-TW- wrote: ↑August 2, 2019, 12:47 pm
If Siddle doesn't swing it he's a sitting duck, like when he was bowling Rat Power in the UAE
In Siddle's favour we're seeing some movement off the deck. He's a seam up, into-the-pitch type who might prove awkward. I'm not writing him off just yet.
* The author assumes no responsibility for the topicality, correctness, completeness or quality of information provided.
Siddle goes alright, he has produced some good spells for Australia. But to have him ahead of both Starc and Hazlewood (unless you are right re the injury stuff) seems very strange.
Lucky wrote:Why the Ashes isnt on Foxtel I will never know.... its stupid, same way that they dont put SOO on foxtel.
It’s ridiculous that Fox continually advertise that their the Cricket channel and then they don’t purchase the biggest overseas tour there is in cricket.
I’m so close to quitting Fox. Raiders only keeping me with them.
Lucky wrote:Why the Ashes isnt on Foxtel I will never know.... its stupid, same way that they dont put SOO on foxtel.
It’s ridiculous that Fox continually advertise that their the Cricket channel and then they don’t purchase the biggest overseas tour there is in cricket.
I’m so close to quitting Fox. Raiders only keeping me with them.
True, youd think they could easily put it on the 24/7 cricket channel, instead of replaying last years big bash matches.
-TW- wrote: ↑August 2, 2019, 12:47 pm
If Siddle doesn't swing it he's a sitting duck, like when he was bowling Rat Power in the UAE
In Siddle's favour we're seeing some movement off the deck. He's a seam up, into-the-pitch type who might prove awkward. I'm not writing him off just yet.
If he has to play, I would only consider Siddle at Lords where the slope of the pitch will assist him in getting some movement. He is a straight up and down bowler just above medium pace. He can bowl a consistent off stump line, but with so little movement of the ball he is fodder for getting a batsman's eye in. But we need bowlers who can assist in taking 20 wickets to win the match. The selectors have picked a good net bowler.
Lucky wrote:Why the Ashes isnt on Foxtel I will never know.... its stupid, same way that they dont put SOO on foxtel.
It’s ridiculous that Fox continually advertise that their the Cricket channel and then they don’t purchase the biggest overseas tour there is in cricket.
I’m so close to quitting Fox. Raiders only keeping me with them.
Nine had the rights to the Ashes before they lost the cricket in Australia and refused to swap that for Wimbeldon etc.
Lucky wrote:Why the Ashes isnt on Foxtel I will never know.... its stupid, same way that they dont put SOO on foxtel.
It’s ridiculous that Fox continually advertise that their the Cricket channel and then they don’t purchase the biggest overseas tour there is in cricket.
I’m so close to quitting Fox. Raiders only keeping me with them.
True, youd think they could easily put it on the 24/7 cricket channel, instead of replaying last years big bash matches.
They probably need the rights for that, which 9 bought about 5 years ago
Lucky wrote:Why the Ashes isnt on Foxtel I will never know.... its stupid, same way that they dont put SOO on foxtel.
It’s ridiculous that Fox continually advertise that their the Cricket channel and then they don’t purchase the biggest overseas tour there is in cricket.
I’m so close to quitting Fox. Raiders only keeping me with them.
True, youd think they could easily put it on the 24/7 cricket channel, instead of replaying last years big bash matches.
They probably need the rights for that, which 9 bought about 5 years ago
Sent from my CPH1831 using Tapatalk
That’s a weak weak excuse. I’d agree with you if the game wasn’t being showed on Kayo which wasn’t around 5 years ago.
Fox need to Stop paying Bolt and Credlin so I can actually watch something I should be getting based on what Foxtel promise.
Pre ball 1 I think all of us would have called leaving Starc out a shocker? It'd be like leaving Papalii out of your raiders side for an important game. The man just gets results.
Amazing that the change of ball around the 60th over produced swing by Pattinson. Imagine what Starc could have done with it. The selectors have gone into the game, according to some reports, of 'not wanting to leak runs'. They have also produced a same same fast bowling attack which at the end of Day2 doesn't look likely to take enough wickets. Having said that Pattinson clipping the off stump and the bails not falling is a rarity and unfortunate for him and the Aussies. Also the Captaincy of Paine seems to mirror the selectors defensive mind set. Lyon had Burns LBW when he was in his 20s. The GOAT was confident but Paine didn't review. It was not until late in the day that he gave Lyon 2 slips to allow him to attack the left handers and it went so close to another positive result.
In short, the mindset around the team seems to be about 'not losing' this opening game rather than going all out for the win.
Wow. They were only five down when I looked and then I went to do some washing up and fold some washing out of sight of the telly...and now they're eight down! And only about forty runs ahead!
We're not out of this yet!
And to all the people who doubted me, hello to them as well. - Mark Webber, Raiders Ballboy and Unluckiest F1 Driver Ever
I'm attacking in the right way, instead of just...attacking in the general direction. - Max Aaron (also eerily apropos for the Green Machine)