Harvey could have played more?

[chimphawk28]

I think based on the fact we have such a strong batting line up, prehaps Ian Harvey could have been promoted for a few more games. Replacing Martyn prehaps? Whilst Harvey's batting record hasn't been the best in the past, he is a valuable bowler who takes wickets. To compensate Symonds and Martyn have been used medium pacers..and they just arent in the same league as Harvey as a bowler.

 

[bunsen burner]

Originally posted by chimphawk28
I think based on the fact we have such a strong batting line up, prehaps Ian Harvey could have been promoted for a few more games. Replacing Martyn prehaps? Whilst Harvey's batting record hasn't been the best in the past, he is a valuable bowler who takes wickets. To compensate Symonds and Martyn have been used medium pacers..and they just arent in the same league as Harvey as a bowler.

What drugs are you on? Do you understand anything about cricket?

Let me spell this out for you, because you seem a little bit tick:

1) Why would you swap an all-rounder for a key batsman?

2) Australia's strong batting line up? You must be the only person who hasn't noticed that our bowling line up is our strongest point.

3) Why change a successful combination? So successful that we have won more games on the trot than any other team in history. EExperts say we are unbeatable and you want to experiment.

4) You idiot.

 

[bunsen burner]

Maybe you should post on a Home and Away forum. Your input would much more appreciated there.

 

[chimphawk28]

Re: Re: Harvey could have played more?

Originally posted by bunsen burner
What drugs are you on? Do you understand anything about cricket?

Let me spell this out for you, because you seem a little bit tick:

1) Why would you swap an all-rounder for a key batsman?

2) Australia's strong batting line up? You must be the only person who hasn't noticed that our bowling line up is our strongest point.

3) Why change a successful combination? So successful that we have won more games on the trot than any other team in history. EExperts say we are unbeatable and you want to experiment.

4) You idiot.

ah nice.
Well to start with, your so called "key batsman" can be a little ordinary at times. Sure he bobs up every now and then with a decent half century, but not exactly our most consistent batsman is he??

Australia DOES have a very strong batting lineup and possibily could have afforded to drop one batsman at times (do you actually follow the game??). Believe it or not some of our games have been won due to a decent totals made - scored over 300 atleast 3 times now.

And why not experiment? whats wrong with trying to find the best possible side with the players available, especially before in the earlier games?

As for our bowling line up...hmmm well lets see... Lee hasnt taken as many wickets as expected so far and can go for alot of runs. McGrath has been ok but hasnt obviously had the best of series..fairly quiet by his standards. Gillespie - back home. Symonds is an ordinary medium pacer, as too Martyn, dont mention them in the same breath as Harvey when talking bowling. Warnie back home. Hogg and Bichel have been good.

But i'm sure i didn't have to point all that out did i? considering you obviously know (or should that be have no idea? hmm) alot about the game

p.s. how was tonights eposide of Home & Away? good i take it?
Keep at it tiger

 

[dr nick]

i think it is wrong to think that just because the side is doing well then that provides immunity for everyone in the team. a player who performs badly runs the risk of getting dropped, winning team or not.

but there is no way i'd be replacing martyn with him.

chimphawk, your implying in your original post that our batting is strong enough whilst our bowling is our weakness. bunsen is right, its the other way round. even though i think it would be ridiculous anyway (heaven knows why he's over there to begin with), it would make more sense replacing a bowler for ian harvey, who is a bowling allrounder.

 

[chimphawk28]

Originally posted by nicko18
i think it is wrong to think that just because the side is doing well then that provides immunity for everyone in the team. a player who performs badly runs the risk of getting dropped, winning team or not.

but there is no way i'd be replacing martyn with him.

chimphawk, your implying in your original post that our batting is strong enough whilst our bowling is our weakness. bunsen is right, its the other way round. even though i think it would be ridiculous anyway (heaven knows why he's over there to begin with), it would make more sense replacing a bowler for ian harvey, who is a bowling allrounder.

Fair enough nicko, each to their own.

I agree it is stupid to think because a team is playing well then that provides immunity for the rest of the team. I still disagree on that our bowling is our strong point. Against the bigger opponents, i'm not sure we've had the bowling strength over there to drop a bowler to make way for harvey.

