So after my many rants about Michael Vaughan what does he do? Gets a hundred. I still maintain he should never have been selected BUT well done to the man for sticking two fingers up at us doubters.
That took character.
Friday, May 25, 2007
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Selection Headaches Again
I'm confused again. We've called up Ryan Sidebottom.
Now I have nothing against Ryan but that was slightly left field. Then again can he do any worse than Steve "where's my radar" Harmisson? The bowling does look slightly anaemic, Monty aside. The batting did well, admittedly not against much, but you can hardly blame the batsman.
This presents a problem if Vaughan and Freddie are fit who gets dropped? Surely the centurions pick themselves? Surely they can't play four bowlers given Flintoff's injury problems? How do they fit both Vaughan and Flintoff in? So do they drop Strauss? I'd drop Vaughan as he hasn't scored any runs for ages. But the selectors think he is a tactical genius on a par with Alexander the Great.
All very odd.
Now I have nothing against Ryan but that was slightly left field. Then again can he do any worse than Steve "where's my radar" Harmisson? The bowling does look slightly anaemic, Monty aside. The batting did well, admittedly not against much, but you can hardly blame the batsman.
This presents a problem if Vaughan and Freddie are fit who gets dropped? Surely the centurions pick themselves? Surely they can't play four bowlers given Flintoff's injury problems? How do they fit both Vaughan and Flintoff in? So do they drop Strauss? I'd drop Vaughan as he hasn't scored any runs for ages. But the selectors think he is a tactical genius on a par with Alexander the Great.
All very odd.
Tuesday, May 08, 2007
The Big Fight
Boxing is by all accounts in trouble. The recent "superfight" between Floyd Mayweather and Oscar De La Hoya was meant to help change this.
I put the word superfight in quotes because one of the reasons for calling this a superfight was the fact it was the richest outside of the heavyweight division. To me it was a fight beween an aging great (De La Hoya) and a man at the height of his powers (Mayweather).
The decision was a surprising split decision.
Anyway why is boxing in a state? well there are two many champions. How can you have 4 champions at each weight? I became a fan of boxing when there were no more than two champions and genuine superfights took place. Titles were unified. As it was boxing has just disapated into alphabet soup.
Fighters nowadays count themselves great based on how many weights they have won and how many defences they have made. But can a fighter like Calzaghe be great if there are 2 or 3 other fighters at his weight who have as legitimate claim to the title? Mayweather is undoubtedly a super fighter but he has made his way through the decisions beating good fighters but not dominating a division.
To me boxing has to unify the titles or at least great reduce the number of belts. It also has to be on terrestial tv, people need to follow a career.
I put the word superfight in quotes because one of the reasons for calling this a superfight was the fact it was the richest outside of the heavyweight division. To me it was a fight beween an aging great (De La Hoya) and a man at the height of his powers (Mayweather).
The decision was a surprising split decision.
Anyway why is boxing in a state? well there are two many champions. How can you have 4 champions at each weight? I became a fan of boxing when there were no more than two champions and genuine superfights took place. Titles were unified. As it was boxing has just disapated into alphabet soup.
Fighters nowadays count themselves great based on how many weights they have won and how many defences they have made. But can a fighter like Calzaghe be great if there are 2 or 3 other fighters at his weight who have as legitimate claim to the title? Mayweather is undoubtedly a super fighter but he has made his way through the decisions beating good fighters but not dominating a division.
To me boxing has to unify the titles or at least great reduce the number of belts. It also has to be on terrestial tv, people need to follow a career.
Sunday, April 29, 2007
The World Cup is over
And so Australia duly one. They are easily the best nad most consistent team. The fact that the final descended into chaos shows that the ICC really don't know what they are doing.
Secondly it was WAY too long. They need to cut it down significantly and cut the elapsed time. How about not 8 teams going straight to knock out with the group winners affectively winning the toss in the quarters? Less games means less money so it will never happen.
Secondly it was WAY too long. They need to cut it down significantly and cut the elapsed time. How about not 8 teams going straight to knock out with the group winners affectively winning the toss in the quarters? Less games means less money so it will never happen.
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Ratings
Ok my ratings for the English players in the Cricket world cup. Yes I know we still have the windies to go but we are out
Vaughan - 1
well he scored absolutely nothing.
Joyce - 4
ok he wasn't outstanding but his record was Bradmanesque compared to Vaughan
Bell - 4
occasional glimpse of class. flattered to deceive though.
Strauss - 5
not a chance to make an impact really.
Pieterson - 7
easily Englands top scorer. Not outstanding but he did nothing wrong.
Collingwood - 7
never got the big score but did ok
Flintoff - 3
his bowling was more than fine but he is an all-rounder and his batting was awful
Bopara - 6
did ok. Not brilliant but did ok
Dalrymple - 3
few chances but didn't grab what he had.
Nixon - 7
eat your words blogger he did well.
Plunkett - 5
sorry but why was he dropped for Mahmood???
Mahmood - 3
when the going got tough against South Africa he went to bits.
Panesar - 4
didn't have a great tournament
Anderson - 5
had his moments but they were moments.
