|
Post by M on Jul 15, 2019 14:53:01 GMT
I'm still floating in the clouds after yesterday.
I was one like many others which got really captivated by the Ashes in 2005 and very quickly became a huge cricket fan regularly following England around the country and planning on touring with in the immediate future. I've got my Stoke Season card but the truth is cricket became my number one sport a good few years ago and yesterday showed all that was great about the sport. Here's hoping to many more kids and adults getting captivated by the exploits of this team.
There's too many players over the last four years who need a special mention for transforming white ball cricket but if one person needed it more than any, it was Strauss. I really hope his personal life can afford him the opportunity to return to the role because he was hugely instrumental behind the scenes in enabling this team to go in the direction it has.
Yesterday was nuts though. I'm still exhausted from the emotional yoyo but what a game. We will probably never see another match like it, never mind another World Cup Final like it. An absolute joy to witness and I love the class of the ECB opening up the Oval today so boys, girls and kids can get in amongst the player and the trophy. A proper inclusive gesture.
That game though will be remembered as a unique unbelievable match for generations to come like the Hurst Hatrick and Wilkinson last gasp kick rightly have been. A truly iconic moment of sport.
|
|
|
Post by thequietman on Jul 15, 2019 15:47:50 GMT
Oh before I forget, we shouldn't forget some of the players who didn't make the squad but have been pivotal in changing the mentality of this England side over the past 4 years. Take a bow, David Willey, Tom Curran, Moeen Ali, Alex Hales (misdemeanors aside, he's been crucial), Steven Finn (was a big part of the side immediately after the WC, did a good job), James Taylor and because I'm being nice, even Chris Jordan. I'd like to thank Jade Winston Dernbach for retiring and otherwise being nowhere near the squad for years.
Actually, you have a point Estranged. Especially in that not only is our whole squad very strong, but we have another half dozen or more who could easily have got into the squad without it being significantly weaker. Especially in the bowling department.
There's nothing like being pushed on by your team mates in the sense that if you don't perform, you'll be not only dropped but quite possibly out of the squad and never getting back into it.
It's a winner's mentality - harsh but all for the best as far as team success goes.
And there's clearly team camaraderie to back it up too, it's not all dog-eat-dog. Ref Joffra Archer's comments about how his team mates welcomed him in even though he didn't know many of them.
Will Eoin Morgan carry on or will he retire? Hopefully the former for a good while to come. And when he does finally come to retire, I hope he's kept around the team in some capacity as he's certainly been an important catalyst in our success.
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Jul 15, 2019 17:21:16 GMT
Oh before I forget, we shouldn't forget some of the players who didn't make the squad but have been pivotal in changing the mentality of this England side over the past 4 years. Take a bow, David Willey, Tom Curran, Moeen Ali, Alex Hales (misdemeanors aside, he's been crucial), Steven Finn (was a big part of the side immediately after the WC, did a good job), James Taylor and because I'm being nice, even Chris Jordan. Nice also to see Stuart Broad so fully engaged
|
|
|
Post by mattyd on Jul 15, 2019 18:28:59 GMT
It now transpires that the 6 given for the overthrow ( 2 runs + 4 for the boundary overthrow) should only have been 5, as the rule states that when the fielder threw the ball, the 2 batsmen had not crossed, therefore when he threw it we had only notched up a single run, therefor 5 not 6. The Kiwis have been very gracious, and said it's an umpire error, not flagged at the time, therefore it stands.
|
|
|
Post by GeneralFaye on Jul 15, 2019 18:36:43 GMT
It now transpires that the 6 given for the overthrow ( 2 runs + 4 for the boundary overthrow) should only have been 5, as the rule states that when the fielder threw the ball, the 2 batsmen had not crossed, therefore when he threw it we had only notched up a single run, therefor 5 not 6. The Kiwis have been very gracious, and said it's an umpire error, not flagged at the time, therefore it stands. It's gutting but if you look at every run total, there will be the odd one that shouldn't have been given. Archers "wide" in the super over for example, wasn't a wide for me.
