England Cricket - Spring 2015 (matches against WI, IRE & NZ)
Comments
-
I
Imagine what he'd be like if he was a *really* useless fielder...lolwray said:oh and by the way hes a useless fielder ...which is a 3rd of the game
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYcgC3bioj0 0 -
Just as one knock doesn't make him the best batsman around, one catch from 10 years ago doesn't make him a great fielder.0
-
The argument can be had as to whether he is good enough, when he is considered. The ECB have said they will not consider him so it is irrelevant. Mind you – given that fact, it is laughable that he wouldn’t get into the England side based on talent alone. The limited over sides in particular! Has anybody who thinks otherwise been watching them lately?
It needs somebody like Botham in charge. Get all the dissenters in a room and ask those who would kick up a stink if Pieterson is selected on merit to leave. As they are leaving tell the last of them to close the door. Would go a long way to getting England on the right track.
0 -
so you want me to post a montage of all of his cock ups/drops because there will be plenty !?The_President said:I
Imagine what he'd be like if he was a *really* useless fielder...lolwray said:oh and by the way hes a useless fielder ...which is a 3rd of the game
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYcgC3bioj0
0 -
The problem was sacking him in the first place, after the last Ashes, as it made no sense,
Drop the guy by all means, but sacking him implied that he was the prime cause of the trouble, and that all would be sweetness and harmony without him. As I've said before, if one of our middle order batsmen gets injured during the Ashes, or loses form, it's daft to rule KP out.1 -
Like I said it is arguable he would get into the test side. As for the ODI squad, yes based on talent but do we really want someone playing for that side he in the past didn't want to?MuttleyCAFC said:The argument can be had as to whether he is good enough, when he is considered. The ECB have said they will not consider him so it is irrelevant. Mind you – given that fact, it is laughable that he wouldn’t get into the England side based on talent alone. The limited over sides in particular! Has anybody who thinks otherwise been watching them lately?
It needs somebody like Botham in charge. Get all the dissenters in a room and ask those who would kick up a stink if Pieterson is selected on merit to leave. As they are leaving tell the last of them to close the door. Would go a long way to getting England on the right track.0 -
Jeez, here we are with someone who is 5th in the all-time list of England run-getters and in top 20 of averages ever....and you want to have a pop at his fielding !!lolwray said:
so you want me to post a montage of all of his cock ups/drops because there will be plenty !?The_President said:I
Imagine what he'd be like if he was a *really* useless fielder...lolwray said:oh and by the way hes a useless fielder ...which is a 3rd of the game
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYcgC3bioj00 -
I want to see England winning. The best way to achieve that is to have as many players of Pieterson's quality in the side - test and one day. I don't see the point in arguing whether he is good enough though, when the reason given has been lack of trust and not lack of ability. That is the point to challenge.colthe3rd said:
Like I said it is arguable he would get into the test side. As for the ODI squad, yes based on talent but do we really want someone playing for that side he in the past didn't want to?MuttleyCAFC said:The argument can be had as to whether he is good enough, when he is considered. The ECB have said they will not consider him so it is irrelevant. Mind you – given that fact, it is laughable that he wouldn’t get into the England side based on talent alone. The limited over sides in particular! Has anybody who thinks otherwise been watching them lately?
It needs somebody like Botham in charge. Get all the dissenters in a room and ask those who would kick up a stink if Pieterson is selected on merit to leave. As they are leaving tell the last of them to close the door. Would go a long way to getting England on the right track.0 -
happy to do so ...its a sign of his inability to play as part of a team ...for example,.if a player makes say 60 runs per innings ,gives away 10 through misfields and drops someone who makes 40 then his contribution doesnt look so good and as i said before fielding is a 3rd of the game ....The_President said:
Jeez, here we are with someone who is 5th in the all-time list of England run-getters and in top 20 of averages ever....and you want to have a pop at his fielding !!lolwray said:
so you want me to post a montage of all of his cock ups/drops because there will be plenty !?The_President said:I
Imagine what he'd be like if he was a *really* useless fielder...lolwray said:oh and by the way hes a useless fielder ...which is a 3rd of the game
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYcgC3bioj0
1 -
So why are people bringing up his ability if that isn't why he has been left out of the team? His behaviour is an even bigger issue than his form over the past few years, those defending him know that and is exactly why people are saying he should be there because he is "the best batsman we have" as there is very little to defend what he has done.MuttleyCAFC said:
I want to see England winning. The best way to achieve that is to have as many players of Pieterson's quality in the side - test and one day. I don't see the point in arguing whether he is good enough though, when the reason given has been lack of trust and not lack of ability. That is the point to challenge.colthe3rd said:
Like I said it is arguable he would get into the test side. As for the ODI squad, yes based on talent but do we really want someone playing for that side he in the past didn't want to?MuttleyCAFC said:The argument can be had as to whether he is good enough, when he is considered. The ECB have said they will not consider him so it is irrelevant. Mind you – given that fact, it is laughable that he wouldn’t get into the England side based on talent alone. The limited over sides in particular! Has anybody who thinks otherwise been watching them lately?
