James said:not bowling wides and no-balls!
England and New Zealand both lost their most recent games because they couldn't control themselves.
What's the bet a key World Cup game is lost by the side bowling a huge number of wides and no balls like the kiwis and the poms did.
Bazzaroodoo said:Well how much longer is Steve Harmison going to masquerade as an international bowler? He make me want to cry he's so inaccurate. Always has been. I can put up with him in tests because he occasionally will run through sides, but he won't do that in ODIs, and doesn't serve any other purpose. It's not like he can bat or field.
On the subject of Shah, Nasser said today that the World Cup is the important thing, not the VB - so why was Shah in the team?Neil Pickup said:Another good plan would be not to pick Owais Shah, ever again, as he appears to have no understanding of the concept of a run chase.
Well that asks the question: "Why did they pick a totally out of form Irani and try to carry him if he didn't perform, instead of picking a very much inform and refreshed Hollioake?" The old arguement about giving players practise for the World Cup won't hold up as Shah has been picked lately.marc71178 said:On the subject of Shah, Nasser said today that the World Cup is the important thing, not the VB - so why was Shah in the team?
Then why is Irani in over HollioakeBazzaroodoo said:No I think the official line is we are giving players practice for the 2007 world cup.
How is Hollioake who's not been playing any cricket in form?Rik said:Well that asks the question: "Why did they pick a totally out of form Irani and try to carry him if he didn't perform, instead of picking a very much inform and refreshed Hollioake?" The old arguement about giving players practise for the World Cup won't hold up as Shah has been picked lately.
Hollioake scored a good 50 and took a Wicket in a tour game. Also if you looked at his stats from last season you would see a totally different player to the one that played for England before.marc71178 said:How is Hollioake who's not been playing any cricket in form?
I think Shah was only playing because Vaughan had been given a week off to ensure he's fit.
Stewart's in because he's still better than either Read or Foster. I can see your point though. I wouldn't mind seeing him retire from ODIs soon to concentrate on Tests for a few more years. I'd then put Read in as the ODI Keeper as he's a hard hitting batsman and Foster showed no real signs that he was a OD batsman when he played, averaging 11 or something.Neil Pickup said:Why is Stewart playing rather than Read or Foster?
Selectors...
That's a real shame, because he was a perfectly good player in the first place! Doesn't look like he'll get a look in, despite blatantly being twice the player Irani is.Rik said:Hollioake scored a good 50 and took a Wicket in a tour game. Also if you looked at his stats from last season you would see a totally different player to the one that played for England before.
When I mean a different player I mean one who now is super confident. After he was dropped by England he didn't really set the world on fire in the Domestic Game, but last season he did. It would be mad not to let him have a go...unless we are back to the old style of English selections...ie not giving someone a go unless he does so well they have to keep picking him...then they would be proved wrong and oh dear...that can't happen can it?Bazzaroodoo said:That's a real shame, because he was a perfectly good player in the first place! Doesn't look like he'll get a look in, despite blatantly being twice the player Irani is.
Agree with you on the Read thing Rik. He's gotta get another chance sooner or later.