Jump to content

Cricket World Cup

bigsteve

By bigsteve
in Open Chat

Recommended Posts

Max Kane Legend

Max Kane

Posted
Posted
Really sad news about Bob Woolmer, but now, apparently, he was murdered :confused: WTF is going on with this world that leads someone to kill another person, apparently because of a cricket game. :(

Pakistan cricket is such that, while it is a huge surprise & a massive tradegy, i feel it was only a matter of time before something like this happened.

They're burning pictures of Inzamam despite the fact he bowed out as one of their finest players ever just the other day, they're fanatical beyond reason.

Hope they catch whoever did it

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Briggsy Contributor

Briggsy

Posted
Posted

Pakistan should be kicked out of test cricket for 12 months at least. Over the last year or so, they've been involved in so much controversy. There was the fiasco with Darrell Hair, then the failed drugs test by two players, and now Bob Woolmers death. This was a death linked to corruption in cricket - something that pakistan have been investigated for in the past.

Surely enough is enough now - they have to face some sort of serious punishment. Kicking them out of test cricket is the only option in my opinion. These fanatics are killing people over a cricket result - so the only way to stop that is to stop them playing cricket. If they cna't play cricket, they can't be betted on.

After the gutsy performances Ireland have put on in this world cup, I reckon they should replace Pakistan for 12 months as a test team. Ireland playing test cricket for 12 months could generate enough income for them through TV rights, sponsorship and advertising to help them fund a professional league over there. I'm sure if the players were offered £25,000-£30,000 per year, they'd happily turn their backs on their jobs and become professional.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Briggsy Contributor

Briggsy

Posted
Posted

On a side note, Scotland have been poor in this world cup. Their professional players (Dougie Brown, Gavin Hamilton & Naved Poonia) have been a major let down for them. Their semi-pro colleagues have been better with both bat and ball.

Dougie Brown and Naved Poonia both play well for Warwickshire - so I don't see why they couldn't perform at the world cup.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
Briggsy Contributor

Briggsy

Posted
Posted
Well, weren't England a resounding success story :angry:

I guess it was to be expected with England insisting on picking out of form players.

Flintoff has done absolutely bugger all out there - he's taken very few wickets, and contributed next to nothing with the bat. He should have been dropped after the third game of poor scoring. We shouldn't have just kept hoping he'll come good - you can't afford to do that in a major tournament.

Vaughan has also been poor - I don't think he's got over 20 runs in any of his innings? He should not have been picked at all for this tournament. He'd bene out injured for a year, and played no cricket before the world cup - apart from a couple of practice matches. He was clearly rusty from being out for a year. An appalling decision by Duncan Fletcher.

In my opinion, if it wasn't for Collingwood and Bopara saving us with some brave batting at times, we'd have been hammered very heavily. None of the batsmen stand out as being half-decent. They've all been poor.

They can't all be off form - so it can only be down to low morale as to why they've played so badly - in which case, its got to be lack of support for the management and/or captain - so someone has to go.

Vaughan has been poor for a couple of years now. As captain, he's been the best we've had for years - but as a player, he's not worthy of his place in the team. We need his captaincy skills, but not his playing skills - so i'm not sure what the solution is here. Its a tricky one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Briggsy Contributor

Briggsy

Posted
Posted
I think Collingwood should be thrown the one-day captaincy. And we missed a solid opening partnership with Trescothick - what's wrong with him, is he mentally ok?

Tresco wanted to pull out because of a "mystery illness" - he said he'd had enough of cricket completely and was close to retiring. He was clearly very off-form (or not interested!) for the 12 months prior to the world cup, so in my opinion, he was no great loss. However, i'd say he's recovered well now - he got 270 (yes, 270!) playing for Somerset two weeks ago. Granted, it was only against Devon in a warm-up match, but you've still gotta be going some to get 270.