It needs somebody like Botham in charge. Get all the dissenters in a room and ask those who would kick up a stink if Pieterson is selected on merit to leave. As they are leaving tell the last of them to close the door. Would go a long way to getting England on the right track.0 - Sponsored links:
-
He hasn't murdered anybody or offended any races.0
-
Shouldn't the benchmark be even higher than that though? I mean, if that's how the team is selected, it still leaves lots of options...MuttleyCAFC said:He hasn't murdered anybody or offended any races.
1 -
Bit if you brought him in with his 47 average at the expense of someone with a 35 average you might think great.
But then two of the batsman, dont feel comfortable playing with him and their average drops by 10 runs and the bowlers who he slated in his book drop their averages down and all of a sudden his 47 average is nowhere near making up what his inclusion has cost the rest of the team.
His performances in the test team were not particularly good the last year or so he played.3 -
Oh well in that case get him back in, better yet let's make him captain.MuttleyCAFC said:He hasn't murdered anybody or offended any races.
0 -
quite possibly .. but read my post re Trueman's nickname dating from the 1950s well BEFORE Boycott had hijacked Trueman's nickname for his own use .. and this is my last word on the topic .. Boycott may have been a decent batsman but as a person, he makes Pietersen look like St Francis of Assisi .. remember Boycott is a convicted woman beater, why the BBC continue to employ this dirtbag is beyond melolwray said:ahve
if my memory serves me right Boycott was referred to a "Fiery " by Brearley in the "Botham 1981 test series" it definitely mentioned in "phoenix from the ashes" and Willis and Botham went along with itLincsaddick said:
source?Riviera said:
Fiery was given to Boycott by Brearley, Willis and Botham.Lincsaddick said:
Fiery ? .. a nickname given to Fred Trueman that Boycott hijacked when he was trying to make a name for himself .. just as 'the corridor of uncertainty' is a Benaudism nicked by Boycott .. Boycott .. the great 'nicker' .. ((:>)lolwray said:
The corridor of uncertainty was not nicked from Richie Benaud either.0 -
never really thought "fiery" was used as a serious sobriquet for anyone else than FST ,...wonder who d get thrown out an imaginary balloon first ....KP or GB ?Lincsaddick said:
quite possibly .. but read my post re Trueman's nickname dating from the 1950s well BEFORE Boycott had hijacked Trueman's nickname for his own use .. and this is my last word on the topic .. Boycott may have been a decent batsman but as a person, he makes Pietersen look like St Francis of Assisi .. remember Boycott is a convicted woman beater, why the BBC continue to employ this dirtbag is beyond melolwray said:ahve
if my memory serves me right Boycott was referred to a "Fiery " by Brearley in the "Botham 1981 test series" it definitely mentioned in "phoenix from the ashes" and Willis and Botham went along with itLincsaddick said:
source?Riviera said:
Fiery was given to Boycott by Brearley, Willis and Botham.Lincsaddick said:
Fiery ? .. a nickname given to Fred Trueman that Boycott hijacked when he was trying to make a name for himself .. just as 'the corridor of uncertainty' is a Benaudism nicked by Boycott .. Boycott .. the great 'nicker' .. ((:>)lolwray said:
The corridor of uncertainty was not nicked from Richie Benaud either.
