View Full Version : Robin Smith and Jack Russell are both younger than Alec Stewart
I think it's time to retire, Alec.
Jars458
24 Jan 2003, 15:15
Originally posted by Squeak
I think it's time to retire, Alec.
So am I but I cant play test cricket
wagstaff
24 Jan 2003, 15:25
Robin Smith had his weaknesses, but he was very harshly treated to play his last Test in his early 30s.
His average of over 43 wasn't matched by any England player since his demotion until Michael Vaughan came along, and is an infinitely better Test average then those possessed by 'champion' England players like Michael Atherton.
As for Alec Stewart, I think it was the worst thing that could happen to the England side that he had a pretty good series with the bat as it will ensure that - unless he retires - he can go on for another couple of Test series.
James Foster was an impressive wicket-keeper in Melbourne and while his batting needs work, he isn't going to improve sitting on the sidelines all the time.
Richie Benaud
24 Jan 2003, 22:02
Originally posted by wagstaff
James Foster was an impressive wicket-keeper in Melbourne and while his batting needs work, he isn't going to improve sitting on the sidelines all the time.
England's biggest problem picking Foster is that they'd be forced to find a couple of bowlers who can bat otherwise their tail will begin at number 6.
wagstaff
24 Jan 2003, 22:12
Originally posted by Richie Benaud
England's biggest problem picking Foster is that they'd be forced to find a couple of bowlers who can bat otherwise their tail will begin at number 6.
Their side has been unbalanced anyway in most of the time Stewart has been used as a keeper. They have played him in the top six, but have never had anyone good enough to act as an all-rounder to play at No. 7.
For the last few years at least, they should have put Stewart at 7. He would make their side more balanced and much more batting depth. Stewart isn't the class of Gilchrist, but he is a talented, attacking player who would be well suited to this position.
Brett Li
24 Jan 2003, 23:09
Originally posted by wagstaff
Their side has been unbalanced anyway in most of the time Stewart has been used as a keeper. They have played him in the top six, but have never had anyone good enough to act as an all-rounder to play at No. 7.
For the last few years at least, they should have put Stewart at 7. He would make their side more balanced and much more batting depth. Stewart isn't the class of Gilchrist, but he is a talented, attacking player who would be well suited to this position.
Bullcrap. Australia have never had a guy that can Bat at 7, they don't need to. If your guys up the order do the job....
fabulousphil
24 Jan 2003, 23:17
Forget about Alec Stewart....... he does alright, Ronny Irani should be put down.... like a cobbled draught horse, there must be better 2nd or 3rd grade cricketers than him running .....hobbling around.
Sorry if i seem to be picking on him..but he is really quite pathetic.
wagstaff
24 Jan 2003, 23:28
Originally posted by Brett Li
Bullcrap. Australia have never had a guy that can Bat at 7, they don't need to. If your guys up the order do the job....
I don't see any reason why Stewart couldn't have become a permanent fixture at 7 in the English lineup. England have tried various players at 7 over the years, ranging from Ealham, Adam Hollioake to Craigh White and none of them have been able to deliver.
And number 7 is too low to play a batsman as more often then not they will be wasted as they'll be stranded with the tail.
The solution would be to play someone who's primary job is to be a keeper, with his batting being a bonus.
Originally posted by fabulousphil
Forget about Alec Stewart....... he does alright, Ronny Irani should be put down.... like a cobbled draught horse, there must be better 2nd or 3rd grade cricketers than him running .....hobbling around.
They should give Adam Hollioake,who has been 12th man for the past 5 games,a chance ahead of Irani.He can't be any worse & he was the previous one day captain.