Cricket Thread
8 lurkers |
108 watchers
Sep 2015
12:56pm, 11 Sep 2015
16,069 posts
|
flanker
Rash seems to have developed a new stock ball. The full toss.
|
Sep 2015
3:15pm, 11 Sep 2015
2,962 posts
|
longboat
guaranteed to jynx it, but dare I say this looks like a good response?
|
Sep 2015
3:19pm, 11 Sep 2015
2,963 posts
|
longboat
told you
|
Sep 2015
3:29pm, 11 Sep 2015
611 posts
|
Crash Hamster
Rashid has always bowled a full bunger or half-tracker an over; where the myth of his control and accuracy has come from, I have no idea. Still fancy us to win this, though ![]() |
Sep 2015
8:58pm, 11 Sep 2015
7,170 posts
|
rf_fozzy
Rashid does, however, bowl magic balls and take wickets. Which is perhaps more important. Australia's other excellent leg-spinner, Stuart MacGill, had a similar problem - the one bad ball per over. Unfortunately for him, Shane Warne was around at the same time and he was something else. There aren't many leggies that are perfect all the time - because it's a difficult art, which is why there are so few around. The wicket-taking ability is was important. |
Sep 2015
8:58pm, 11 Sep 2015
7,171 posts
|
rf_fozzy
*what's not was |
Sep 2015
9:02pm, 11 Sep 2015
7,172 posts
|
rf_fozzy
espncricinfo.com 208 wickets at 29.02 in just 44 test matches....and a 54.0 SR Compare to Graeme Swann (prob Englands best spinner?) - 255 at 29.92 in 60 test matches, SR 60.1 We want a Shane Warne. Unfortunately he was rather unique. In more ways than one. |
Sep 2015
9:36pm, 11 Sep 2015
613 posts
|
Crash Hamster
Yep, MacGill would've walked into just about any other side at the time. I agree wholeheartedly that legspinners take wickets and that there is some value to Rashid; what annoys me is the perpetual Sky-commentator-nonsense that he brings control; he doesn't. They spent all summer chuntering about Moeen bowling one bad ball an over and rhapsodising over how much more accurate Rashid would be. It is, however, fantastic to see England having bowling options now; selection is going to be tough due to too many bowlers and (possibly) too few batsmen... |
Sep 2015
9:59pm, 11 Sep 2015
7,173 posts
|
rf_fozzy
Don't watch sky, so wouldn't know! (refuse to pay money to that arse - Murdoch). I guess it could be argued that he brings control by taking wickets, but I agree it's not really the same. No-one from Yorkshire has ever claimed he's a tight bowler - we've always said he's a wicket-taker, which is his strength. |
Sep 2015
11:32am, 12 Sep 2015
614 posts
|
Crash Hamster
Agreed about Murdoch (and I hate the fact that I'm contributing to Wayne Rooney's wages) but I pay because I love being able to watch cricket most days in the summer. Now that BT is muscling in on cricket (and rugby) coverage, I'm not sure what I'll do in the medium term.
|
Related Threads
-
The Ashes 2009 Jun 2022
-
FOOTBALL Mar 2025
-
DraftEveryone: a US sports wire Mar 2025
-
Fetch F1 Fans Mar 2025
-
Elite Athletics Thread Mar 2025
-
Rugby League Thread Mar 2025
-
Pro cycling thread Feb 2025
-
Ski/Snow hols Feb 2025
-
Ladies Who Lift... Feb 2025
-
Rugby, the original version Jan 2025