• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

The FINAL--> Westindies VS England

Mr Mxyzptlk

Well-known member
Nnanden said:
nicely taken by shivvy, hinds frustrated collingwood into that one, though im sure richard would say that was entirely the batsmans stupidity...
Well it was largely due to his stupidity considering how much time is left in the innings.
 

Scaly piscine

Well-known member
Nnanden said:
nicely taken by shivvy, hinds frustrated collingwood into that one, though im sure richard would say that was entirely the batsmans stupidity...
Even as a Durham fan I would say that it's batsman stupidity, will be interesting to see how WI can score some runs later considering there's no mohammad sami & abdul razzaq buffet bowling in England's side.
 

Mr Mxyzptlk

Well-known member
Scaly piscine said:
Even as a Durham fan I would say that it's batsman stupidity, will be interesting to see how WI can score some runs later considering there's no mohammad sami & abdul razzaq buffet bowling in England's side.
Harmison, Giles and Flintoff are joke bowlers. The danger man is clearly Michael Vaughan... after Wharf that is. As for Gough, I'm not convinced he exists.
 

luckyeddie

Cricket Web Staff Member
Mr Mxyzptlk said:
Harmison, Giles and Flintoff are joke bowlers. The danger man is clearly Michael Vaughan... after Wharf that is. As for Gough, I'm not convinced he exists.
Grabs spliff....

Hey!! This is TEA!
 

Nate

You'll Never Walk Alone
Lara MOTM for fielding?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! Oh my hat, another amazing catch, and Hinds` bowling has been sublime.
 

Nate

You'll Never Walk Alone
marc71178 said:
With Hinds' success with the ball, could Collingwood be a key player in this game still?
Sorry marc, but are you saying that Hinds and Collingwood are similiar bowlers, or that their pace is similiar??
 

Scaly piscine

Well-known member
Hitting a medium pace long-hop in the air to a fielder is a moronic dismissal no matter how good the catch is

(in the 20oddth over I mean, last 10 I could excuse)
 
Last edited:

wpdavid

Well-known member
Nnanden said:
nicely taken by shivvy, hinds frustrated collingwood into that one, though im sure richard would say that was entirely the batsmans stupidity...
... and on this occasion he'd be dead right.
 

wpdavid

Well-known member
marc71178 said:
Him (Solanki) out, Pietersen in anybody?
Hard to say. Do you move Strauss to opener when he's doing so well at 4 in the oneday side? Or promote Vaughan & Strauss one place each? It's not as if Vaughan produces the goods with any sort of regularity in this form of the game, but I suppose his innings against Aus will save his place for the time being. But Solanki has done nothing in the 3 games that count since his return, so I couldn't argue with him going. It looks like I owe you that 50p after all.
 

Nate

You'll Never Walk Alone
TRESCOTHICK HUNDRED - that is HUGE!! Excellent if not chancy innings, when Freddie did not fire, Marco did.
 

Nate

You'll Never Walk Alone
sorry, but WHY hasnt "other" Hinds bowled? i thought he wouldve suited the pitch...
 

Scaly piscine

Well-known member
I'd happily move Strauss to opener, he is an opening batsman and he's certainly good enough and he'd get extra overs to bat in which would be a benefit to England. Vaughan can stay at 3 and you could argue to have Flintoff at 4 then Pietersen at 5 or the other way around. Anyway great hundred from Tresco and good brisk scoring from Giles.
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
Nnanden said:
Sorry marc, but are you saying that Hinds and Collingwood are similiar bowlers, or that their pace is similiar??
I'd say they're similar types of bowler actually, and in these conditions, you never know.
 

Nate

You'll Never Walk Alone
marc71178 said:
I'd say they're similar types of bowler actually, and in these conditions, you never know.
cool, just wondering :) id actually say wharf and hinds are more similiar, but what the hey. its a day for "medium" pacers (and maybe fast bowlers... im lookin at you harmy!!)
 
Top