Page 9 of 48
Re: It's just not cricket
Posted: 22:45 Tue 17 Dec 2013
by LGTrotter
DRT wrote:LGTrotter wrote:DRT wrote:djewesbury wrote:I would say his problem is not so much arrogance as selfishness. He is not a team man.
I don't think we are disagreeing in any way. Rhymes with "anchor".
Didn't I see a lovely photo of you and the man? I thought you looked a little glum, but then perhaps I would if I was trapped between Boris and KP.
Guilty.
Talk much cricket with him?
Re: It's just not cricket
Posted: 22:47 Tue 17 Dec 2013
by LGTrotter
Where's that know-nothing Jewesbury.
Licking his wounds after some straight talking from the Cricket Miester Owen I'll be bound.
Re: It's just not cricket
Posted: 22:54 Tue 17 Dec 2013
by LGTrotter
Or polishing the tear-stains from his framed photo of Ian Bell driving the Irish reserves second string bowler for four in his memorable 61 not out (OK it didn't affect the outcome and all four other batsmen had each retired in 100 but you know he was good, only gave three chances).
Re: It's just not cricket
Posted: 22:59 Tue 17 Dec 2013
by djewesbury
This is hilarious. Where to begin? The stream of inanity from Owen is hardly even worthy of a reply.
How can someone be this wrong? And simultaneously accuse me of agreeing with him?
I can't find my photo of Broady and Priory standing next to each other in Belfast City Airport the day after they just about scraped a victory over Ireland at Stormont. Hilarious. Little and large.
Me: "That was a close one."
England bowling coach Ottis Gibson: (frowns) "You can say that again."
Re: It's just not cricket
Posted: 23:01 Tue 17 Dec 2013
by djewesbury
LGTrotter wrote:Or polishing the tear-stains from his framed photo of Ian Bell driving the Irish reserves second string bowler for four in his memorable 61 not out (OK it didn't affect the outcome and all four other batsmen had each retired in 100 but you know he was good, only gave three chances).
I think Ian Bell is just as good as Derek Randall.
Re: It's just not cricket
Posted: 23:03 Tue 17 Dec 2013
by djewesbury
I saw Bell's famous "in, out, shake it all about" innings at Trent Bridge the other year, the one where he ran off for tea before the umpire called over and was given out. Everyone was countering on and on and on about how he shouldn't have been allowed back in. That wouldn't have happened if it had been another player. Why is Bell the player everyone loves to hate (after they've done hating KP)?
Re: It's just not cricket
Posted: 23:07 Tue 17 Dec 2013
by djewesbury
I think there's some deep psychological reason why Owen can't accept how good Ian Bell is. Were you never allowed to bat at school?
Re: It's just not cricket
Posted: 23:09 Tue 17 Dec 2013
by LGTrotter
Have you ever been to a cricket match Daniel? Were you facing the field of play?
I was only trying to point out what must occur to the meanest intelligence (I refer to yours).
I am also bemused by your reference to Hussain building a team for Vaughan. Hussain was a deeply flawed weirdo whose best act of captaincy was to resign it.
However I shall waste no more words...
Re: It's just not cricket
Posted: 23:27 Tue 17 Dec 2013
by djewesbury
You dullard. Hussain himself inherited a team that had spent over a decade losing - under Gatting, Atherton, and all the inbetweeners.. Hussain put together a highly professional outfit that was actually able to win test matches. Without Hussain, no Vaughan, no Trescothick, no Thorpe. The bad old days of Knight, Hick, Ramprakash et al finished under Hussain. He was pretty selfless as a captain I think.
But probably you're going to hark back to the days of Wally Hammond or something. Dolt.
Re: It's just not cricket
Posted: 23:49 Tue 17 Dec 2013
by LGTrotter
Sticks and stones Daniel. But then it is often the sign of a SORE LOSER...
Hussein was another step on the way of the long losing streak, a man who punished those who weren't as OCD as he was. But then I am not sure why I would try to explain this to you. He was a mediocre bat who was appointed to captain and never played another innings. Essexed was what happened to him, they suck the joy out of the game (sounds like someone I have heard of in Belfast). His appointment was political as much as anything.
But then maybe you can trace the bowling attack of '05 back to the wars of the roses or some such tosh.