Do you agree with the bowlers that were selected to go in the first place? what did you think about Bracken's selection?

 

[dr nick]

i think the bowlers that were initially selected to go were the right ones. as for the replacements, i have my doubts whether hauritz was the man, i personally would have chosen macgill.

bracken is probably a no risk type of choice as well, not really great, not really poor either (same as hauritz) but they are hardly bowlers that would stand up and take a game by the scruff.

 

[chimphawk28]

Originally posted by nicko18
i think the bowlers that were initially selected to go were the right ones. as for the replacements, i have my doubts whether hauritz was the man, i personally would have chosen macgill.

bracken is probably a no risk type of choice as well, not really great, not really poor either (same as hauritz) but they are hardly bowlers that would stand up and take a game by the scruff.

yep i'd agree with that. I think the jury is still out on Hauritz. I would have rather seen Warnie replaced with by another leggy. While Macgill can be loose, he has a good record. Cameron White's name was mentioned. Promising leggy but needs a bit more experience i think. Bracken and Williams were both mentioned initially has replacements. Like you said, Bracken is not the kind of bowler to take a game by the scruff (Williams probably isnt either).

 

[raiderman00]

Agree Harvey should stay in the team as he is bowling well.
4/58
3/25
0/29 from 7 overs.

He is i think 1 innings away from a big one.

 

[bunsen burner]

Re: Re: Re: Harvey could have played more?

Originally posted by chimphawk28


Australia DOES have a very strong batting lineup and possibily could have afforded to drop one batsman at times (do you actually follow the game??).

3/31

Still think a key batsman should be dropped for Harvey?

 

[bunsen burner]

Re: Re: Re: Harvey could have played more?

Originally posted by chimphawk28
ah nice.
Well to start with, your so called "key batsman" can be a little ordinary at times. Sure he bobs up every now and then with a decent half century, but not exactly our most consistent batsman is he??

Never disagreed with this. I disagreed with swapping a key batsman for a bowling all-rounder.

Australia DOES have a very strong batting lineup and possibily could have afforded to drop one batsman at times

You're only looking at half the picture. The bowling is stronger than the batting at the moment. Why would you strengthen the bowler even more (at the expense of the batting). That would unbalance the team. Not only risky, but pointless too.

(do you actually follow the game??).

You're making a fool of yourself

And why not experiment?

You can't get much better than this team. they have put themselves in a position where they are the shortest priced favourites to win the WC in history. Why would they risk that so close to the final?

As for our bowling line up...hmmm well lets see... Lee hasnt taken as many wickets as expected so far and can go for alot of runs. McGrath has been ok but hasnt obviously had the best of series..fairly quiet by his standards. Gillespie - back home. Symonds is an ordinary medium pacer, as too Martyn, dont mention them in the same breath as Harvey when talking bowling. Warnie back home. Hogg and Bichel have been good.

It is funny how you accuse me of not knowing the game. You obviously do follow it, but I suspect you are blinded by your own biases. Are you telling everyone on this board that you have never heard all the opposition captains and players, as well as the media experts rave on about the reason why Australia have done so well is because our attack is by far the best in the world?

But i'm sure i didn't have to point all that out did i? considering you obviously know (or should that be have no idea? hmm) alot about the game

You did have to point that out champ, because no one else is thinking what you're thinking.



Just out of curiosity:

Since you are such an expert and I am just a humble idiot, how come I haven't heard 1 commentator mention that they think Martyn (or any other specialist batsman) should be dropped for Harvey?

Come again? You haven't? No, I didn't think so.

 

[dr nick]

come to think of it i dont think ive heard anyone say anybody should be dropped for harvey (bowlers and allrounders included), let alone a specialist batsman. our lengthy tail would start at 6

 

[bunsen burner]

Originally posted by nicko18
i think it is wrong to think that just because the side is doing well then that provides immunity for everyone in the team. a player who performs badly runs the risk of getting dropped, winning team or not.

This is not my point. My point is this:

Swapping a specialist batsman for an average allrounder is plain wrong. If a specialist batsman should be dropped, he should be replaced with a specialist batsman.

Furthermore, dropping an established team member 3 games away from a world cup final isn't smart. Martyn is struggling a bit, but he has still got a few scores.

