England v NZ, 3rd Test, Trent Bridge, 5th-9th June

PeterCS wrote:(wuckets, that us)

Should be sex then. Siven next..

For all you Jimmy knockers:

Wucket W. Warrick?

Jontyh wrote:

PeterCS wrote:(wuckets, that us)

Should be sex then. Siven next..

Well corrected.

THICKEDGE wrote:

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:Have you even read what I've written?

Well I would normally but your credibility is now so low that there really isn't a point.

And your credibility is high by rating James Anderson?

I like the guy but lets be realistic, in non-swinging conditions he has proven, on numerous occasions, that he is utter shite.

Look at his average FFS.

Even though I don't want him to play against SA (which he obviously will now) I still can't help being pleased for the guy, would be brilliant (and somewhat hilarious) if he did manage to get all 10.

This forum has done a great job of reverse woofing Anderson. Well done.

PeterCS wrote:For all you Jimmy knockers:

That's a term for the glossary: A Jimmy Knocker.

Or a Jammy Knocker.

vilkrang wrote:

THICKEDGE wrote:

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:Have you even read what I've written?

Well I would normally but your credibility is now so low that there really isn't a point.

And your credibility is high by rating James Anderson?

I like the guy but lets be realistic, in non-swinging conditions he has proven, on numerous occasions, that he is utter shite.

Look at his average FFS.

Even though I don't want him to play against SA (which he obviously will now) I still can't help being pleased for the guy, would be brilliant (and somewhat hilarious) if he did manage to get all 10.

If he did manage ot get all 10 he would probably be the first to do that AND get hit for fours in an over.

PearlJ wrote:This forum has done a great job of reverse woofing Anderson. Well done.

"I love it when a plan comes together."

Laker, Kumble and..... Jimmy.

Hang on. Six is a long distance from 10.

Shorter than five from ten.

It's a pipe dream. It only takes Jimmy 37 seconds to lose his rhythm. He'll come back out and his internal crap-o-meter will be back to "very".

And what the hell's going on with Bumble's eyebrows? He looks demented.

This is just Bollox, it really damn well is. FFS!

Thicky your talking tripe. Obne innings when its hooping round corners against a side no better in batting talent than LLL's on Direbyshite and you think its the second coming!

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:And what the hell's going on with Bumble's eyebrows? He looks demented.

It's his Lancy pride of another Lancy going into over-drive.

FFS.

We're all looking like a bunch of canutes if we don't say well done - but I just can't get Graeme Smiths great big smirky grin out of my mind.

Feck it, and feck it once more...

Be fair. Even I can admit it was top quality swing bowling.

THICKEDGE wrote:Looks like Brass Monkey needs a new picture...

Done.

Hope he gets all ten though.

A really good day for England. Stuart Broad surpassed Ashley Giles' highest score at number 8, and highlighted how talented he is with the bat. He was lucky to find McCullum at second slip, admittedly, but he sparkled later on in his inning with an array of impressive off- and leg-side shots. I think he's a very attractive batsman to watch in all. I daresay he could eventually prove that he's better than a Test number 8; he at least looks like someone who you'd fancy to register a Test Match Century at some point, assuming his bowling progresses enough to keep him in the team.

James Anderson BATTED really well. I like to see tail-enders improving, but it's pretty clear that James Anderson is better than #11 anyway. He's no better than a number 10, but he can keep an end down quite successfully and is able to play a few shots where necessary - something Panesar cannot do, at least not against faster bowlers. Speaking of Monty, the decision to give him out was a disgrace. People take no notice of these sorts of decision because they don't matter, but the fact that Bucknor gave him out because he was a number eleven (you could see it in his eyes) was a rationale nothing short of abhorrent. A sheepish shuffle off the pitch could not disguise it.

And then, James Anderson BOWLED outstandingly. Yes, it really did happen. He out-shone all of his team-mates who, between them, barely swung a ball. A lot of unplayable deliveries mixed in with some good, tight bowling; essentially, he has left the Kiwis on the brink on his own. We're in a great position, but I wonder if there might be a thought in batting again assuming we're in a position to enforce the follow-on. There's a long time left, the series is in the bag, yet three of our top six are in desperate need of Test Match runs. Would it be wise to put them under scrutiny and conclusively prove either way whether or nay they're good enough? It won't happen, but I'd be interested...

Brass Monkey wrote:

THICKEDGE wrote:Looks like Brass Monkey needs a new picture...

Done.

The frustrating thing with Jim is that he has got talent.
You just wish he learns like Hoggard did and that if it doesn't swing you can't keep bowling pitched up deliveries in non-swinging conditions. Got to learn to bowl cutters etc...
And he's simply got to learn to bore batsmen out sometimes on flatties.

Augustus wrote:A really good day for England. Stuart Broad surpassed Ashley Giles' highest score at number 8, and highlighted how talented he is with the bat. He was lucky to find McCullum at second slip, admittedly, but he sparkled later on in his inning with an array of impressive off- and leg-side shots. I think he's a very attractive batsman to watch in all. I daresay he could eventually prove that he's better than a Test number 8; he at least looks like someone who you'd fancy to register a Test Match Century at some point, assuming his bowling progresses enough to keep him in the team.

Agreed. I like his atttitude too, if the interview he gave to a local paper is anything to go by. He knows he's not in the side to be a number 8 - he needs wickets.

James Anderson BATTED really well. I like to see tail-enders improving, but it's pretty clear that James Anderson is better than #11 anyway. He's no better than a number 10, but he can keep an end down quite successfully and is able to play a few shots where necessary - something Panesar cannot do, at least not against faster bowlers.

Nah, I think Sidders,Monty & Anderson are all number 11's in truth but I have been mystified why Monty continued to come in ahead of him. Anderson has a pretty good basic defence, if not many shots in his locker.
Panesar is looking at the moment like umpires are giving him out because he's Monty Panesar...

Speaking of Monty, the decision to give him out was a disgrace. People take no notice of these sorts of decision because they don't matter, but the fact that Bucknor gave him out because he was a number eleven (you could see it in his eyes) was a rationale nothing short of abhorrent. A sheepish shuffle off the pitch could not disguise it.

Yeah, exactly what I said. Umps are too quick to fire out tailenders for being tailenders - it happened in the 1st AUS/WI test too...

And then, James Anderson BOWLED outstandingly. Yes, it really did happen. He out-shone all of his team-mates who, between them, barely swung a ball. A lot of unplayable deliveries mixed in with some good, tight bowling; essentially, he has left the Kiwis on the brink on his own. We're in a great position, but I wonder if there might be a thought in batting again assuming we're in a position to enforce the follow-on. There's a long time left, the series is in the bag, yet three of our top six are in desperate need of Test Match runs. Would it be wise to put them under scrutiny and conclusively prove either way whether or nay they're good enough? It won't happen, but I'd be interested...

If we were in the position to make them follow on, I reckon we'd possibly bat again too... As I said Jimmy was outstanding but he's got to be able to do it in all conditions...

Was wondering when the last time was that an England bowler made fifty. Was it really as far back as Gilo in the last Test of the 2005 Ashes?

Anderson should be a decent batsman by now - certainly not batting below the likes of Panesar and Hoggard. He's always been pretty solid and reasonably co-ordinated.

Then again, he should be a decent bowler by now too...

It's a shame Broad's bowling has become so innocuous, as he's certainly got the fight for Test cricket within him.

Brass Monkey wrote:

THICKEDGE wrote:Looks like Brass Monkey needs a new picture...

Done.

I love your rusty trombome.