Re: It's just not cricket
Posted: 00:14 Wed 18 Dec 2013
by djewesbury
LGTrotter wrote:Hussein was another step on the way of the long losing streak
You are hilarious Owen, if not always intentionally. Did Saddam play for Essex? Was that when they did that tour of Kuwait?
LGTrotter wrote:His appointment was political as much as anything.
This is simply outrageous. Nasser (the England captain, not the Egyptian President, in case you're starting to get confused) was brought up in England from about seven years old. If that doesn't qualify him to play for England I'm not sure what does. I'm a bit flabbergasted in fact. You can say what you want about his cricket
* but surely you can't pretend that a schoolboy growing up in Essex should only be eligible to play cricket for India?
Where do you get off Owen?
*Nass scored 207 against Australia at Edgbaston in 97. That was against a proper Australian side. He deserves some credit.
Re: It's just not cricket
Posted: 00:16 Wed 18 Dec 2013
by djewesbury
Backhanded ad hominem attacks don't have a place here. But then they're the last refuge of those who have no real argument.
Re: It's just not cricket
Posted: 01:59 Wed 18 Dec 2013
by djewesbury
As if to prove that my spirit is unquenchable, I just applied for tickets for the Sri Lanka and India tests at Lord's next year.
Re: It's just not cricket
Posted: 10:30 Wed 18 Dec 2013
by jdaw1
Gentlemen: I realise that these are matters of great import, dear to some people, dear to people some of whom have strongly held views. But the caption for the Meaningless Drivel section says ‟Talk about anything but keep it polite and reasonably clean.”
It is possible to become concerned that there is a prospect of a slight slippage in our normally impeccable standards of politeness. Which just wouldn’t be cricket. Please help lessen this concern.
Re: It's just not cricket
Posted: 10:33 Wed 18 Dec 2013
by djewesbury
Sorry. I have to admit that we privately agreed to pretend to have a handbag-swinging contest. Merely for our own amusement. Sorry.
Re: It's just not cricket
Posted: 00:24 Sat 21 Dec 2013
by LGTrotter
My apologies to all concerned.
In the hope that my foolishness has not strangled this infant but promising thread at birth I would return to the meat and potatoes of the question of is it time to consider a new captain.
A friend of mine made a startling suggestion which was to get in Collingwood as captain. Ditch Pietersen and Swann. I liked the boldness of the stroke.
Doubtless Daniel will disagree, but will do so decorously.
Re: It's just not cricket
Posted: 03:53 Sat 21 Dec 2013
by djewesbury
Collingwood??? Is he still playing? The answer to this is a no. It would be a backward move and would signal weakness. And he's nearly as old as me.
Re: It's just not cricket
Posted: 14:26 Sat 21 Dec 2013
by LGTrotter
Still playing for Durham and he's 37yo. Just think Brearly. Who was in his 40s when he got the captaincy. Not sure about the weakness argument when they are 3-0 down in the series.
Re: It's just not cricket
Posted: 16:14 Sat 21 Dec 2013
by DRT
Given that we are now only a few days away from the next test it is probably worth assuming there will not be a new captain. So, if being the captain is indeed a very important and influential job, what things should we reasonably expect Cook to be doing differently in this test? I ask because I do not know where the demarcation lines are between selectors, management and the captain.
Re: It's just not cricket
Posted: 20:31 Sat 21 Dec 2013
by benread
Cook doesn't become a bad player or captain this quickly. I am all for keeping him. As for KP, I think he could be dropped.
Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk
Re: It's just not cricket
Posted: 21:13 Sat 21 Dec 2013
by LGTrotter
benread wrote:Cook doesn't become a bad player or captain this quickly. I am all for keeping him. As for KP, I think he could be dropped
Quite agree on both counts.
Re: It's just not cricket
Posted: 21:41 Sat 21 Dec 2013
by djewesbury
I agree with Owen.
Re: It's just not cricket
Posted: 21:45 Sat 21 Dec 2013
by LGTrotter
What have you done with the real Daniel, imposter?
And I should like to withdraw my agreement.
Re: It's just not cricket
Posted: 22:43 Sat 21 Dec 2013
by djewesbury
Honestly, you're speaking very good sense. Although I don't reckon they'll have the guts to drop KP. I think they'll tinker until they get home, even though, having lost, now is the perfect time to hand out a few caps and try a few new things. I don't reckon they'll bother.
