Comments on: George Bailey v David Warner

By: wolf

wolf — Thu, 31 Oct 2013 08:06:48 +0000

You forgot to mention that Warner didn’t just skive off to the races, he did so leaving his teammates to field with 10.
There is a special place in hell for people that do that, as anyone who has been in that position (or worse) will understand.

By: Ged Ladd

Ged Ladd — Tue, 29 Oct 2013 21:38:18 +0000

Alastair Cook’s back.

As in, lumbago.

He hasn’t returned or anything like that.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/the-ashes-2013-14/content/current/story/683557.html

By: Howe

Howe — Tue, 29 Oct 2013 17:45:46 +0000

In reply to Bert. That squad doesn't involve anyone who's playing in the current ODI series.

By: Dan M

Dan M — Tue, 29 Oct 2013 11:43:39 +0000

Well that’s saved me ever having to look at Australian domestic one-day scorecards. Thanks KC.

I’m going to continue believing that George Bailey is the right man for the Australian test lineup and hoping with all my hope muscles that they never pick him.

By: Steve

Steve — Tue, 29 Oct 2013 11:21:35 +0000

Please pick Shaun Marsh again. Please, please, please. Khawaja has only been out for one Test, so it’s probably at least a couple more until he is due back for a token 2 or 3 Test run.

I must admit, I presumed Warner was a certainty. Despite being full of openers, nobody else other than Rogers appears to actually want to open the batting. I reckon they will attempt to shoehorn Faulkner in there alongside Harris, P-Siddy and Johnson with Bad Handlin’ moving up to 6.

Clearly, they should pick Bailey. Which is why I would say on balance that he is the one least likely to be selected.

By: Bert

Bert — Tue, 29 Oct 2013 10:38:43 +0000

Cricinfo is suggesting that the A squad has been chosen to find the filler for what they call “the vacant number 6 slot”. That’s one of Khawaja, Marsh and Alex Doolan – Bailey’s not in it. If he was being considered, wouldn’t he be playing for the A team?

I’m not sure what that means. I can only think of four definites for the first test – Watson, Rogers, Clarke, and Smith. Is Warner another definite? Is it Bailey? Is it Hughes (please let it be Hughes)? Or will they go with five bowlers as cover for a) Harris breaking down and b) Johnson being rubbish? Or is this article already more rational thought than they’ve applied to the matter?

By: Bradders

Bradders — Tue, 29 Oct 2013 08:22:32 +0000

Have you seen Cricinfo recently – headline as follows:

‘Bangladesh Struggle As Anamul Falls’

Oh and Bailey seems like a good sort…