|
|
|
Post by franklin66 on Jul 15, 2019 18:51:52 GMT
It now transpires that the 6 given for the overthrow ( 2 runs + 4 for the boundary overthrow) should only have been 5, as the rule states that when the fielder threw the ball, the 2 batsmen had not crossed, therefore when he threw it we had only notched up a single run, therefor 5 not 6. The Kiwis have been very gracious, and said it's an umpire error, not flagged at the time, therefore it stands. There's some ambiguity on that mate as it applies to the impact on the batsman as I've just read it. Law 19.8 - overthrow or wilful act of fielder: If the boundary results from an overthrow or from the wilful act of a fielder, the runs scored shall be: any runs for penalties awarded to either side;the allowance for the boundary; andthe runs completed by the batsmen, together with the run in progress if they had already crossed at the instant of the throw or act. There is some potential for ambiguity in the law, because "act" could be interpreted as the moment the ball deflected off Stokes' bat. However, there is no reference to the batsman's actions elsewhere in the law.
|
|
|
Post by M on Jul 15, 2019 19:22:40 GMT
Oh before I forget, we shouldn't forget some of the players who didn't make the squad but have been pivotal in changing the mentality of this England side over the past 4 years. Take a bow, David Willey, Tom Curran, Moeen Ali, Alex Hales (misdemeanors aside, he's been crucial), Steven Finn (was a big part of the side immediately after the WC, did a good job), James Taylor and because I'm being nice, even Chris Jordan. I'd like to thank Jade Winston Dernbach for retiring and otherwise being nowhere near the squad for years. Actually, you have a point Estranged. Especially in that not only is our whole squad very strong, but we have another half dozen or more who could easily have got into the squad without it being significantly weaker. Especially in the bowling department.
Will Eoin Morgan carry on or will he retire? Hopefully the former for a good while to come. And when he does finally come to retire, I hope he's kept around the team in some capacity as he's certainly been an important catalyst in our success.
In one respect he deserves the chance to keep himself in that team for as long as he's good enough and willing. On the other, him and Strauss have spoken so much about how we have been building for this since the last World Cup and how everything has been finely planned. So with that in mind, I think he will stand down as captain as the consummate professional he is, so that another captain has the same opportunity as he did. I'd also expect him to retire too even though he's good enough to play on because I honestly reckon he wouldn't want to give the selectors a headache of dropping a World Cup winning captain but I'd expect him to stick around. I have a feeling he will become heavily involved in the backroom setup for many years to come.
|
|
|
Post by dave1 on Jul 15, 2019 19:27:33 GMT
It now transpires that the 6 given for the overthrow ( 2 runs + 4 for the boundary overthrow) should only have been 5, as the rule states that when the fielder threw the ball, the 2 batsmen had not crossed, therefore when he threw it we had only notched up a single run, therefor 5 not 6. The Kiwis have been very gracious, and said it's an umpire error, not flagged at the time, therefore it stands. There's some ambiguity on that mate as it applies to the impact on the batsman as I've just read it. Law 19.8 - overthrow or wilful act of fielder: If the boundary results from an overthrow or from the wilful act of a fielder, the runs scored shall be: any runs for penalties awarded to either side;the allowance for the boundary; andthe runs completed by the batsmen, together with the run in progress if they had already crossed at the instant of the throw or act. There is some potential for ambiguity in the law, because "act" could be interpreted as the moment the ball deflected off Stokes' bat. However, there is no reference to the batsman's actions elsewhere in the law. Unless I am missing something there is no ambiguity about this. The batsmen hadn't crossed so technically five runs should have been given. BTW I dont give a fuck (and glad that it was overseen). It was right up there with the best sport that i have ever seen. Not sure where this come from but it has been raised well after the event that winds me up somewhat.
|
|
|
Post by franklin66 on Jul 15, 2019 19:31:50 GMT
There's some ambiguity on that mate as it applies to the impact on the batsman as I've just read it. Law 19.8 - overthrow or wilful act of fielder: If the boundary results from an overthrow or from the wilful act of a fielder, the runs scored shall be: any runs for penalties awarded to either side;the allowance for the boundary; andthe runs completed by the batsmen, together with the run in progress if they had already crossed at the instant of the throw or act. There is some potential for ambiguity in the law, because "act" could be interpreted as the moment the ball deflected off Stokes' bat. However, there is no reference to the batsman's actions elsewhere in the law. Unless I am missing something there is no ambiguity about this. The batsmen hadn't crossed so technically five runs should have been given. BTW I dont give a fuck (and glad that it was overseen). It was right up there with the best sport that i have ever seen. Not sure where this come from but it has been raised well after the event that winds me up somewhat. I agree on the result but this is the part "together with the run in progress if they had already crossed at the instant of the throw or act" OR ACT they had crossed when the act occurred.