 

[bunsen burner]

Originally posted by nicko18
come to think of it i dont think ive heard anyone say anybody should be dropped for harvey (bowlers and allrounders included), let alone a specialist batsman. our lengthy tail would start at 6

Bingo. That is my whole point.

 

[bunsen burner]

Originally posted by chimphawk28
Against the bigger opponents, i'm not sure we've had the bowling strength over there to drop a bowler to make way for harvey.

Oh, so I get it. You think Harvey should be in the team at all costs? So you have weighed up dropping a bowler for him, decided no one was appropriate, so you chose a batsman to make way?

Let me give you a tip: There is one spot in the team for an allrounder. It is either Symonds or Harvey. No ther player in the team will be dropped for an allrounder except in extreme circumstances.

And you think you know about cricket?

BTW If the bowler bowls a ball and it hits the stumps, the batsman is out.

 

[dr nick]

does anyone still think harvey should be rep[lacing a specialist batsman?? the one that cleaned him up was the nearest he got to one.

 

[chimphawk28]

3/31
Still think a key batsman should be dropped for Harvey?

Great performance by Bond, but somehow i knew you would conveniently not mention the state of the wicket early in the innings.

dropping an established team member 3 games away from a world cup final isn't smart.

No considering our list and the opposition we have played against, AGAIN...it certainly wouldnt have hurt to atleast see if the team can be bettered in any areas. Not even considering this option at all is just plain dumb.

Since you are such an expert and I am just a humble idiot, how come I haven't heard 1 commentator mention that they think Martyn (or any other specialist batsman) should be dropped for Harvey?

Come again? You haven't? No, I didn't think so.

Come on, surely if you've followed the telly or newspapers you have at some stage heard it might be a possibility? i certainly have.

Oh, so I get it. You think Harvey should be in the team at all costs? So you have weighed up dropping a bowler for him, decided no one was appropriate

Obviously i wasn't refering to every single game, and i think you realize that (i hope anyway)

And you think you know about cricket?

BTW If the bowler bowls a ball and it hits the stumps, the batsman is out.

Funny i don't remember ever stating that i actually wrote the book on the game. I think you need to realize i never came on the board DEMANDING that changes are vital to the teams success. It was obviously just an idea to consider thats all...opinions & ideas!! I certainly didn't expect someone to burst a Vein in their neck over a SUGGESTION. lol.

Oh while your at it, please feel free to list any other rules of the game you might have caught off the telly. Maybe you could teach me a think or two considering it sounds like have played the game at the highest level (?).

You need to lighten up a little tiger!

 

[bunsen burner]

Originally posted by chimphawk28

It was obviously just an idea to consider thats all...opinions & ideas!!

yes, and a stupid idea at that. One that deserved the highest level of ridicule.

You need to lighten up a little tiger!

You need to look past your biases and learn a bit about the game. champ.

ps If you can't handle being ridiculed, don't post here. This isn't a place where you can post outlandish opinions and expect other posters to nod and acknowledge.

 

[chimphawk28]

Originally posted by bunsen burner
yes, and a stupid idea at that. One that deserved the highest level of ridicule. Funny i havent seen dozens of other ppl. come out and support your views.

Is it so hard for you to see that everyone has different opinions? and is entitled to their opinion? thats the point of all this! lol not everyone has to agree with yourself, and don't get uptight when they dont.

You need to look past your biases and learn a bit about the game. champ.

Well champ, i don't believe i'm biased. I don't believe there was anything particularly biased i ever said. Not wanting to rehash again what we have said before, it was only an suggestion...not a strong demanding statement. Please by all means..teach me the grand game of cricket.

ps If you can't handle being ridiculed, don't post here. This isn't a place where you can post outlandish opinions and expect other posters to nod and acknowledge.

Sure i can handle ridicule..ridicule is healthy. Of course i never expected or seeked out other posters approval..this isn't life and death we are talking here! a little fun! lol. There was no need for the very first inital childish name calling on your behalf lol. I thought you might have been 13 years old for a minute! lol sure i followed your lead soon after, thinking this was the level that was appectable in this board. lol

looking forward to hearing your other thoughts in the future.
Lets hope the aussies can bowl out the kiwis now, after posting a defendable (?) total on that pitch.