Current version

Posted March 24, 2010 04:53 · last edited March 18, 2021 07:28

I think we need to stick with Ingram.  The revolving door policy isn't working and hasn't worked for years.  It is a huge jump in standard from domestic to international test cricket and we can't expect them to perform immediately.
 
Obviously, we'd ideally have some experienced and capable batsmen to pick up the slack while the newbies adjust but we don't so we can only work with what we've got.  Pick the best available and give them a decent crack to show they can take the step up in time.  As others have pointed out 4 innings with 2 run outs is not enough.
 
Agree that we're never going to take 20 wickets (we only took 1/4 of that in Wgtn!) so bring in another batsman for Tuffey.  Hell, if he can bat as well as Tuffey did in the second innings I'll be rapt!  Eek out a draw with batsmen cherishing their wickets, batting time and gaining experience at that level and I'll be happy.
 
Simple

Previous versions

1 version
Unknown editor edited March 18, 2021 07:28

I think we need to stick with Ingram.  The revolving door policy isn't working and hasn't worked for years.  It is a huge jump in standard from domestic to international test cricket and we can't expect them to perform immediately.

 
Obviously, we'd ideally have some experienced and capable batsmen to pick up the slack while the newbies adjust but we don't so we can only work with what we've got.  Pick the best available and give them a decent crack to show they can take the step up in time.  As others have pointed out 4 innings with 2 run outs is not enough.
 
Agree that we're never going to take 20 wickets (we only took 1/4 of that in Wgtn!) so bring in another batsman for Tuffey.  Hell, if he can bat as well as Tuffey did in the second innings I'll be rapt!  Eek out a draw with batsmen cherishing their wickets, batting time and gaining experience at that level and I'll be happy.
 
Simple LOL