If fit, he is England's McGrath.You must be much younger than I was imagining.
I'd have given it to Stokes. Five days of outstanding captaincy.Robinson MOM.
He's great, don't get me wrong. I was questioning the idea that he's in your generationI've said it for four years. He will take wickets on any surface. If fit, he is England's McGrath.
He was selected three years later than he should have been. But he's there now.
I can't think of a seamer in my time who has been that reliable. And I go back as far as India 81/82 in my memories of the game.
The thing with Robinson that I was convinced he would continue to be effective overseas. As you know, it's been an issue with our seamers at times. The search for one who would be effective in any conditions is a problem for most countries. But I always have felt that he was the one. Some were saying he wasn't quick enough, but I don't think that's the issue. McGrath was not very quick. It's not about pace. If I had a choice between a fit Archer and a fit Robinson I go with Robinson. It irks me that some cannot see beyond the speedometer. I'd be happy with both mind. No wonder Sussex are struggling.He's great, don't get me wrong. I was questioning the idea that he's in your generation
If fit is a fundamental qualification unfortunately, as he's found out since being picked.
It's worth keeping in mind that, in the 3 years preceding Robinson's selection, Broad (who's probably the closest bowler in style in the team at that time) took over 100 wickets at an average of 22.5. It's hardly the worst selection howler from that time.
For that matter, picking players when they're at they're peak (and then immediately dropping them the moment they're starting to drop off) is one of the main advantages Australia have had over England down the years.
I'd still put Anderson over him for reliability in all conditions, incidentally.
Anderson hasn't been too bad.And Robinson has only confirmed my belief that he is the best all pitch seamer England have produced in my generation.
And meHumble pie duly being consumed.
I must learn to never doubt Stokes.
For most of the last few years, England's problem scoring runs overseas has been much worse than our problem taking wickets.The thing with Robinson that I was convinced he would continue to be effective overseas. As you know, it's been an issue with our seamers at times. The search for one who would be effective in any conditions is a problem for most countries. But I always have felt that he was the one. Some were saying he wasn't quick enough, but I don't think that's the issue. McGrath was not very quick. It's not about pace. If I had a choice between a fit Archer and a fit Robinson I go with Robinson. It irks me that some cannot see beyond the speedometer. I'd be happy with both mind. No wonder Sussex are struggling.
Was in Melbourne for the Boxing Day Match 2010-11 when we just pasted them for 99 all out and then were 150 odd for zip by the end of Day 1.How the hell has Stokes manufactured a positive result on that road?
Undoubtedly the best test match result I've ever seen