Go  |
New |
Find |
Notify |
|
Reply |
|
Admin |
New PM! |
|
If Dalrymple plays it just shows the pathetic state of England cricket.
Dalrymple is nothing more than a better batting Giles, use the last test for people with a future in England cricket and if he's deemed good enough to play then we have a shocking squad a cuckoo selector or all of the above.
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Honiyan: quote: Originally posted by RedDuster: quote: Originally posted by Honiyan:
Only decent thing that Surrey produced was a decent dancer who could ponce about !!!!
You mean the Middlesex reject aka Judas who took our £300k donated to his benefit and then promptly buggered off across the river??
# Perhaps we should send him to face an Iraqi court !!!!
I'll fly the plane and pull the gallows handle if invited to. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Gain:
If Dalrymple plays it just shows the pathetic state of England cricket.
Yes of course it does. Thank you. Close the door on your way out. What it shows is the beginnings of experimenting with new talent - rather than retaining the services of "past it" chums and buddies of the management/captain ... who knows, Dary might just do enough (he has the talent) to both spin the ball AND score runs. But, he needs a chance to prove that - and as long as Piles was around, he had no chance. A new era dawns.... at least I bloddy well hope so. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by RedDuster: quote: Originally posted by Gain:
If Dalrymple plays it just shows the pathetic state of England cricket.
Yes of course it does. Thank you. Close the door on your way out. What it shows is the beginnings of experimenting with new talent - rather than retaining the services of "past it" chums and buddies of the management/captain ... who knows, Dary might just do enough (he has the talent) to both spin the ball AND score runs. But, he needs a chance to prove that - and as long as Piles was around, he had no chance. A new era dawns.... at least I bloddy well hope so.
Were not Talking about Giles and Jones this is about not picking bits an pieces cricketers. I don't doubt he could average a resectable amount with the bat but his bowling is worse than Giles I'd rather see Pietersen bowling i'm sure he'd challenge batsmen more than Dalrymple. He can only be used on grounds good for spinners meaning 90% of the grounds hes not getting a go at. He'd be wasting time and test spot for specialists as we have our allrounder we don't need another Rikki Clarke moaning he can't get a game |
| |
|
|
You don't try, you don't know.
Just because Dary has only played ODI's for England doesn't make him a "bits n pieces" player.
he certainly spins the ball all lot more than Piles does - has more variety and bats a bloody sight better than him as well.
Giving the ball to KP for some in-filling is inviting disaster. He is a quality batsman and the last thing he needs is the nag of being spanked for 50 off 5 overs before he pads up for a bat!
|
| |
|
|
No the fact that he averages mid 43 with the BALL at county level makes him an awful bowler. He'd only make it in test level as a Batsmen end of story. lets try new things! by picking players who are worse and worse surely one of them will get it right.....
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Dwayne W II:
Though you did try to get Roy at one stage I do believe
He was shortlisted for the winter tours that culminated in the 96 world cup - him and about 40 others actually. He was being non-committal about where his loyalties lay, so I think this was a way of smoking him out. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by B@sil: quote: Originally posted by Dwayne W II:
Though you did try to get Roy at one stage I do believe
He was shortlisted for the winter tours that culminated in the 96 world cup - him and about 40 others actually. He was being non-committal about where his loyalties lay, so I think this was a way of smoking him out.
Named in the A team squad in 1996 after a season playing for Gloucs as an 'English' player. Promptly turned it down, "I'm not really English, mate, I was just kiddin'," and that was the end of that. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Jay Dello: quote: Originally posted by B@sil: quote: Originally posted by Dwayne W II:
Though you did try to get Roy at one stage I do believe
He was shortlisted for the winter tours that culminated in the 96 world cup - him and about 40 others actually. He was being non-committal about where his loyalties lay, so I think this was a way of smoking him out.
Named in the A team squad in 1996 after a season playing for Gloucs as an 'English' player. Promptly turned it down, "I'm not really English, mate, I was just kiddin'," and that was the end of that.
Even if he had opted for England - I wonder just how much he would have played. His first manager would have been Ray Illingworth, I just don't see those two getting on. Illingworth didn't seem to relate to any player under the age of 37! |
| |
|
|
Oh, and on-topic - I think Dalrymple probably will play.
It'll be tough on Mahmood, who bowled all right at stages and certainly chipped in more wickets than anyone else managed.
But the fact is, the batting is shot to pieces, and at the very least Dalrymple can slot in at six or seven, which would allow Flintoff and Read to drop into their more natural positions in the line up.
His bowling's no good, but it's better than Ed Joyce's, so he'll probably get the nod as the fifth 'option'.
Who knows, he might even play instead of Panesar.
Anything's possible at this stage.
But, given that the sum of England's ambition now is to avoid defeat (and the whitewash), bolstering the batting at the expense of a bowler would seem to be right down their alley.
Sad, but I guess that sums up the whole tour.
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by B@sil: quote: Originally posted by Jay Dello: quote: Originally posted by B@sil: quote: Originally posted by Dwayne W II:
Though you did try to get Roy at one stage I do believe
He was shortlisted for the winter tours that culminated in the 96 world cup - him and about 40 others actually. He was being non-committal about where his loyalties lay, so I think this was a way of smoking him out.
Named in the A team squad in 1996 after a season playing for Gloucs as an 'English' player. Promptly turned it down, "I'm not really English, mate, I was just kiddin'," and that was the end of that.
Even if he had opted for England - I wonder just how much he would have played. His first manager would have been Ray Illingworth, I just don't see those two getting on. Illingworth didn't seem to relate to any player under the age of 37!