|
|
|
Post by mattyd on Jul 15, 2019 19:35:46 GMT
Unless I am missing something there is no ambiguity about this. The batsmen hadn't crossed so technically five runs should have been given. BTW I dont give a fuck (and glad that it was overseen). It was right up there with the best sport that i have ever seen. Not sure where this come from but it has been raised well after the event that winds me up somewhat. I agree on the result but this is the part "together with the run in progress if they had already crossed at the instant of the throw or act" OR ACT they had crossed when the act occurred. But when the fielder threw the ball, they had not yet crossed, but in the short time between leaving his hand and striking Stokes' bat they had.
|
|
|
Post by dave1 on Jul 15, 2019 19:41:56 GMT
Unless I am missing something there is no ambiguity about this. The batsmen hadn't crossed so technically five runs should have been given. BTW I dont give a fuck (and glad that it was overseen). It was right up there with the best sport that i have ever seen. Not sure where this come from but it has been raised well after the event that winds me up somewhat. I agree on the result but this is the part "together with the run in progress if they had already crossed at the instant of the throw or act" OR ACT they had crossed when the act occurred. Now see what you are saying! Is that wording taken direct from the rule book? If so, then yes, I can see how this is ambiguous. Not seen anything in the media that challenges this though?
|
|
|
Post by franklin66 on Jul 15, 2019 19:48:08 GMT
I agree on the result but this is the part "together with the run in progress if they had already crossed at the instant of the throw or act" OR ACT they had crossed when the act occurred. But when the fielder threw the ball, they had not yet crossed, but in the short time between leaving his hand and striking Stokes' bat they had. At the INSTANT of the throw or act, so you could argue the act is the time. When the ball hits his bat is the act and at that point they had crossed.
|
|
|
Post by franklin66 on Jul 15, 2019 19:48:43 GMT
I agree on the result but this is the part "together with the run in progress if they had already crossed at the instant of the throw or act" OR ACT they had crossed when the act occurred. Now see what you are saying! Is that wording taken direct from the rule book? If so, then yes, I can see how this is ambiguous. Not seen anything in the media that challenges this though? Yes. It's on the BBC site too.
|
|
|
Post by drjeffsdiscobarge on Jul 15, 2019 19:53:32 GMT
I'd like to thank Jade Winston Dernbach for retiring and otherwise being nowhere near the squad for years. Actually, you have a point Estranged. Especially in that not only is our whole squad very strong, but we have another half dozen or more who could easily have got into the squad without it being significantly weaker. Especially in the bowling department.
Will Eoin Morgan carry on or will he retire? Hopefully the former for a good while to come. And when he does finally come to retire, I hope he's kept around the team in some capacity as he's certainly been an important catalyst in our success.
In one respect he deserves the chance to keep himself in that team for as long as he's good enough and willing. On the other, him and Strauss have spoken so much about how we have been building for this since the last World Cup and how everything has been finely planned. So with that in mind, I think he will stand down as captain as the consummate professional he is, so that another captain has the same opportunity as he did. I'd also expect him to retire too even though he's good enough to play on because I honestly reckon he wouldn't want to give the selectors a headache of dropping a World Cup winning captain but I'd expect him to stick around. I have a feeling he will become heavily involved in the backroom setup for many years to come. Morgan will call it a day as captain now and it's probably the right time.
|
|
|
Post by drjeffsdiscobarge on Jul 15, 2019 19:58:51 GMT
It now transpires that the 6 given for the overthrow ( 2 runs + 4 for the boundary overthrow) should only have been 5, as the rule states that when the fielder threw the ball, the 2 batsmen had not crossed, therefore when he threw it we had only notched up a single run, therefor 5 not 6. The Kiwis have been very gracious, and said it's an umpire error, not flagged at the time, therefore it stands. Exactly, very unfortunate for the kiwis but whether it was 5 or 6 they were just shit out of luck. You get good calls and bad. If England needed 1 more run off the last couple of balls they may still have got it, it's all unknowns after the event. Its the nature of sport and its why we all fucking love it!
|
|
|
Post by musik on Jul 15, 2019 20:16:00 GMT
***** CONGRATULATIONS!!! *****
I just saw it on the tv news here, congratulations! I have never in my life watched a game of Cricket. I have no idea of how it works, the rules etc. So the 15 seconds or so they showed was really special.
