BBC Blog Network

User Profile

scaryjim

Listed below are comments made by scaryjim between Sunday, 1st June 2008 and Wednesday, 24th June 2009.

«Newer
Older»

Ashes are still the ultimate, says Warne 1:34pm on 24 Jun 2009 Personally I'd take absolutely *anything* Warney says with a pinch of salt, regardless of whether it's on or off the record, and about cricket or anything else!

I think he's right that talent-wise, and certainly spin-wise, England have a slightly deeper pool now - if England suffer an injury there is someone waiting to step in (except maybe for the openers?). My worry is that, despite all the talent, it's going to be very difficult to balance the team - we always seem to be one of *something* short!
Sensible Strauss just the tonic 3:00pm on 09 Jan 2009 queenslanda: Yes, AUS are on the wane. You won the last test of an already lost series against SA? That'd be impressive if ENG hadn't done exactly the same thing less than 6 months ago. The ashes are there for the taking? Well, AUS look their weakest for the last 15 years, so yes, they are. AUS look as weak now as I can ever remember seeing them

cf: As a captain, Strauss has a won 3 drawn 1 record and an average of over 60. I'd put him in my side... IIRC, one of the most frequent comments during that PAK series was how well Strauss managed Monty (particularly compared to Flintoff, who'd just drawn(?) a series with SL as captain). Perhaps with Strauss as captain we'll get a bit of that Monty magic back!
Six to watch in 2009 3:26pm on 08 Jan 2009 I am (again!) amazed at the lack of attention Tim Bresnan gets in this kind of thing. While his batting didn't quite reach last year's standard it was still significantly better than Rashid's, and he took over 40 wickets at a better average. Yet somehow Rashid is the talk of the town and Bresnan gets barely a nod! Makes me glad I'm a leg-spinner ;) On the other hand, as a Yorkshire fan I'll be more than happy for England to ignore Bres for another couple of years - with Hoggard seemingly out of the selector's eye-line as well it could be a good time for the Tykes :)
Lack of quality spinner costs Australia 1:20pm on 14 Oct 2008 I don't think Australia's lack of a quality spinner can be demostrated more clearly than when Michael Clarke was handed the ball *before* Cameron White in India's second innings. India, on the other hand, look a bowler short - particularly if they lose the toss and have to bowl on pitches lacking assistance for their spinners. Do they have options for a third seamer (perhaps an all rounder)? Or are they going to have to take the luck of the draw and be left struggling unless they win the toss?
Durham success a cricketing fairy tale 00:07am on 28 Sep 2008 re: 26

It's true; how many other teams fielded 9 players born in their county this week? It'd be nice if all the local talent brought a few good results though, eh?
Farewell to a model professional 1:47pm on 23 Sep 2008 AndyPlowright:
6 balls per wicket makes a HUGE difference if you've taken over 200 wickets. It means that Andy Caddick bowled the equivalent an entire test series' worth of bowling (234 overs) more than Goughie (presumably due to Goughs various injuries) for 5 extra wickets.

Caddick was the dependable, economical chipper to Gough's extravagant dangerman. Think Hoggard and Harmison for a recent England equivalent - I'd guess Harmison will get more plaudits on retirement, but a look at his figures: 216 @ 31, s.r. 58 suggests that Hoggard has been a much better bowler (248 @ 30, sr 56, very similar to Caddick's). But Hoggy was (on current evidence the past tense is appropriate) the economical, dependable chipper, while Harmison is the occassional demolisher.

In fact, the Caddick / Gough / Hoggard / Harmison comparison can even be taken through to their batting, too. Can anyone remember a dashing, cavalier innings from Caddick? Did we ever watch Caddick or Hoggy walk to the crease and say "It'll be 5 or 50, but it won't last long!". Harmy and Goughie both had a big swing and on a good day could hit the ball out of the park - and we loved the excitement of it.
That's why we wanted to be Goughie in the playground, and that's why he'll get the popular plaudits: he entertained us in a way no other cricketer did at the time.
First day to the hosts 7:59pm on 10 Jul 2008 Agnew, on Tuesday: A batsman playing for his place can be a hideous spectacle as he clings to the crease, fearful of taking the slightest risk.

I can only assume that Ian Bell does not, therefore, feel he is playing for his place ;^) I have to admit that when 3 quick wickets tumbled I was worried about a disastrous collapse, but what a brilliant response from Bell and Pietersen.

I think it would be harsh to talk about dropping Vaughan *on the basis of this performance* when by all accounts he got a good one early on, but I also worry that he sometimes seems immune from being dropped just because he is captain. Collingwood, Pietersen and Strauss must all be good candidates to step into the breach if required (not to mention Freddie, unless he is still in the doghouse over the "Fredalo" incident!), and we shouldn't be afraid of dropping Vaughan if he is genuinely out-of-form.

I also think it's premature to talk of Fred definitely coming in for the second test - he must not only physically come through this week's four-dayer, but also perform well with *at least* the ball. It seems to me that he not only needs to prove he is a better choice than one of the bowlers currently "in posession" but also that he is the best replacement - Simon Jones *must* come into contention if the selectors are looking to replace a bowler! I suppose ideally for the selectors they need Collingwood to bat badly and one of the seamers to be ineffective - then they could bring back Fred at 6 and Simon Jones at the bottom of the order!!

Given England's good start to the match, if they go on to win with all the bowlers performing well, can they justify changing the team at all? All the talk prior to the match was about consistent selection and this group of players developing into a unit - it would seem rather hypocritical to change the team just to bring Fred back in - particularly if they win the match! It seems to me that an England win would actually be more fo a headache for the selectors than an England loss!
Hindsight is Twenty20 9:38pm on 08 Jul 2008 I've already said a fair bit about this in the forums, but my wife made a great point over dinner tonight that I would like to relay. We've both worked in benefits in the past, and there the test of "britishness" is whether a person has access to public funds. If Rafiq and his family have been given indefinate leave to remain in Britain then, if they were not working, they would have the same access to the welfare state as anyone born in Britain. In other words, if they were not supporting themselves the British government would support them. Surely this is a much better test of Britishness than how long they've lived here or what colour passport someone has! If this standard was applied as a test of whether someone was on overseas player or not, I suspect that a number of good players born overseas who are currently excluded (like Rafiq) would get in, while the majority of Kolpacers would be back to the realms of Overseas players.

p.s. to whoever mentioned de-registering Rana Naved - he didn't play in the Notts match, so what's that got to do with anything?!?
Stanford brings riches and headaches 12:58pm on 12 Jun 2008 Hi Aggers,

What amazes me is a very basic fact that everyone seems to have forgotten in the middle of the IPL hype - cricket is THE sport in India. The Indian (and international) cricketers are already superstars over there - just look at the way they greeted Monty on debut!

If you want imagine something equivalent in the UK, it would be a superstars' five-a-side football tournament! Cricket is growing in popularity, but there are not yet enough cricket fans in England to support these kinds of tournament. We need to create more of a buzz about the domestic Twenty20 before we start thinking about Champions' Leagues and big money showpieces...
Ask Bearders #171 10:32pm on 01 Jun 2008 Anyway, having perused the latest county news tonight, I noticed that in the Leicestershire / Glamorgan match, their number 11 (David Harrison) not only top-scored in the innings, but also made a remarkable proportion of the runs (64 / 185, which is almost 35%). I was wondering on how many occassions (if any) in Test matches a number 11 has been the highest scorer, and whether this is the greatest percentage of an innings scored by a number 11 - plus any other interest batting feats by a number 11 of which you are aware!?!

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

scaryjim