posted Jul 5, 2007

no room for bell cook and shah in the same team. solanki is same same as them. 2 out of them 4.treco still not ready so it seems. think we're missing nopora who to me is better than mascheranus and yardley. if i was in charge i'd put peterson bopora and bell in for some bowling coaching and use them for 10 overs between them, colly has to bowl more to so them for 15 maybe 20 overs ,anderson sidebottom and broad for definate.solanki is a good off spin bowler , has been effective for worcs, captains well, reads the game well also. kabir ali, another player being overlooked has performed well also. think there are others that need a chance. my team would be nixon,petersson,cook,bell,solanki,colly,flintoff(when fit)bopora(when fit)broad,sidebottom and anderson.9 players that bowl,9 good fielders and 8 decent batsmen. broad shows he has potential as an all rounder to and sidebottom can hold a bat leaving jimmy to get some batting practice in.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 5, 2007

"Strauss (didn't do badly in world cup. Class will out)
Benning (better than Gilchrist. Better looking than Hayden)
Flintoff (bad form with the bat? Push him up the order)
Cook (for those difficult middle overs)
Solanki (never given a chance)
Swann (can spin ball, they say)
Ambrose (scored a ton this season. GET HIM IN)
Hoggard (successful at ODIs)
Monty (we lost. He didn't play. Therefore he is great)
Luke Wright (I heard he's good)
Steve Harmison (taken byb force, if necessary)


Result?"

Swap KP for Strauss and Colly for Harmi... and it could hardly do worse than we did at the world cup...

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 5, 2007

"9 players that bowl"

You do realise that you don't get extra points for using 9 bowlers, do you?

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 5, 2007

"mascheranus"

Not sure if that is typing error of the day or an improper proposal!

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 5, 2007

"You do realise that you don't get extra points for using 9 bowlers, do you?"

Interesting concept though. Should a team be rewarded by say having an over knocked off for every additional bowler over the minimum 5?

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 5, 2007

"You do realise that you don't get extra points for using 9 bowlers, do you?"

Interesting concept though. Should a team be rewarded by say having an over knocked off for every additional bowler over the minimum 5?

There could be some exciting finishes where the batting side thinks they have 2 overs left and suddenly the fielding side brings on a new bowler meaning they only have one left!

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 5, 2007

Not very fair, is it? I'm pretty sure Gilchrist can bowl useful off-spin as well. What a player!

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 5, 2007

20-20 is about fun, isn't it? How about 10 bowlers all bowling 2 overs each? Then we might see what Adam Gilchrist is made of.

[I'm not kidding, in my "works" team that was frequently the format]

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 5, 2007

If us lot were on the selection panel they would have elected a new Pope by the time we'd agreed on a one day team.....

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 5, 2007

After today, there is at least one name on the teamsheet I would expect everyone would agree on.

I will NEVER question Cook's place in the side ever again...

He is more deified than the Pope round here, it seems.

add comment | complain about this comment