👍
|
|
|
Post by drjeffsdiscobarge on Jul 15, 2019 20:17:48 GMT
***** CONGRATULATIONS!!! ***** I just saw it on the tv news here, congratulations! I have never in my life watched a game of Cricket. I have no idea of how it works, the rules etc. So the 15 seconds or so they showed was really special. 👍 Find yourself some extended highlights and give it a watch. It's a fantastic sport that needs spreading to other countries.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2019 20:19:14 GMT
***** CONGRATULATIONS!!! ***** I just saw it on the tv news here, congratulations! I have never in my life watched a game of Cricket. I have no idea of how it works, the rules etc. So the 15 seconds or so they showed was really special. 👍 Thanks Musik ! You don't know what you're missing mate, Cricket's a great game in all it's formats.
|
|
|
Post by drjeffsdiscobarge on Jul 15, 2019 20:47:22 GMT
***** CONGRATULATIONS!!! ***** I just saw it on the tv news here, congratulations! I have never in my life watched a game of Cricket. I have no idea of how it works, the rules etc. So the 15 seconds or so they showed was really special. 👍 Thanks Musik ! You don't know what you're missing mate, Cricket's a great game in all it's formats. Always makes me a bit sad when people start cricket related comments with 'now I don't like/get cricket'. Yes you get some boring games but it's the same with any sport. A good test match has everything any sports fan could want.
|
|
|
Post by GeneralFaye on Jul 15, 2019 21:00:39 GMT
***** CONGRATULATIONS!!! ***** I just saw it on the tv news here, congratulations! I have never in my life watched a game of Cricket. I have no idea of how it works, the rules etc. So the 15 seconds or so they showed was really special. 👍 Find yourself some extended highlights and give it a watch. It's a fantastic sport that needs spreading to other countries. Apparently the Germans are taking it very seriously which is a worrying prospect. Imagine losing to that lot at a World Cup?.. Christ, doesn't bare thinking about.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2019 21:15:45 GMT
Find yourself some extended highlights and give it a watch. It's a fantastic sport that needs spreading to other countries. Apparently the Germans are taking it very seriously which is a worrying prospect. Imagine losing to that lot at a World Cup?.. Christ, doesn't bare thinking about. Where have you heard that General ? I'm surprised it's getting much news coverage at all in non-Cricket playing countries tbh.
|
|
|
Post by GeneralFaye on Jul 15, 2019 21:44:27 GMT
Apparently the Germans are taking it very seriously which is a worrying prospect. Imagine losing to that lot at a World Cup?.. Christ, doesn't bare thinking about. Where have you heard that General ? I'm surprised it's getting much news coverage at all in non-Cricket playing countries tbh. Heard someone talking about it on TMS during one of the World Cup games at the midway point. Said they've started introducing it into schools and the take up is on the increase.. it might not lead to anything but wouldn't put anything past the Germans. There's a few articles knocking about online if you Google it. It's mainly due to the number of migrants in Germany but that's how it starts I suppose.
|
|
|
Post by professorplump on Jul 15, 2019 23:10:18 GMT
Oh before I forget, we shouldn't forget some of the players who didn't make the squad but have been pivotal in changing the mentality of this England side over the past 4 years. Take a bow, David Willey, Tom Curran, Moeen Ali, Alex Hales (misdemeanors aside, he's been crucial), Steven Finn (was a big part of the side immediately after the WC, did a good job), James Taylor and because I'm being nice, even Chris Jordan. I think the other person who deserves a lot of credit is Andrew Strauss. He made some key decisions after the last World Cup appointing Bayliss and Farbrace, allowed our players to play the IPL and Big Bash so they could improve their skills and changing our focus so that white ball cricket was taken more seriously. The trade off is that we have probably become a little bit less good at red ball cricket but hopefully we can now pick that up and get the Ashes back.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2019 5:47:42 GMT
With Trevor Bayliss leaving after the Ashes I wonder if this will have any major impact on our T20, ODI, and Test teams ? I'd guess there will be some effect but hopefully the "processes" are now in place for us to continue at basically the same level.
