Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

The Ashes 2009

It's had its moments, but no, nowhere near the 2005 standard, either in terms of the quality of the Cricket in general, or the closeness of the matches.

Aye, the series has missed truly great players like Warne, Mcgrath, Gilchrist, Mcgrath but also on the England side we've missed truly class players like Pieterson (who I know limped through two tests but I don't think could be called himself), Vaughan, Tresco, the so sadly briefly shining brilliance of Simon Jones.

Still, really enjoyed it, we need to make a game of this now though...
 
My question becomes even more pertinent: if this wasn't good enough for Bell then who should have played instead? Because you can only talk about "good enough" or "not good enough" by reference to an alternative.
 
(Incidentally, I was saying that we should play Ramps before the match. You can go back and check the posts!)
 
My question becomes even more pertinent: if this wasn't good enough for Bell then who should have played instead? Because you can only talk about "good enough" or "not good enough" by reference to an alternative.

Happily I'm not a selector but I would have gone Key, Strauss, Cook, Bopara, Collingwood.. or something similar
 
This series has been nowhere near the quality of 2005 has it. Or am I not allowed to say that? Bit of a letdown.

You are comparing it to the greatest (from an England PoV, but also a neutrals for the closeness of the 3rd and 4th test (or whatever)) teast series of all time.

TBH it'll be a long time before I ever get excited about cricket now Warne's gone, and frankly now that the super-team disbanded, it will always feel like F1 the season after Schumacher retired or the UEFA cup

However good anyone will be, they'll never know if they were as good as the great aussie side(s) of recent years.
 
It's all very unfair really; if we had been Australia looking for a new batsman, we'd have been able to pull some wunderkind right out of the bush and have him whack it all around the park on his way to 10,000 test runs and an average of 50.
 
That's fair enough as it goes. But any such analysis HAS to be in the context of the alternatives that are available!

Let me ask you a question: suppose Bell comes back after tea and gets himself out for 75. So you say that it proves that he doesn't have the temprament, typical Bell and so on. So does that mean that somebody else should have played instead? If so, whom? If there is somebody else then fair enough (and I'll be interested to know whom, because I'm no expert on county cricket). But if the conclusion is that Bell was still actually the best option then what really is the point? If he is the best option, better to get behind him then say "oh, he'll get between 30 and 65" before he even starts.

I'd have played Rob Key as an experienced head with some decent form who can and has played at 3 regularly and captaincy experience to give Straussy a bit more brain in his brains trust on the pitch.

But that's beside the point as to what Bell needs to prove. Whether or not there is someone who can take his shirt is immaterial to whether he fulfils his ability and potential. Or at least should be if his priorities are right - and to be honest I've no reason to doubt they are.
 
I was under the impression that Key was considered to have even more to prove than Bell does?
 
You are comparing it to the greatest (from an England PoV, but also a neutrals for the closeness of the 3rd and 4th test (or whatever)) teast series of all time.

TBH it'll be a long time before I ever get excited about cricket now Warne's gone, and frankly now that the super-team disbanded, it will always feel like F1 the season after Schumacher retired or the UEFA cup

However good anyone will be, they'll never know if they were as good as the great aussie side(s) of recent years.

I don't understand that attitude tbh - it's like saying 'what's the point in supporting Macclesfield as they aren't as good as Man Utd?' - Warne was amazing, yeah, but you've got fascinating players like the lad Mendes from Sri Lanka, the timelesss tustle and flow of the test match, the fascinating question of the emergence of two new dynasty's to replace the aging Indian and Aussie sides and so on.
 
I was under the impression that Key was considered to have even more to prove than Bell does?

Arguably yes, but he seems more 'phlegmatic' mentally, has made runs recently, made a test 200, would give a left right opening combo, would mean Cook could drop down and sort his off stump out, would add captaincy knowledge for Strauss..
 
Next in line for England number 3:

BRUFOR_h250.jpg
 
So was lily allen on TMS then? She's at the ground according to her twitter page. apparently she knows her shit.
 
I was under the impression that Key was considered to have even more to prove than Bell does?

Yes, but he hasn't had consistent opportunities to prove it has he? His record in tests is fairly poor, but he hasn't played for a long time and irc played a good chunk of his tests against the Aussies. So, if you look at Bells career and take away a lot of the games and look at his record against the Aussies, I don't think there would be an awful lot of difference. I could be wrong about the ammount of his 15 tests were vs Aus though. I wil go and check...
 
Arguably yes, but he seems more 'phlegmatic' mentally, has made runs recently, made a test 200, would give a left right opening combo, would mean Cook could drop down and sort his off stump out, would add captaincy knowledge for Strauss..

You stole that opinion from Aggers you fraud!!!!
 
I think they should play Key and Strauss up front to get that elusive left-right combo.

Either that or Maggie and Arthur.
 
Back
Top Bottom