Vaughan - 1
well he scored absolutely nothing.
Joyce - 4
ok he wasn't outstanding but his record was Bradmanesque compared to Vaughan
Bell - 4
occasional glimpse of class. flattered to deceive though.
Strauss - 5
not a chance to make an impact really.
Pieterson - 7
easily Englands top scorer. Not outstanding but he did nothing wrong.
Collingwood - 7
never got the big score but did ok
Flintoff - 3
his bowling was more than fine but he is an all-rounder and his batting was awful
Bopara - 6
did ok. Not brilliant but did ok
Dalrymple - 3
few chances but didn't grab what he had.
Nixon - 7
eat your words blogger he did well.
Plunkett - 5
sorry but why was he dropped for Mahmood???
Mahmood - 3
when the going got tough against South Africa he went to bits.
Panesar - 4
didn't have a great tournament
Anderson - 5
had his moments but they were moments.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
3 out of 4?
Well England have 3 out of 4 of the European Cup finalists so that must be clear indication of the strength of British football then.
Uh well no as it happens.
A full strength Chelsea would have John Terry, Ashley Cole, Frank Lampard and perhaps Joe Cole. Manchester united is of course a much better proposition with Rooney, Scholes, Giggs, Ferdinand, Neville and Carrick in their first 11. Hard to know what Liverpools first 11 would be, don't think Benitez knows either! Shall we say Carragher, Finan (i'm stretching it), Gerrard, Bellamy and Crouch. Oh and if we throw Arsenal into the mix we add uh no one.
Of course Manchester United have a number of British Players but the reason they are top is one Christiano Ronaldo. And by far the best striker is one Didier Drogba.
I think that all goes to show that our football is not in rude health just that the game is awash with money and we can buy the best talent.
Uh well no as it happens.
A full strength Chelsea would have John Terry, Ashley Cole, Frank Lampard and perhaps Joe Cole. Manchester united is of course a much better proposition with Rooney, Scholes, Giggs, Ferdinand, Neville and Carrick in their first 11. Hard to know what Liverpools first 11 would be, don't think Benitez knows either! Shall we say Carragher, Finan (i'm stretching it), Gerrard, Bellamy and Crouch. Oh and if we throw Arsenal into the mix we add uh no one.
Of course Manchester United have a number of British Players but the reason they are top is one Christiano Ronaldo. And by far the best striker is one Didier Drogba.
I think that all goes to show that our football is not in rude health just that the game is awash with money and we can buy the best talent.
Thursday, April 05, 2007
The World Cup again
Sigh. It is always the way with the England cricket team. Just when you think they are going to surprise you they blow it.
Ok will someone please explain the selection policy to me? Vaughan is in the team because he is a tactical genius of the level of a Bobby Fisher or a Garry Kasparov. Well it isn't is his batting! So why is he opening? His record in One Day Internationals is 82 matches 1851 runs at an average of 26.82 with a top score of 90 not out. That is rubbish! He may be worth his test place but ye gods he has never been worth a place in the one day team.
Now Bopara has been brought into the team as an all rounder and yet he doesn't get asked to bowl!! He batted excellently yesterday so why is he at 7? Fredalo Flintoff is bowling well but his batting is awful!
I will say Nixon has done well BUT he can't surely be the test keeper next summer!
I'm not going to get my hopes up over qualification. The selectors have now got to build for the future. We have promising young players methinks now is the time to pick them. Personally I don't see where Vaughan's place is in the test team. I think Strauss is the better bet. Bell has the makings of a decent test player, if he plays the one dayers he needs to open (oh boy do we miss Trescothick).
So how about a test 12 of Strauss (capt - his form improved with the responsibility last summer), Cook, Bell, Pieterson, Collingwood, Flintoff, Bopara, Prior (or Davies of Worcester with a bit more experience), Hoggard, Harmisson, Monty and Broad.
Ok will someone please explain the selection policy to me? Vaughan is in the team because he is a tactical genius of the level of a Bobby Fisher or a Garry Kasparov. Well it isn't is his batting! So why is he opening? His record in One Day Internationals is 82 matches 1851 runs at an average of 26.82 with a top score of 90 not out. That is rubbish! He may be worth his test place but ye gods he has never been worth a place in the one day team.
Now Bopara has been brought into the team as an all rounder and yet he doesn't get asked to bowl!! He batted excellently yesterday so why is he at 7? Fredalo Flintoff is bowling well but his batting is awful!
I will say Nixon has done well BUT he can't surely be the test keeper next summer!
I'm not going to get my hopes up over qualification. The selectors have now got to build for the future. We have promising young players methinks now is the time to pick them. Personally I don't see where Vaughan's place is in the test team. I think Strauss is the better bet. Bell has the makings of a decent test player, if he plays the one dayers he needs to open (oh boy do we miss Trescothick).
So how about a test 12 of Strauss (capt - his form improved with the responsibility last summer), Cook, Bell, Pieterson, Collingwood, Flintoff, Bopara, Prior (or Davies of Worcester with a bit more experience), Hoggard, Harmisson, Monty and Broad.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)