View Single Post
Old 15th September 2008, 10:14   #193
Self Confessed Mentalist
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hitchin
Team(s): England and Liverpool
Age: 42
Posts: 43,907
Originally Posted by Death View Post
That's why Radio 5 is cack. Incisive journalism goes out of the window as soon as they're dealing with anything other than football.
In fairness to Radio 5's cricket coverage, which is very poor, there isn't that much incisive journalism in its football coverage either.

Vaughan is nearly 34 and I can't see any reason why he's ever going to regain his best form. It would go against the sporting grain.
I would agree. As you'll recall, I defended him when you were suggesting that he ought to be jettisoned during the winter, pointing out that his form since return, especially against India, suggested he was far from finished as a batsman. I also didn't want him replaced as captain at that point. Sadly, since then he's managed only one substantial score, that against NZ. He doesn't bowl any more; he's an indifferent fielder and he's no longer captain. He would be the one of the three players under discussion (Strauss and Collingwood being the others) whom I would not have contracted. Collingwood's contract is pretty much a no brainer, I think. He clearly still has a role in the ODI side and having scored plenty of runs since recall, it would be absurd for the selectors to drop him now. I would have dropped him earlier and wouldn't have recalled him, myself but that's irrelevent now. If a player does what he's picked for, he stays in the side unless there's a clearly superior replacement. Strauss is a more marginal call. Again, I wouldn't have recalled him and his overall returns in the last few years are poor. Still, I think he probably does need to be contracted for the reasons stevieh gives.
Work is the curse of the drinking classes - Wilde
Fatslogger is offline   Reply With Quote