Well, he was only 20 then - and I'm pretty sure David Lloyd took over the controls fairly soon after '96, so you never know. Given that guys like Rikki Clarke, Gavin Hamilton and the Hollioake brothers have played Tests as nominal all-rounders in the years since, I'd reckon Symonds would've at least been given a shot. Not that it matters - seems to have worked out fine for everyone: England don't really miss him, Australia seem to like him, so everyone's happy. |
| |
|
New Member
|
With a FC batting average of 35 and FC bowling average of 40 odd with only one five-for, he's hardly going to set the world alight, let alone scare the aussies. Is he good enough to get Ponting, Hayden or Hussey out, or face the likes of Warne and McGrath. I very much doubt it. What is all the speculation is about??
|
| |
|
|
He can bat 'a bit'  |
| |
|
New Member
|
Bits and pieces places arent good enough for test cricket, especially against Aus.
|
| |
|
|
We all know that.
I said from the start, we needed 6 specialist batsman, all-rounder, keeper, then the 3 bowlers. Perhaps they would have done that if there was no injury risk to Flintoff.
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Village Player:
We all know that.
I said from the start, we needed 6 specialist batsman, all-rounder, keeper, then the 3 bowlers. Perhaps they would have done that if there was no injury risk to Flintoff.
Aye, perhaps the selection method of itself has caused problems for England. All tour it looks as though they've been playing to a formula; trying to play six batsmen (including Fred), a keeper, 3 other fast men, and an all-rounder/spin option ... then filling in the names. If they'd only chosen their best players, in the best batting order, from the start ... Strauss Cook Bell Pietersen Joyce Collingwood Flintoff Read Panesar Hoggard Harmison |
| |
|
New Member
|
You need five bowlers to bowl the aussies out for less than 400. Plus too many overs is a burden on Fred.
|
| |
|
|
Four good bowlers + one crap bowler occupying a spot which could be taken by a decent batsman weakens the team through leakage of runs and extension of the tail. England's 5th bowler has been an utter disaster throughout this tour, and is a major reason for their humiliation.
IMO you have to choose the best team from the players available, not select to a formula.
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Gain:
If Dalrymple plays it just shows the pathetic state of England cricket.
Dalrymple is nothing more than a better batting Giles, use the last test for people with a future in England cricket and if he's deemed good enough to play then we have a shocking squad a cuckoo selector or all of the above.
I don't entirely agree with this - I think too many people have been suckered into thinking of Dalrymple as a batsman who bowls when in reality it is the other way round; he could feasibly bat six (having, after all, made a first class double hundred) and bowl say a seventh of the side's overs, which is only what Mahmood has done thus far. When he slows his action down, he is also one of the few English offies capable of getting the ball substantially off straight. Long term, no, he will not be a fixture in the side - the arrival of Adil Rashid will take care of that - but for one test he will adda bit of backbone to the side. |
| |
|
|
Dalrymple for the SCG? He's one of England's best eleven players?
|
| |
|
|
Let me suggest a few reasons why England may not feel comfortable about going into the 5th Test with only 4 bowlers.
1: Like others have already mentioned there is some doubt over Freddie's fitness. Sure the injections are getting him on the field but Flintoff cannot be used as a work horse.
2: If the 4th Test is any indication , Duncan Fletcher and Andrew Flintoff have double standards as far as Monty Panesar is concerned.
It seems that it's OK with Fred and Duncs for Mahmood to get belted and leak runs but if Monty cops it for 2 or 3 overs they want him out of the attack.
It seems Freddie is clueless and doesn't understand that spinners sometimes get belted around a little before they take a wicket just like any other bowler.
3: Harmison was wearing a back support at the MCG. Now whether the sook was faking an injury as usual to get out of bowling more overs than he wants to I do not know.But if the fruit cake really does have a niggle, Duncan and Freddie may be nervous about going with 4 bowlers.
4: Kevin Pietersen cannot be relied upon to chip in with the ball because if his first over goes for 13 runs he sooks and refuses to bowl anymore.
5: Paul Collingwood simply bowls pies.
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by lardbucket: quote: Originally posted by Village Player:
We all know that.
I said from the start, we needed 6 specialist batsman, all-rounder, keeper, then the 3 bowlers. Perhaps they would have done that if there was no injury risk to Flintoff.
Aye, perhaps the selection method of itself has caused problems for England. All tour it looks as though they've been playing to a formula; trying to play six batsmen (including Fred), a keeper, 3 other fast men, and an all-rounder/spin option ... then filling in the names. If they'd only chosen their best players, in the best batting order, from the start ... Strauss Cook Bell Pietersen Joyce Collingwood Flintoff Read Panesar Hoggard Harmison
Would probably still be 4-0 down though. Australia has been awesome, apart from the odd bit of Collingwood, Pietersen resistance. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Rowman:
Let me suggest a few reasons why England may not feel comfortable about going into the 5th Test with only 4 bowlers.
1: Like others have already mentioned there is some doubt over Freddie's fitness. Sure the injections are getting him on the field but Flintoff cannot be used as a work horse.
2: If the 4th Test is any indication , Duncan Fletcher and Andrew Flintoff have double standards as far as Monty Panesar is concerned.
It seems that it's OK with Fred and Duncs for Mahmood to get belted and leak runs but if Monty cops it for 2 or 3 overs they want him out of the attack.
It seems Freddie is clueless and doesn't understand that spinners sometimes get belted around a little before they take a wicket just like any other bowler.
3: Harmison was wearing a back support at the MCG. Now whether the sook was faking an injury as usual to get out of bowling more overs than he wants to I do not know.But if the fruit cake really does have a nigg
| |