I guess it boils down to who the new coach will be and what changes he plans to make. It was mentioned during the final that the NZ coach, Gary Stead, is keen to replace Bayliss. I don't know who else is in the frame.
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Jul 16, 2019 6:10:02 GMT
With Trevor Bayliss leaving after the Ashes I wonder if this will have any major impact on our T20, ODI, and Test teams ? I'd guess there will be some effect but hopefully the "processes" are now in place for us to continue at basically the same level. I guess it boils down to who the new coach will be and what changes he plans to make. It was mentioned during the final that the NZ coach, Gary Stead, is keen to replace Bayliss. I don't know who else is in the frame. I don't think it will make any difference. Ultimately there are two reasons we are where we are now First - we now play ODIs the way the rest of the world was playing the game 4 years ago. Only doing it better than everyone else. Second - we have brilliant players. The first of these means we should now always be able to compete as we are playing the same game as everyone else. The second is a bit more variable because we need players coming through the ranks that can maintain the high standard of play. Time will tell on that. All the coach has to do is keep a steady hand on the tiller. No need now for hard shifts starboard. Of course I'm talking about white ball cricket. Test cricket is a whole different ball game. And we are in a bit of a mess when it comes to that format. It's going to be interesting to see what our starting 11 is for the 1st Ashes test; who will bat 1-3, will we pick Foakes (we should!), who will our third seamer be. Will Root grow a pair and bat where his team need him to bat. Here's what I would like to see - assuming everyone is fit. Burns Roy Root Bairstow Buttler Stokes Foakes Dawson Archer Broad Anderson
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2019 6:18:07 GMT
I agree. My main concern I suppose was about the Test team, where we are weakest atm, and if the new coach places emphasis on this to the possible detriment of the limited overs teams. I agree that the current successful structure and philosophy around the limited overs teams "should" mean things continue as normal.
Time will tell I suppose.
|
|
|
Post by GeneralFaye on Jul 16, 2019 6:51:30 GMT
With Trevor Bayliss leaving after the Ashes I wonder if this will have any major impact on our T20, ODI, and Test teams ? I'd guess there will be some effect but hopefully the "processes" are now in place for us to continue at basically the same level. I guess it boils down to who the new coach will be and what changes he plans to make. It was mentioned during the final that the NZ coach, Gary Stead, is keen to replace Bayliss. I don't know who else is in the frame. I don't think it will make any difference. Ultimately there are two reasons we are where we are now First - we now play ODIs the way the rest of the world was playing the game 4 years ago. Only doing it better than everyone else. Second - we have brilliant players. The first of these means we should now always be able to compete as we are playing the same game as everyone else. The second is a bit more variable because we need players coming through the ranks that can maintain the high standard of play. Time will tell on that. All the coach has to do is keep a steady hand on the tiller. No need now for hard shifts starboard. Of course I'm talking about white ball cricket. Test cricket is a whole different ball game. And we are in a bit of a mess when it comes to that format. It's going to be interesting to see what our starting 11 is for the 1st Ashes test; who will bat 1-3, will we pick Foakes (we should!), who will our third seamer be. Will Root grow a pair and bat where his team need him to bat. Here's what I would like to see - assuming everyone is fit. Burns Roy Root Bairstow Buttler Stokes Foakes Dawson Archer Broad Anderson I'd probably go for.. Burns Roy Root Stokes Bairstow Buttler Foakes Moeen Woakes Archer Anderson The main disagreements I have with your team is that Woakes should be in side for sure. Even though Bairstow opens the batting in one day cricket he's never a top order batsmen in test cricket for me and Stokes is a far better at applying himself higher up the order, especially if wickets are tumbling. Moeen has a really good record against Australia at home so he plays for me. Apart from that, the only discussions is whether Archer plays over Broad (or Wood). I've been saying for a long time Broad's time is up but then he bowls a miracle spell and keeps his place and with it being the Ashes, I can see us picking him for the first test just for his experience and the fact he'll be pumped up. If he fails though, I'm sure he'll be replaced sharpish
|
|
|
Post by bathstoke on Jul 16, 2019 7:10:58 GMT
Unless I am missing something there is no ambiguity about this. The batsmen hadn't crossed so technically five runs should have been given. BTW I dont give a fuck (and glad that it was overseen). It was right up there with the best sport that i have ever seen. Not sure where this come from but it has been raised well after the event that winds me up somewhat. I agree on the result but this is the part "together with the run in progress if they had already crossed at the instant of the throw or act" OR ACT they had crossed when the act occurred. So does that mean that if the batsman(or woman)had crossed the line before ball was thrown, then the batsman(or woman)could just intercept the ball before the fielder & tw@t it to the boundary ad infinitum...
