Tweet
Re: GLAMMY
I had to stop following from when Glam needed about 240 off 23 overs. Can't believe they got the win!
I had to stop following from when Glam needed about 240 off 23 overs. Can't believe they got the win!
-
-
Re: GLAMMY
I started listening when I got home yesterday afternoon and the first thing I heard was Carlson getting out. I switched off after that and didn't bother checking what had happened until about four hours later - there's not too much competition I know, but that has to be Glamorgan's best performance of the season.
As he did in the T20 last year, Ingram has proved himself to be one of the best one day batsmen in the country and, as Pearcey says, it was good to see Cooke, finally, make a contribution with the bat.
I'd like to see a few less Kolpak/foreign players in the Glamorgan side, but I must admit that the one we signed in the winter is beginning to look a shrewd acquisition - De Lange seems to have settled in now and he's showing an ability to get good players.Comment
-
Re: GLAMMY
Another hundred for Ingram, Glamorgan currently 323-6 with eleven balls of their innings left against Kent.
Comment
-
Re: GLAMMY
356/7 is a fine score. Good to see the batsman finding some form.Originally posted by the other bob wilson View PostComment
-
Re: GLAMMY
Nice to think they are finding some kind of form.Originally posted by Pearcey3 View PostComment
-
Re: GLAMMY
[QUOTE=jeepster;4741913]Nice to think they are finding some kind of form.[/QUOTE
Shame about the bowling.. We went to the corresponding game two years ago when Darren Stevens got a century. He has done it again today. He is 41!Comment
-
Re: GLAMMY
[QUOTE=Pearcey3;4741935]Just out for 147 off 67 balls, what an indictment it is of the England selectors that Stevens has not played senior international cricket at any level.Originally posted by jeepster View PostComment
-
Re: GLAMMY
[QUOTE=the other bob wilson;4741937]Yep very unluckyOriginally posted by Pearcey3 View PostComment
-
Re: GLAMMY
Glammy win by 15 runs and finish with four wins and four defeats but not enough for the top three.Comment
-
Re: GLAMMY
Therein lies the problem they Turn it on when it's not needed.i guess a little bit of respectability but little else,unfortunately.Comment
-
Re: GLAMMY
[QUOTE=the other bob wilson;4741937]Go back to our sides 10/12 years ago. Where'd he have fitted in exactly? Flintoff was always the top dog.Originally posted by Pearcey3 View Post
Stevens at our place on Friday was a nightmare with the ball, forever been a thorn in our sideComment
-
Re: GLAMMY
[QUOTE=Alex!;4742021]Flintoff missed plenty of matches through injury during his career - I think Stevens could have played then.Originally posted by the other bob wilson View Post
I've seen a proper all rounder being defined as someone who is good enough to get into a team as a batter and bowler on merit. Throughout most of Stevens' career, I've tended to think that he wasn't good enough at the latter to fulfill that criteria, but he's made me change my mind in recent years and you only have to look at his record with Kent lately to see that he is in their best two or three bowlers.
In test cricket, I'd still doubt that Stevens could ever have been anything other than a fourth, or even fifth seamer, but, apart from Botham, Flintoff and Stokes I cannot think of other England all rounders who have fulfilled that good enough to get in as a batsman and bowler criteria in my lifetime and I can certainly think of worse players than Stevens who have won test caps for England as all rounders (e.g. Ian Greig, Chris Cowdrey, David Capel, Adam Hollioake).
It's in one day cricket though that I feel Stevens has been particularly hard done by - I'd say there's even a case for picking him in the fifty and twenty over teams now.Comment
-
Re: GLAMMY
Back to the 4 day stuff
Comment
-
-
Re: GLAMMY
It's not getting any better......facing a score of over 400 they lose an early wicket and then somebody gets themselves run out, stupid or whatOriginally posted by Llanedeyrnblue View Post
Comment
Comment