|
|
Post by jonboy on Sept 7, 2016 20:22:56 GMT
There is some justification for including all five seamers, in so much as you'd currently back them to out score our middle order.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2016 20:36:41 GMT
Good to see you acknowledging that Archer is one of the first pick seamers bm but what happened to Shahzad? Well to be accurate, he's in one of the top five choices at present, but only four of them can play. Archer could be fifth in that list. Or it coule be Wiese. I don't know. As for Shahzad, I'm sure we would all like to know what's ailing him, joe, because - contrary to what you think - he is a quality bowler and an England international. He's proved his calibre over a ten year career, since he became the first British-born Asian cricketer to play for Yorks a decade ago. Your constant denigration of him is getting wearisome. Do you not think that your hero-worship of certain players and demonisation of others is getting a little obsessive and irrational? |
|
|
|
Post by joe on Sept 7, 2016 23:04:18 GMT
No, I just think your ability to contradict yourself is funny and once again you've risen to it, keep it up, it's very entertaining.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2016 6:36:55 GMT
Your denigration of Robinson and Shahzad , on the other hand, has been consistent but neither funny nor entertaining. Just sour and vindictive (although perhaps you are a deliberate WUM as you talk about 'rising to it'?)
Ollie Robinson has shoved your jibes back down your throat. There can be no contradition to that. I hope Shahzad has an opportunity to do the same. You were at Grace Road and I was not; but from reports of the conditions, Shahzad - who remains a high-class bowler despite your rubbishing of him - would have had a field day on that track.
You sneer at our players. You sneer at other posters. You accuse Mark Davis of lying about Robinson's shin splints and drop dark hints that the lad's "poor disiciplinary record" was the real reason he has missed much of the season, not injury... Don't you think you might enjoy life more if you lightened up a little and found something less petty and vicarious for your "entertainment" ?
|
|
|
|
Post by joe on Sept 8, 2016 8:16:31 GMT
OK, enough is enough.
I have never ' denigrated, jibed nor sneered at either Robinson or Shahzad. The only point I made about them was to disagree with your original post where you said that they would strengthen the bowling attack. They clearly didn't so I was right on that point.
If you listen to Robinsons interview from yesterday which I posted, he clearly states that he has been struggling with form and fitness this season and was instructed to go away and get fit by Davis. So I was also right on this point too as to remain fit is a fundamental part of being a professional sportsman and not to do so shows a lack of discipline. I was delighted to see him show some form with the bat at Grace road and agree that he has the potential to be a good batsman who bowls 4th change.
As for Shahzad, I agree he has a great proven record in first class cricket but his form, for whatever reason, has dropped off this season, fact.
In a season as dissapointing as this one has been for Sussex it has been heartening to see three young fast bowlers come through in Archer, Whittingham and Garton and make an impact. They are far from the finished article but they are all very exciting prospects and I for one am looking forward to seeing their careers progress. Let's hope that we can make some astute signings in the winter for a couple of batsmen to replace Joyce and bolster the middle order.
Good old Sussex by the sea!
|
|
|
|
Post by leedsgull on Sept 8, 2016 8:54:12 GMT
Shahzad is an odd one. He clearly has a lot of talent as evidenced by his playing one day cricket for England. However he has consistently underperformed at Yorkshire, Notts and Sussex. His spell at Lancashire seemed ok I think. There must therefore be questions about his temperament. Perhaps he does not deal with adversity very well? A wasted talent methinks.