More importantly, I'm revisiting Lord Peter. Which shall I go to first, Murder Must Advertise or Gaudy Night?
Re: It's just not cricket
Posted: 22:54 Sat 21 Dec 2013
by DRT
Daniel, Owen, get a room. This lovey-dovey "I agree with him" stuff is nauseating.
No one has answered my question yet. Please do.
Re: It's just not cricket
Posted: 22:55 Sat 21 Dec 2013
by djewesbury
DRT wrote:Daniel, Owen, get a room. This lovey-dovey "I agree with him" stuff is nauseating.
Worked for David Cameron.
Re: It's just not cricket
Posted: 22:58 Sat 21 Dec 2013
by djewesbury
And I have answered. He won't do anything. The selectors - who include Cook - will tweak the bowlers or try one other batsman, but his on-field tactics won't change. They can only change if the personnel on that field change, so that he has other skillsets to deploy beyond those available to him at present. This test could be truly awful.
Re: It's just not cricket
Posted: 23:23 Sat 21 Dec 2013
by LGTrotter
djewesbury wrote:More importantly, I'm revisiting Lord Peter. Which shall I go to first, Murder Must Advertise or Gaudy Night?
Murder must advertise out of those two. Start at the start; 'The unpleasantness at the Bellona club'.
DRT wrote:No one has answered my question yet. Please do.
I don't know what to say. Cook will not choose a radically different team or approach. I think that Daniel's suggestion that this is a good opportunity to have a look at some new faces is a good one, but they won't. Cook is by no means a bad captain but he does not seem to be able to put their plans against individual Oz players into action. That probably won't change. I still don't think Australia are that good.
Just to continue with the loved up theme I had a look at the England bowling stats: Broad looks OK but there were some shockers, Daniel said it earlier and he was right...
It's just not cricket
Posted: 23:29 Sat 21 Dec 2013
by djewesbury
Thanks Owen. A week of Dorothy L. ahead of me.
And as for your comments on the team; exactly.
To whom would you give a cap?
Re: It's just not cricket
Posted: 23:44 Sat 21 Dec 2013
by LGTrotter
Kieswetter gets the gloves. Finn comes back but I haven't seen much of the bowlers around to know. Didn't Yorkshire have a good quick? I can't think that Panesar is a better option than Swann. Borthwick is a bit young but why not.
Go on then, give me some batting.
Re: It's just not cricket
Posted: 23:55 Sat 21 Dec 2013
by djewesbury
But first, are the Lions out there? If so, why not give Borthwick a go? Or Kerrigan? We do have spin options.
Is Ben Foakes any more promising than Kieswetter?
What about giving Taylor another go. Or even Compton. They need to get an outing. Why not now?
Re: It's just not cricket
Posted: 00:04 Sun 22 Dec 2013
by DRT
Seriously, the two of you need to get rid of some stress. The world didn't get to where it is with everyone agreeing with one another.
I am surprised by the statement that Cook isn't a bad captain. I have heard lots of whining from commentators about the field being wrong and a lack of ideas. He has played the same tactics against what Owen says is a team that are not very good and been humiliated every time. Perhaps I am missing something, but I expect leaders to be inspirational and to have game-changing qualities. Perhaps that isn't cricket?
Re: It's just not cricket
Posted: 00:07 Sun 22 Dec 2013
by LGTrotter
Tiny Taylor? The midget bat, the whole world bowls bouncers at him. I liked him. Why did he ever get dropped? Compton might get another go now Trott has given up the role of moody and intense No.3.
Re: It's just not cricket
Posted: 00:09 Sun 22 Dec 2013
by djewesbury
Now now. He has had success with some things - they've got a reasonable understanding of how to get Clarke out, for instance. He's been unimaginative, sure, but I'm not sure what tactics he can really try with what he's got and the unsuited Australian conditions.
As for Owen, I'm sure I don't know what you mean. We just happen to see eye to eye. Always have. Never a cross word etc.
Re: It's just not cricket
Posted: 00:12 Sun 22 Dec 2013
by DRT
I feel like the Princess Diana in this threesome. I'm off to look at Jupiter with my new Celestron X-Cel LX 12mm lens.
