Citizen of Legoland
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 15 Jan 2013
- Messages
- 10,020
A bit pointless though if you're going at 4.5 per over and take no wickets.They just mentioned on TMS that Mark Wood just done the quickest spell of any England player.
A bit pointless though if you're going at 4.5 per over and take no wickets.They just mentioned on TMS that Mark Wood just done the quickest spell of any England player.
A bit pointless though if you're going at 4.5 per over and take no wickets.
I'd like more variety than just quick after quick from him, especially in the heat, on a nice pitch, against quality batsmen. Seems like he's expending a huge amount of energy that would be useful later in the day against the lower order. Ollie Robinson is a much easier watch and looking more dangerous.Yep speed alone definitely doesn't guarantee wickets and certainly makes control harder.
Think of the old Aussie bowler Shaun Tait. He was very quick but all over the place in half the matches I saw him in.
? He’s going for less than 3.5 agree he needs more control though.A bit pointless though if you're going at 4.5 per over and take no wickets.
England players admitted using sweets in 2005, it is only getting caught that seems to be the wrong doing when it comes to the dark arts.
Yes, he's clawed his average back by throwing the ball wide where it can't be hit.? He’s going for less than 3.5 agree he needs more control though.
not the same.England players admitted using sweets in 2005, it is only getting caught that seems to be the wrong doing when it comes to the dark arts.
Wouldn’t trust him with the social media accounts though!!I'd like more variety than just quick after quick from him, especially in the heat, on a nice pitch, against quality batsmen. Seems like he's expending a huge amount of energy that would be useful later in the day against the lower order. Ollie Robinson is a much easier watch and looking more dangerous.
See.