1 -
incidentally despite KPs 326 not out ,it doesnt seem Surrey will beat Leics2
-
For goodness sake Boycott DID NOT NICK ANYONES NICKNAME! You don't give yourself nicknames, they are bestowed upon you by others. As I have said and has been backed up on here it was Brearley, Willis and Botham who called him Fiery along with other names such as Thatch. Yes Fred Trueman was known as Fiery Fred and also Sir Fred just as Boycott is often referred to as Sir Geoffrey.Lincsaddick said:
quite possibly .. but read my post re Trueman's nickname dating from the 1950s well BEFORE Boycott had hijacked Trueman's nickname for his own use .. and this is my last word on the topic .. Boycott may have been a decent batsman but as a person, he makes Pietersen look like St Francis of Assisi .. remember Boycott is a convicted woman beater, why the BBC continue to employ this dirtbag is beyond melolwray said:ahve
if my memory serves me right Boycott was referred to a "Fiery " by Brearley in the "Botham 1981 test series" it definitely mentioned in "phoenix from the ashes" and Willis and Botham went along with itLincsaddick said:
source?Riviera said:
Fiery was given to Boycott by Brearley, Willis and Botham.Lincsaddick said:
Fiery ? .. a nickname given to Fred Trueman that Boycott hijacked when he was trying to make a name for himself .. just as 'the corridor of uncertainty' is a Benaudism nicked by Boycott .. Boycott .. the great 'nicker' .. ((:>)lolwray said:
The corridor of uncertainty was not nicked from Richie Benaud either.0 -
Boycs was also referred to as PINTA (sure you can worked that one out)0
-
Our mate Smithy was gutted when we told someone else had the same nickname.1
- Sponsored links:
-
Sums up my thoughts well.MrOneLung said:Bit if you brought him in with his 47 average at the expense of someone with a 35 average you might think great.
But then two of the batsman, dont feel comfortable playing with him and their average drops by 10 runs and the bowlers who he slated in his book drop their averages down and all of a sudden his 47 average is nowhere near making up what his inclusion has cost the rest of the team.
His performances in the test team were not particularly good the last year or so he played.
People are treating it like he's Lara at his peak, whereas the reality is he might get marginally more runs than anyone he replaces but the hassle he'll bring will be bad for the team, and he'll replace someone younger who the experience will help more too.
The decision is the right one its just been handled badly.3 -
I see he wasn't fit enough to field today. No doubt saving himself for the IPL.
0 -
This argument stacks up if the team is decent. At the moment it is crap so he is going to have more of an impact. And if the team is crap - I think it takes any member of that team's right away to be precious.North Lower Neil said:
Sums up my thoughts well.MrOneLung said:Bit if you brought him in with his 47 average at the expense of someone with a 35 average you might think great.
But then two of the batsman, dont feel comfortable playing with him and their average drops by 10 runs and the bowlers who he slated in his book drop their averages down and all of a sudden his 47 average is nowhere near making up what his inclusion has cost the rest of the team.
His performances in the test team were not particularly good the last year or so he played.
People are treating it like he's Lara at his peak, whereas the reality is he might get marginally more runs than anyone he replaces but the hassle he'll bring will be bad for the team, and he'll replace someone younger who the experience will help more too.
The decision is the right one its just been handled badly.0 -
But his average in 2013, the last time he was in the side, was 32 in Tests and 28 in ODIs. That simply isn't good enough and doesn't even compare to those currently in the side.MuttleyCAFC said:
This argument stacks up if the team is decent. At the moment it is crap so he is going to have more of an impact. And if the team is crap - I think it takes any member of that team's right away to be precious.North Lower Neil said:
Sums up my thoughts well.MrOneLung said:Bit if you brought him in with his 47 average at the expense of someone with a 35 average you might think great.
But then two of the batsman, dont feel comfortable playing with him and their average drops by 10 runs and the bowlers who he slated in his book drop their averages down and all of a sudden his 47 average is nowhere near making up what his inclusion has cost the rest of the team.
His performances in the test team were not particularly good the last year or so he played.
People are treating it like he's Lara at his peak, whereas the reality is he might get marginally more runs than anyone he replaces but the hassle he'll bring will be bad for the team, and he'll replace someone younger who the experience will help more too.
The decision is the right one its just been handled badly.
Meanwhile, on the road at the Oval, Leics managed 480. And in reply Surrey are 172-1 off 13.4 overs such is the threatening nature of an attack that hasn't won a game in over two years.