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Jul 16, 2019 7:16:40 GMT
I don't think it will make any difference. Ultimately there are two reasons we are where we are now First - we now play ODIs the way the rest of the world was playing the game 4 years ago. Only doing it better than everyone else. Second - we have brilliant players. The first of these means we should now always be able to compete as we are playing the same game as everyone else. The second is a bit more variable because we need players coming through the ranks that can maintain the high standard of play. Time will tell on that. All the coach has to do is keep a steady hand on the tiller. No need now for hard shifts starboard. Of course I'm talking about white ball cricket. Test cricket is a whole different ball game. And we are in a bit of a mess when it comes to that format. It's going to be interesting to see what our starting 11 is for the 1st Ashes test; who will bat 1-3, will we pick Foakes (we should!), who will our third seamer be. Will Root grow a pair and bat where his team need him to bat. Here's what I would like to see - assuming everyone is fit. Burns Roy Root Bairstow Buttler Stokes Foakes Dawson Archer Broad Anderson I'd probably go for.. Burns Roy Root Stokes Bairstow Buttler Foakes Moeen Woakes Archer Anderson The main disagreements I have with your team is that Woakes should be in side for sure. Even though Bairstow opens the batting in one day cricket he's never a top order batsmen in test cricket for me and Stokes is a far better at applying himself higher up the order, especially if wickets are tumbling. Moeen has a really good record against Australia at home so he plays for me. Apart from that, the only discussions is whether Archer plays over Broad (or Wood). I've been saying for a long time Broad's time is up but then he bowls a miracle spell and keeps his place and with it being the Ashes, I can see us picking him for the first test just for his experience and the fact he'll be pumped up. If he fails though, I'm sure he'll be replaced sharpish I'd also like to see Woakes in the team but I suspect Broad and Anderson are stick ons. Meaning the "choice" is for one of Archer, Woakes or Wood. Of those three I'd go for Archer. Dropping Broad would be harsh, but he is delivering ever diminishing returns. So, maybe now is the time. Re Ali, if there is one thing we have (hopefully) learned from the ODI success it is pick the best players for the task. So, as regards selecting a spinner, we have to go for Dawson. He is a much, much better bowler than Mo. Harsh to be dropping two stalwarts, but, again looking at our ODI success, we did the same to Willey and it was the right call.
|
|
|
Post by GeneralFaye on Jul 16, 2019 7:21:02 GMT
I'd probably go for.. Burns Roy Root Stokes Bairstow Buttler Foakes Moeen Woakes Archer Anderson The main disagreements I have with your team is that Woakes should be in side for sure. Even though Bairstow opens the batting in one day cricket he's never a top order batsmen in test cricket for me and Stokes is a far better at applying himself higher up the order, especially if wickets are tumbling. Moeen has a really good record against Australia at home so he plays for me. Apart from that, the only discussions is whether Archer plays over Broad (or Wood). I've been saying for a long time Broad's time is up but then he bowls a miracle spell and keeps his place and with it being the Ashes, I can see us picking him for the first test just for his experience and the fact he'll be pumped up. If he fails though, I'm sure he'll be replaced sharpish I'd also like to see Woakes in the team but I suspect Broad and Anderson are stick ons. Meaning the "choice" is for one of Archer, Woakes or Wood. Of those three I'd go for Archer. Dropping Broad would be harsh, but he is delivering ever diminishing returns. So, maybe now is the time. Re Ali, if there is one thing we have (hopefully) learned from the ODI success it is pick the best players for the task. So, as regards selecting a spinner, we have to go for Dawson. He is a much, much better bowler than Mo. Harsh to be dropping two stalwarts, but, again looking at our ODI success, we did the same to Willey and it was the right call. Maybe you're right but one things for certain, it'll be very interesting to see who makes the squad and actually, who gets selected for the Ireland test match. Jimmy won't be playing so I can see it being a kind of play off between the others to see who gets picked.
|
|