Re: The Corky verdict...

by freddled gruntbuggly Thu 27 Mar 2008, 11:02

But if you got rid of Vaughan, Shah might finally get a chance.
Or is that too much to hope for?

by holcs Thu 27 Mar 2008, 11:05

Brass Monkey wrote:
holcs wrote:
Perhaps Danny, and I'd be inclined to agree with you to be honest.

However, if he is going to stand by the, my batters all average 40, and allow them to continue to sprout such garbage, then he himself must follow the same statistical relevance, and as such, he averaged 20 in NZ!

Unfortunately I dont believe you can have it both ways!?

No. Firstly he should stop splurging out twat rhetoric. It's actually discrediting him. But as for 'F*ck him off, he hasn't done much for 5 Tests' - I'm not up for it. Just not up for it. As I mentioned previously, when the bowling is good or the conditions aren't favourable he's much, much more likely to score runs than Bell, Cook or Strauss. I'd rather him getting good balls or getting out in a ridiculously unlucky way against relative dross than some midget twat throwing his wicket away in an 'I've got Malteaser balls' shocker, who's place is never questioned - it would frankly be a travesty.

Again I agree. One thing that can never be said about MPV is he has a weak mind!!

I would have him in my side ahead of Bell and Strauss, think Cook has a bit about him though!

Problem is, his rhetoric will never stop, and therefore he should be happy to be judged on what he judges others by!?

by holcs Thu 27 Mar 2008, 11:06

freddled gruntbuggly wrote:But if you got rid of Vaughan, Shah might finally get a chance.
Or is that too much to hope for?

Dont be so blinking daft Taily!

by freddled gruntbuggly Thu 27 Mar 2008, 11:09

Sorry. I forgot the first law of English Cricket Selection: thou shalt not pick the best batsman for the job.

by Merlin Thu 27 Mar 2008, 11:36

freddled gruntbuggly wrote:Sorry. I forgot the first law of English Cricket Selection: thou shalt not pick the best batsman for the job.

So it seems, have our selectors.

from holcs -
Problem is, his (Vaughan) rhetoric will never stop, and therefore he should be happy to be judged on what he judges others by!?

Exactly.
And, if by the end of our summer should MPV have failed even further (as I honestly suspect he will),
the hatchet should then come down on him. period.
BUT - you wait and see ... the excuse, come September, will be that it will have left no time to blood another for the job of captain.
And by default, MPV will continue in the job because of the "high regard in which he is held" by the selectors.

Der ....

I'm seriously thinking of taking odds from the bookies on him being captain for Ashes 09 ...

by freddled gruntbuggly Thu 27 Mar 2008, 11:39

It reminds me of Steve Waugh. In his last two domestic seasons he was hauled up in front of the Disciplinary Committee four times for dissent. On each occasion he was let off because he had a clean record, although the only reason he had a clean record was that they kept letting him off because he had a clean record . . . Rolling Eyes

Some players get so much more latitude than they deserve.

by Chivalry Augustus Thu 27 Mar 2008, 11:52

To be honest, I've no particular qualms with Vaughan as a batsman - he has ability, clearly. However, his captaincy has run its course, and there are too many of Vaughan's mates in the team. He should be stripped of the captaincy to make his point purely as a batsman. We're in desperate need of some new leadership, in my opinion.

by holcs Thu 27 Mar 2008, 12:02

Augustus wrote:To be honest, I've no particular qualms with Vaughan as a batsman - he has ability, clearly. However, his captaincy has run its course, and there are too many of Vaughan's mates in the team. He should be stripped of the captaincy to make his point purely as a batsman. We're in desperate need of some new leadership, in my opinion.

Sales of tesco value baked beans are going through the roof at present in a certain University town!!