I'm not sure about Collingwood just yet though. He's been in various England squads for around the last 6 years - but its only in the last 12-18 months that he's actually come good. In fact, i'd say he's Englands best player at the moment - but it could just be a flash in the pan. I'd want to see another 12 months consistency I think before he's made captain. Plus, good players don't necessarily make good captains - and with Collingwood being both a batsman and bowler, would it be too much of a burder? How many other good players have we seen go downhill once they've been appointed captain - Atherton? Hussain? Stewart? Vaughan? They've all suffered with the extra burden.

As we have different captains and teams (to a certain extent) for one dayers, why not have a different manager? Would it help?

I definately agree with that. Vaughan isn't a one-day player, Hussain wasn't a one-day player, and Atherton, although he did the job, wasn't a great one day player - but they all played in the one-day squad because they were the captain.

We've got a good test squad, and have for a number of years now, and Vaughan's presence DOES get us results. Strauss and Flintoff haven't filled Vaughan's boots effectively when they've covered. That job, without a doubt, is Vaughans.

Vaughan's one day statistics though suggest that he's not worthy of his place in the sqaud - therefore, we need someone else to become captain. The questions is, who? Flintoff is struggling at the moment, Strauss isn't guaranteed a place in the one-day side, and Trescothick isn't featuring now. That rules out all of the candidates. Do we really want to risk players that haven't really been around for too long yet, and are pretty much, still improving - such as Collingwood, Bell and Cook? Nixon would be a good choice - but he's a bit too old now. We need to plan for the future. The only other one-day regular is Pieterson - and having never captained before, i'd say thats a risky decision. Nobody, at the moment, really stands out as captaincy material - and I think thats why we've had to stick with Vaughan.

And I noticed that England, yet again, win a dead match!

Yeah, and I think that highlights that Fletcher may have been the problem. I think he lost his players in the end. They won yesterday knowing that a new regime was starting, so morale was high again.

One problem with the England squad is that too many players come and go. If you look at all the other international teams, many of the players have been playing for their countries for years. Australia have had Warne, Brett Lee, McGrath, Ponting, Gilchrist, etc - South Africa have had Pollock, Klusener, Boucher, Kallis, Adams, etc - Zimbabwe had the Flower brothers, Streak, etc, and the West Indies had Chanderpaul, Lara, Adams, Ambrose and Walsh.

How many players have we stood by, through thick and thin, to let them become the backbone of our team? We need to have faith in players, and let them become consistently good. We can't just throw players out just because they don't make an impact straight away. The difference between us and teams like Australia and South Africa is that if a player is replaced, they have someone else to come in that has also played a lot of international cricket, and then when they lose form, the player they replaced comes back in. They have a squad of around 18 players. England, have their first eleven, and then look around the counties for players that are performing for a month or two at a time (flash in the pans) - we don't have a rotating squad of around 18 players. Some players play one match for England, and are never to be seen again - either because they've struggled and not been given time to settle in, or because they have played well, but they've replaced a player that England won't dare drop because of his "reputation" - such as Flintoff. The Aussies don't do that - if someone plays well, they stay in the squad. If someone struggles, they give them time to settle in and prove themselves. Even Shane Warne has been left out in the past because Stuart Macgill has been playing well. Nobody is bigger than their team - but it doesn't work like that here. Individuals are bigger than the team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
Max Kane Legend

Max Kane

Posted
Posted

The way that the Jamaican police handled the whole thing was absolutely shocking, there should be something of a clear-out, to put Woolmer's family thru this ordeal when he actually died naturally is a disgrace

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Briggsy Contributor

Briggsy

Posted
Posted

To be honest, I think he was murdered, but they're finding it so hard to find out who done it, its easier for them to say he died naturally.

First of all, they said he had marks on his neck to suggest he was strangled - and the marks were that bad, they said it was someone big built that did it - how would he have stranglation marks if he died natually?

Then they said that there was poison found in his room. They said that this would have been used before he was strangled so that he was that weak, he couldn't fight back to defend himself from the killer.

So, if he died naturally, where did this poison come from, and where did the marks on his neck come from? Something doesn't add up somewhere....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...