|
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on Sept 8, 2016 9:18:45 GMT
Shahzad is an odd one. He clearly has a lot of talent as evidenced by his playing one day cricket for England. However he has consistently underperformed at Yorkshire, Notts and Sussex. His spell at Lancashire seemed ok I think. There must therefore be questions about his temperament. Perhaps he does not deal with adversity very well? A wasted talent methinks. The temperament issue has been there all along. In his first few games last season, when he was bowling well and effectively and the side was doing well - hard though it is to visualise from the current perspective - he was the most active and enthusiastic cheeerleader on the pitch, constantly clapping and motivating everyone. After his injury and a perceptible drop in pace, accompanied by the realisation that he is playing for a side who are up against it, the "bad" Shahzad has emerged, a ground-kicker, a scowler, often one who picks up niggles and doesn't come out to field straight away after the interval. We've all known players like that, played with them, and know that they can respond to motivation but sometimes require a lot of that to turn them round. I suspect that the injury and the relegation equally took their toll on his physique and his hope for what he could achieve. Maybe both can be turned around but he will be a year older and the competition will be stiffer. |
|
|
|
Post by jonboy on Sept 8, 2016 9:45:02 GMT
Shahzad is an odd one. He clearly has a lot of talent as evidenced by his playing one day cricket for England. However he has consistently underperformed at Yorkshire, Notts and Sussex. His spell at Lancashire seemed ok I think. There must therefore be questions about his temperament. Perhaps he does not deal with adversity very well? A wasted talent methinks. The temperament issue has been there all along. In his first few games last season, when he was bowling well and effectively and the side was doing well - hard though it is to visualise from the current perspective - he was the most active and enthusiastic cheeerleader on the pitch, constantly clapping and motivating everyone. After his injury and a perceptible drop in pace, accompanied by the realisation that he is playing for a side who are up against it, the "bad" Shahzad has emerged, a ground-kicker, a scowler, often one who picks up niggles and doesn't come out to field straight away after the interval. We've all known players like that, played with them, and know that they can respond to motivation but sometimes require a lot of that to turn them round. I suspect that the injury and the relegation equally took their toll on his physique and his hope for what he could achieve. Maybe both can be turned around but he will be a year older and the competition will be stiffer. Yes, I can remember in those early games, thinking, this is just what we need, as he was constantly trying to gee up the players. When he came back from injury, he seemed a totally different player |
|
|
|
Post by joe on Sept 8, 2016 10:22:16 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by leedsgull on Sept 8, 2016 11:38:41 GMT
Thanks Joe for the link. That must be a thankless match to be playing in. I see the Surrey team includes test player Rampaul who did rather well before disappearing to the CPL and the South African Pillans who did not do so well early season. If memory serves he played several matches and failed to take a wicket.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2016 15:37:01 GMT
lol... and having darkly insinuated last week that Robinson's absence from the team was due to his "poor disciplinary record" and accusing Davis of lying about him recovering from shin splints you now try to square the circle of your dishonesty by telling us that any injuries were down to "a lack of discipline" . Your persitent denigration of the player (he will be so flattered to know that you think he has the potential to make an OK 4th change bowler!) is starting to sound like a personal vendetta. Why? Did he refuse to sign your autograph book or something?? Hope this keeps you suitably entertained in your smug 'I was right' self-satisfaction! |
|
|
|
Post by ashingtonmartlet on Sept 8, 2016 19:47:11 GMT
Must be a few people gutted on here about Sussex winning so convincingly...
|
|
|
|
Post by ashingtonmartlet on Sept 8, 2016 19:59:10 GMT
If Zac Toys-out-of-the-pram-asi doesn't like the 'negativity' of Chris Adams' column, he should read what Sussex members are saying in the Argus. Have a read of the angry comments on the Argus website - they make this forum's criticisms seem mild and they make Grizzly sound like an apologist for the current regime. There are four or five SCCC members saying they won't renew next year and calls for a mass clear-out of management at every level with Adams and Prior coming in. Read the comments here: www.theargus.co.uk/sport/cricket/generalcricket/14720338.Sussex_suffer_defeat_to_Kent_at_Hove/I just wonder ... could Tetchymasi's preposterous attack on Adams prove to be a defining moment? It will have sent Adams a clear message that not only is he feared and hated by the current regime (for what reasons I'm still unclear) but that he has nothing left to lose by moving against them. A 1997-style putsch with Adams in the Marlar role and Prior as Piggott? A monied backer would help, but surely between them they could find some financial muscle which would seal the deal in showing the current regime the door? The twentieth anniversary of the 1997 Marlar/Piggott/May insurrection is just a few months away ...a perfect time for a repeat performance? A monied backer?? Good God, it's a members' club, not a company that can be bought and have money pumped into. Messrs May and Marlar were voted in through the ballot box, Pigott was a popular figurehead that joined forces with the three newly elected committee members to form Sussex 2000, but wasn't actually involved at the club till after the AGM. Using the same logic, Adams or whoever would have to stand for election to the committee, and get elected, prior to the AGM, then there would have to be a groundswell of opinion from the floor in order to get the committee to even consider resigning. That's what the remaining 4 committee members did - resign. You don't just line up a list of former players and expect some sort of takeover to happen, with them suddenly filling the positions of chief exec and coach etc and as for financial muscle to seal the exit of the current regime??? This isn't the Premier League. |
|
|
|
Post by coverpoint on Sept 8, 2016 20:24:32 GMT
One win doesn't totally eradicate the Kent debacle but it is certainly a step in the right direction. If Sussex are to be serious promotion contenders next season they need to develop greater consistency and some backbone!
|
|
|
|
Post by ashingtonmartlet on Sept 8, 2016 20:57:26 GMT
Yeah I agree with that actually, another pretty lame middle order display, needed the last 3 wickets to double the score. Can't keep going on like that.
|
|
