The cricket functions I go to they seem to be quite happy to give an honest opinion, considering there's no cameras around.
And I watched the broadcast, IIRC the Ashes wasn't even on FTA.
David Warner
It's not on FTA in England, but Oz's free coverage was just England's cable coverage.
They say that's a bad thing, because many English kids don't watch any cricket growing up, but the advantage is that the standard of the commentary is higher. The TV execs believe that the FTA viewers are retarded and can't cope with sensible commentary.
They say that's a bad thing, because many English kids don't watch any cricket growing up, but the advantage is that the standard of the commentary is higher. The TV execs believe that the FTA viewers are retarded and can't cope with sensible commentary.
People in doubt about the state of Test batting should at least read the "Poms skittled for 85 in Test v. Ireland" thread (England were demolished by Murtagh (had you heard of him before??) and then drew an Ashes series, which suggests the oppo's batting is just as bad), which from p.2 has expanded to the general question:
From the post
http://magpies.net/nick/bb/viewtopic.ph ... 43#1921943
onwards.
Do read the whole thing, including Virat's statement that "Well, if I have to be brutally honest, I don't think us batsmen have lived up to the standard."
From the post
http://magpies.net/nick/bb/viewtopic.ph ... 43#1921943
onwards.
Do read the whole thing, including Virat's statement that "Well, if I have to be brutally honest, I don't think us batsmen have lived up to the standard."
Warner has finished the series with just the unbeaten hundred and the two unbeaten 50s. That’s 217 runs without being dismissed against Sri Lanka.
Last edited by Pies4shaw on Fri Nov 01, 2019 9:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
And so, at the end of the T20 series against Pakistan, Warner’s average in international T20s since he returned from his ban is an acceptable 287. You’d probably hope that might by hyperbole but it isn’t - it’s his actual average.
I suppose he may struggle to sustain that average.
Anyway, whatever happens to his future, I think we can safely say that the answer to why he was named in this squad is because he is, at the moment, on form, the best T20 player in the world.
I suppose he may struggle to sustain that average.
Anyway, whatever happens to his future, I think we can safely say that the answer to why he was named in this squad is because he is, at the moment, on form, the best T20 player in the world.
-
luvdids
- Posts: 3963
- Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2008 12:56 am
- Location: work
Of course I wouldn't hope for it to be hyperbole. Good for him finally making some runs, that's his job after all.Pies4shaw wrote:And so, at the end of the T20 series against Pakistan, Warner’s average in international T20s since he returned from his ban is an acceptable 287. You’d probably hope that might by hyperbole but it isn’t - it’s his actual average.
I suppose he may struggle to sustain that average.
Anyway, whatever happens to his future, I think we can safely say that the answer to why he was named in this squad is because he is, at the moment, on form, the best T20 player in the world.
^ luvdids, that comment wasn't directed at you in any way: it was just a figure of speech ("You'd probably hope" could as easily have been "All of us would probably hope") directed to his present ridiculous post-ban T20 average. I certainly didn't mean that you personally would probably hope anything.