The Dark Knight wrote:Gary Ballance amongst the runs again I see..... Why the hell do they keep picking that bloke? Does he make a good cordial or something?
He adds much needed Ballance to the team.
by Lightning McQueen » Mon Oct 31, 2016 2:40 pm
The Dark Knight wrote:Gary Ballance amongst the runs again I see..... Why the hell do they keep picking that bloke? Does he make a good cordial or something?
by Grahaml » Mon Oct 31, 2016 5:56 pm
batmanbegins wrote:heater31 wrote:The Dark Knight wrote:Gary Ballance amongst the runs again I see..... Why the hell do they keep picking that bloke? Does he make a good cordial or something?
If he was good a mixing cordial no need to pick him in the XI.....12th man can handle that task.
Would like to think he played his last test for a while. His dismissal yesterday was awful.
by The Dark Knight » Mon Oct 31, 2016 6:32 pm
Rik E Boy wrote:batmanbegins wrote:heater31 wrote:The Dark Knight wrote:Gary Ballance amongst the runs again I see..... Why the hell do they keep picking that bloke? Does he make a good cordial or something?
If he was good a mixing cordial no need to pick him in the XI.....12th man can handle that task.
Would like to think he played his last test for a while. His dismissal yesterday was awful.
Can't bat. Starts so deep in his crease when he comes forward he's only on the crease. Amazing how someone can do well enough to earn a test cap batting that way.
regards,
REB
by batmanbegins » Mon Oct 31, 2016 7:23 pm
Grahaml wrote:batmanbegins wrote:heater31 wrote:The Dark Knight wrote:Gary Ballance amongst the runs again I see..... Why the hell do they keep picking that bloke? Does he make a good cordial or something?
If he was good a mixing cordial no need to pick him in the XI.....12th man can handle that task.
Would like to think he played his last test for a while. His dismissal yesterday was awful.
When you've got Ali at 5 and Stokes at 6 it's clear there's not much batting depth. Ballance wouldn't even be first out if I was picking that team.
by bennymacca » Mon Oct 31, 2016 8:07 pm
Lightning McQueen wrote:The Dark Knight wrote:Gary Ballance amongst the runs again I see..... Why the hell do they keep picking that bloke? Does he make a good cordial or something?
He adds much needed Ballance to the team.
by daysofourlives » Mon Oct 31, 2016 10:35 pm
bennymacca wrote:giving the away team the choice will mean a couple of things.
pitches will be made so that the choice is unclear whether to bat or bowl first
series will be much more even instead of going to the home team the vast majority of the time
by bennymacca » Tue Nov 01, 2016 12:12 am
daysofourlives wrote:bennymacca wrote:giving the away team the choice will mean a couple of things.
pitches will be made so that the choice is unclear whether to bat or bowl first
series will be much more even instead of going to the home team the vast majority of the time
Or India will just produce Day 6 wickets on day 1 making it irrelevant who bats first.
But agreed in the rest of the world its a great concept
by Grahaml » Tue Nov 01, 2016 11:26 am
bennymacca wrote:daysofourlives wrote:bennymacca wrote:giving the away team the choice will mean a couple of things.
pitches will be made so that the choice is unclear whether to bat or bowl first
series will be much more even instead of going to the home team the vast majority of the time
Or India will just produce Day 6 wickets on day 1 making it irrelevant who bats first.
But agreed in the rest of the world its a great concept
yeah thats a fair point too
by Jim05 » Tue Nov 01, 2016 12:13 pm
Grahaml wrote:bennymacca wrote:daysofourlives wrote:bennymacca wrote:giving the away team the choice will mean a couple of things.
pitches will be made so that the choice is unclear whether to bat or bowl first
series will be much more even instead of going to the home team the vast majority of the time
Or India will just produce Day 6 wickets on day 1 making it irrelevant who bats first.
But agreed in the rest of the world its a great concept
yeah thats a fair point too
And have 2 day test matches? I bet the BCCI and all those associated would love to lose all that cricket and therefore money from regular short matches.
by Grahaml » Tue Nov 01, 2016 8:37 pm
batmanbegins wrote:Who would you drop before ballance? Personally i think bairstow should be at 5 as he has been our best player in the past year. Stokes is our most important player and was our best player this series and Mooen was our second best player, plus hes our best spinner which is a huge issue cos hes not that good.
by The Dark Knight » Tue Nov 01, 2016 8:57 pm
by Grahaml » Wed Nov 02, 2016 11:38 am
by batmanbegins » Wed Nov 02, 2016 1:05 pm
Grahaml wrote:Both Marsh and Stokes are batting 6 when they aren't good enough to own it as a batsman and are just playing because it's handy to have an extra bowling option. I stand by my point that Stokes can't keep that position if England are going to have long term success.
And yes, as you say England lack batting. Hence why Ballance is in no real danger. The bloke actually averages nearly 40 in tests and 47 in first class cricket. You wouldn't be dropping him and keeping the all rounders at 5 and 6.
by daysofourlives » Wed Nov 02, 2016 7:55 pm
batmanbegins wrote:Grahaml wrote:Both Marsh and Stokes are batting 6 when they aren't good enough to own it as a batsman and are just playing because it's handy to have an extra bowling option. I stand by my point that Stokes can't keep that position if England are going to have long term success.
And yes, as you say England lack batting. Hence why Ballance is in no real danger. The bloke actually averages nearly 40 in tests and 47 in first class cricket. You wouldn't be dropping him and keeping the all rounders at 5 and 6.
If you have watched england over the past year you would know Stokes is their most important player. Forget his average which is much worse due to his first few years in test cricket. Since the New Zealand series 18 months ago he has been good with the bat and excellent with the ball. He is much better then Marsh with the bat, if you saw his 258 against SAF you would agree.
Ballance on the other hand dominated weak teams early on his career and average in the 50s over his first 15 tests. Since then he has been incredibly useless and should not be in the team. I agree Ali shouldn't be batting 5 (He doesnt in england) but he is one of our better players of spin so he bats up the order in the subcontinent.
Young Hameed or Butler will come in for the India tests for ballance and rightly so.
by Grahaml » Thu Nov 03, 2016 9:15 pm
by batmanbegins » Thu Nov 03, 2016 9:37 pm
Grahaml wrote:Lol. 258 in one hit and 301 in his other 10 innings for the year. Remind me again how much his batting has improved. I also notice one of his 3 career test centuries happened in his first year. But yet I see you suggest his poor average is as a result of his start in test cricket. Funny thing is, his batting average from the first half of his career is HIGHER than the second half, even including that 258.
Ballance's best average comes against India. If you were paying attention, you'd notice they're the world #1 side. His worst average comes against Bangladesh. Again, referring to world rankings, the worst side he's ever played. Hardly "dominating" numbers against a poor side.
Any more fairy tales you want to try to tell us?
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |