marc71178
Eyes not spreadsheets
Gary Pratt would.Mr Mxyzptlk said:But that's totally different, because they don't monopolize a spot in the XI with a sub fielder.
Gary Pratt would.Mr Mxyzptlk said:But that's totally different, because they don't monopolize a spot in the XI with a sub fielder.
It was, but most people would realise I'd not accuse Collingwood of being a poor fielder.Nnanden said:It wasn`t like you just mis-typed a few letters. It was a completely different word.
He didn't play for England, playing is being picked in the starting XI.Matteh said:In the post before you said he was good batsman, said he didn't get the recognition he deserved and compared him to a test level cricketer....
He did play for England....although only as a fielder
Not if, in a couple of years, the only cricket he's playing is for his club.marc71178 said:Gary Pratt would.
I'd think of playing as having a part in the game...as in he put on an England shirt and played cricket for awhile....Richard said:He didn't play for England, playing is being picked in the starting XI.
Way to show a sense of humour.Richard said:Not if, in a couple of years, the only cricket he's playing is for his club.
But he doesn't take the place of a better batsman or a better bowler, so it's hardly the same.Matteh said:I'd think of playing as having a part in the game...as in he put on an England shirt and played cricket for awhile....
he's not got a number or anything, he's not got a test cap....but he's still played for England