Re: It's just not cricket
Posted: 00:13 Sun 22 Dec 2013
by jdaw1
DRT wrote:I feel like the Princess Diana in this threesome. I'm off to look at Jupiter with my new Celestron X-Cel LX 12mm lens.
Post a picture.
Re: It's just not cricket
Posted: 00:20 Sun 22 Dec 2013
by LGTrotter
DRT wrote:I feel like the Princess Diana in this threesome. I'm off to look at Jupiter with my new Celestron X-Cel LX 12mm lens.
Why? In what way am I or Daniel Camilla?
Re: It's just not cricket
Posted: 00:54 Sun 22 Dec 2013
by DRT
jdaw1 wrote:DRT wrote:I'm off to look at Jupiter with my new Celestron X-Cel LX 12mm lens.
Post a picture.
I don't have a camera capable of capturing the image but it looked very much like this, but with the moons in a different configuration!
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang ... te.an_.gif
Re: It's just not cricket
Posted: 00:55 Sun 22 Dec 2013
by DRT
LGTrotter wrote:DRT wrote:I feel like the Princess Diana in this threesome. I'm off to look at Jupiter with my new Celestron X-Cel LX 12mm lens.
Why? In what way am I or Daniel Camilla?
It's something about Daniel's hair that seals it for me.
Re: It's just not cricket
Posted: 01:08 Sun 22 Dec 2013
by djewesbury
DRT wrote:LGTrotter wrote:DRT wrote:I feel like the Princess Diana in this threesome. I'm off to look at Jupiter with my new Celestron X-Cel LX 12mm lens.
Why? In what way am I or Daniel Camilla?
It's something about Daniel's hair that seals it for me.
I am in a state of shock.
Re: It's just not cricket
Posted: 01:14 Sun 22 Dec 2013
by LGTrotter
djewesbury wrote:DRT wrote:LGTrotter wrote:DRT wrote:I feel like the Princess Diana in this threesome. I'm off to look at Jupiter with my new Celestron X-Cel LX 12mm lens.
Why? In what way am I or Daniel Camilla?
It's something about Daniel's hair that seals it for me.
I am in a state of shock.
Neither is a pretty option. It leaves me as ageing purveyor of biscuits.
Re: It's just not cricket
Posted: 01:33 Sun 22 Dec 2013
by LGTrotter
Breaking news; Swann retires!
Re: It's just not cricket
Posted: 02:09 Sun 22 Dec 2013
by DRT
LGTrotter wrote:Breaking news; Swann retires!
About time given the collar situation.
This is a good thing for the captain. Now he can select someone who cares about the team more than his own appearance.
Re: It's just not cricket
Posted: 07:58 Sun 22 Dec 2013
by benread
LGTrotter wrote:And I should like to withdraw my agreement.
I thought at that point you were agreeing with me! I am not part of your game. That is permitted surely?
Re: It's just not cricket
Posted: 09:56 Sun 22 Dec 2013
by jdaw1
Re: It's just not cricket
Posted: 10:25 Sun 22 Dec 2013
by LGTrotter
benread wrote:LGTrotter wrote:And I should like to withdraw my agreement.
I thought at that point you were agreeing with me! I am not part of your game. That is permitted surely?
I was. But can't you see what he's doing? He's using you to get to me.
DRT wrote:This is a good thing for the captain. Now he can select someone who cares about the team more than his own appearance.
Swann should have waited until either he was ditched or the end of the tour.
It's just not cricket
Posted: 11:47 Sun 22 Dec 2013
by djewesbury
I disagree with Owen. Swann's 'retirement' will be by mutual agreement. As in, you're sacked. Now he can concentrate more fully on being like the disgraced, thwarted old cuckold Swann in the novel by Proust.
Re: It's just not cricket
Posted: 11:59 Sun 22 Dec 2013
by LGTrotter
djewesbury wrote:I disagree with Owen.
Phew, all back to normal.
Panesar or Borthwick?
Re: It's just not cricket
Posted: 12:04 Sun 22 Dec 2013
by djewesbury
LGTrotter wrote:djewesbury wrote:I disagree with Owen.
Phew, all back to normal.
Panesar or Borthwick?
They'll go with Panesar. They should go with Borthwick.
Re: It's just not cricket
Posted: 14:37 Mon 23 Dec 2013
by djewesbury
Borthwick and Tredwell called up. But Panesar favourite to play in Melbourne.