LIONS then DAYLIGHT
12 Mar 2009, 02:56
Up late trying to start a literature review for uni and getting nowhere so i decided to look at some cricket articles.
Found this on the Guardian online newspaper site
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2009/mar/10/paul-weaver-blog-cricket-australia-south-africa-england
Had a look at the 56 comments and was reading down when i was hit with this comment.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't the Poms realise that teams actually need to have a few decent players to challenge Australia?
Kevin Pietersen is England's only truly world-class player, although Flintoff's best is still useful. But if he bats at #6, he's a liability - he hasn't scored a Test century since 2005 and his bowling has also flagged since then. The rest of the side are park cricketers.
If there are question marks over Australia's bowling attack, then how should England's bowlers be assessed? If there's a question mark over someone like Peter Siddle - who has a bowling average of 25 after facing only India and South Africa - then what of England's ragtag attack?
Broad, Anderson and Sidebottom aren't going to cause Australia many problems. These guys simply aren't good enough, and England will probably be forced into gambling on Harmison again.
If the Poms are pinning their hopes to Clark and Lee not touring, their situation is pretty bloody grim. Clark and Lee have a fair bit of time to recover, although Lee is no guarantee to regain his spot. But really, the bottom line is that the younger guys have managed to beat South Africa, who are much tougher nuts than the Poms.
England have just lost to the West Indies, who are approaching minnow status. The Windies hadn't beaten anyone other than Bangladesh or Zimbabwe since 2003, not until England fell on their faces. Just think about that for a second, and then try to talk up the Poms' chances for the Ashes with a straight face.
Seriously, if England can't beat the West Indies, then how the hell are they going to beat Australia? Are all these mediocre players going to turn into superstars by July?
The Aussies will smash them like guitars and the Poms will go back to talking a good game while never actually winning when it counts.
The first bit of the comments are all like "Hughes is untested in England" and Hilfenhaus is a "trundler" and England will be better in home conditions and then that post stood out.
I thought, damn, thats pretty good. Looked at the user who posted it and the user was
Longshanks80
Does anyone think that post sounds like Gunnar? I do.
Here is a reply to Gunnars comment.
Longshanks80 -
Got to agree with your analysis even if you labour your points somewhat. Although isn't the test series in SA 5 tests?? Or 4? I genuinely don't know but either way AU haven't won anything yet.
I thought that bit was a classic, Gunnar loves writing his long pieces doesn't he?
Thoughts?
Found this on the Guardian online newspaper site
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2009/mar/10/paul-weaver-blog-cricket-australia-south-africa-england
Had a look at the 56 comments and was reading down when i was hit with this comment.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't the Poms realise that teams actually need to have a few decent players to challenge Australia?
Kevin Pietersen is England's only truly world-class player, although Flintoff's best is still useful. But if he bats at #6, he's a liability - he hasn't scored a Test century since 2005 and his bowling has also flagged since then. The rest of the side are park cricketers.
If there are question marks over Australia's bowling attack, then how should England's bowlers be assessed? If there's a question mark over someone like Peter Siddle - who has a bowling average of 25 after facing only India and South Africa - then what of England's ragtag attack?
Broad, Anderson and Sidebottom aren't going to cause Australia many problems. These guys simply aren't good enough, and England will probably be forced into gambling on Harmison again.
If the Poms are pinning their hopes to Clark and Lee not touring, their situation is pretty bloody grim. Clark and Lee have a fair bit of time to recover, although Lee is no guarantee to regain his spot. But really, the bottom line is that the younger guys have managed to beat South Africa, who are much tougher nuts than the Poms.
England have just lost to the West Indies, who are approaching minnow status. The Windies hadn't beaten anyone other than Bangladesh or Zimbabwe since 2003, not until England fell on their faces. Just think about that for a second, and then try to talk up the Poms' chances for the Ashes with a straight face.
Seriously, if England can't beat the West Indies, then how the hell are they going to beat Australia? Are all these mediocre players going to turn into superstars by July?
The Aussies will smash them like guitars and the Poms will go back to talking a good game while never actually winning when it counts.
The first bit of the comments are all like "Hughes is untested in England" and Hilfenhaus is a "trundler" and England will be better in home conditions and then that post stood out.
I thought, damn, thats pretty good. Looked at the user who posted it and the user was
Longshanks80
Does anyone think that post sounds like Gunnar? I do.
Here is a reply to Gunnars comment.
Longshanks80 -
Got to agree with your analysis even if you labour your points somewhat. Although isn't the test series in SA 5 tests?? Or 4? I genuinely don't know but either way AU haven't won anything yet.
I thought that bit was a classic, Gunnar loves writing his long pieces doesn't he?
Thoughts?