• The first stage of the forum upgrades has now been completed but they remain in a degraded state with some features missing, normal posting/reading should now be possible.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.
    Some other features of the forum are also currently disabled.

Current Side

E

essex boy

Striker
Curious how many would get in the swashbuckling tile winning sides of the Harmison, Di Venuto era

Bedingham
Robinson
Wood
Stokes
Potts
 

Parkside said:
Not good enough for even that XI on today's brainless cameo. 16.4 exhibit
Click to expand...
No mention of the 10 overs he bowled off the belt at the end of the 2nd day full out showing great commitment to his team.
essex boy said:
He had not had any meaningful time in the middle since January. He is not that good batting wise to walk into the side on that basis
Click to expand...
Still walks into Durhams top 6
 
Last edited:
wayne entwhistle no9 said:
I'm fine! 30/40 years ago i would have been raging but today players look at that as a genuine shot. It didn't come off and it still looks poor but thats the game now because of the shots they play in the short form of the game.
Click to expand...
Yeh,I'm fully aware of that but,not withstanding,I believe you should still play the situation.
It's noticeable that McCullum is quoted as intending reviewing the all out bazball approach
 
essex boy said:
Curious how many would get in the swashbuckling tile winning sides of the Harmison, Di Venuto era

Bedingham
Robinson
Wood
Stokes
Potts
Click to expand...
Robinson is not as good a keeper as Mustard. Do you then pick him as a batter ?
Potts would not get in ahead of Harmison, Plunket, Onions and Wood.
 
badger55 said:
Robinson is not as good a keeper as Mustard. Do you then pick him as a batter ?
Potts would not get in ahead of Harmison, Plunket, Onions and Wood.
Click to expand...

It's hard isn't it because that side back then was like a who's who of greatest Durham players of all time!

Totally different wickets at chester le street then anarl
 
Robbo is a much batter all former batsmans than the colonel was and his keeping being slightly better would still pick Robinson.

Bedders is one of the most destructive and talented players I have seen play for us makes the game look so easy at times.
 
Durham-Mackem41 said:
Robbo is a much batter all former batsmans than the colonel was and his keeping being slightly better would still pick Robinson.

Bedders is one of the most destructive and talented players I have seen play for us makes the game look so easy at times.
Click to expand...
Dunno like, mustard was an absolute gun. Recency bias plus easier wickets
 
badger55 said:
Robinson is not as good a keeper as Mustard. Do you then pick him as a batter ?
Potts would not get in ahead of Harmison, Plunket, Onions and Wood.
Click to expand...

Would argue Potts gets in ahead of Plunkett and his FC record is much superior to Wood's so if you are looking at the balance of a side, I'd maybe take Potts ahead of Wood also given Harmison would be the out and out quick..

Tail of Rushworth, Onions, Potts and Harmison would be pretty long though!
 
The Breen Machine said:
Would argue Potts gets in ahead of Plunkett and his FC record is much superior to Wood's so if you are looking at the balance of a side, I'd maybe take Potts ahead of Wood also given Harmison would be the out and out quick..

Tail of Rushworth, Onions, Potts and Harmison would be pretty long though!
Click to expand...
With that attack they’d rarely be required to bat.Potts has also shown that he can bat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top