0 -
You say what sir!!lolwray said:incidentally despite KPs 326 not out ,it doesnt seem Surrey will beat Leics
0 -
I bet the prick wishes he had held back his book for a couple of years.3
-
What a load of bollox.lolwray said:The_President said:
Jeez, here we are with someone who is 5th in the all-time list of England run-getters and in top 20 of averages ever....and you want to have a pop at his fielding !!lolwray said:
so you want me to post a montage of all of his cock ups/drops because there will be plenty !?The_President said:I
Imagine what he'd be like if he was a *really* useless fielder...lolwray said:oh and by the way hes a useless fielder ...which is a 3rd of the game
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYcgC3bioj0
happy to do so ...its a sign of his inability to play as part of a team ...for example,.if a player makes say 60 runs per innings ,gives away 10 through misfields and drops someone who makes 40 then his contribution doesnt look so good and as i said before fielding is a 3rd of the game ....
Did you read my post? this man is 5th best EVER run-scorer for England and is in top 20 EVER averages for England .
And you want to pick up on misfields and drops !!
Do you go to cricket matches with your mum and a stick of Rhubarb ?? Or maybe you go along with your special scoring book with a pencilled-in column for misfields?0 -
You say that AA, but my recollection of 2013 was it was an Ashes year, and that KP was second in averages/aggregate after Bell (who had a phenomenal series, way above everyone else) - and also my recollection is that KP was the top run-scorer in Oz Ashes return, so, with comparisons, it might not seem so bad.?Addick Addict said:
But his average in 2013, the last time he was in the side, was 32 in Tests and 28 in ODIs. That simply isn't good enough and doesn't even compare to those currently in the side.MuttleyCAFC said:
This argument stacks up if the team is decent. At the moment it is crap so he is going to have more of an impact. And if the team is crap - I think it takes any member of that team's right away to be precious.North Lower Neil said:
Sums up my thoughts well.MrOneLung said:Bit if you brought him in with his 47 average at the expense of someone with a 35 average you might think great.
But then two of the batsman, dont feel comfortable playing with him and their average drops by 10 runs and the bowlers who he slated in his book drop their averages down and all of a sudden his 47 average is nowhere near making up what his inclusion has cost the rest of the team.
His performances in the test team were not particularly good the last year or so he played.
People are treating it like he's Lara at his peak, whereas the reality is he might get marginally more runs than anyone he replaces but the hassle he'll bring will be bad for the team, and he'll replace someone younger who the experience will help more too.
The decision is the right one its just been handled badly.
Meanwhile, on the road at the Oval, Leics managed 480. And in reply Surrey are 172-1 off 13.4 overs such is the threatening nature of an attack that hasn't won a game in over two years.0 -
KP scored 324 so an average of 32.4 and Trott, Bairstow, Prior and Carberry have all also departed from that series. The only batsmen to have survived, apart from Bell, are Cook, Root and the recently recalled Stokes.The_President said:
You say that AA, but my recollection of 2013 was it was an Ashes year, and that KP was second in averages/aggregate after Bell (who had a phenomenal series, way above everyone else) - and also my recollection is that KP was the top run-scorer in Oz Ashes return, so, with comparisons, it might not seem so bad.?Addick Addict said:
But his average in 2013, the last time he was in the side, was 32 in Tests and 28 in ODIs. That simply isn't good enough and doesn't even compare to those currently in the side.MuttleyCAFC said:
This argument stacks up if the team is decent. At the moment it is crap so he is going to have more of an impact. And if the team is crap - I think it takes any member of that team's right away to be precious.North Lower Neil said:
Sums up my thoughts well.MrOneLung said:Bit if you brought him in with his 47 average at the expense of someone with a 35 average you might think great.
But then two of the batsman, dont feel comfortable playing with him and their average drops by 10 runs and the bowlers who he slated in his book drop their averages down and all of a sudden his 47 average is nowhere near making up what his inclusion has cost the rest of the team.
His performances in the test team were not particularly good the last year or so he played.
People are treating it like he's Lara at his peak, whereas the reality is he might get marginally more runs than anyone he replaces but the hassle he'll bring will be bad for the team, and he'll replace someone younger who the experience will help more too.
The decision is the right one its just been handled badly.
Meanwhile, on the road at the Oval, Leics managed 480. And in reply Surrey are 172-1 off 13.4 overs such is the threatening nature of an attack that hasn't won a game in over two years.0 -
1
