« SECOND TEST: LONG IN THE YOOTH |
| CHICINFO »
So, I asked SMH cricket writer Will Swanton what he thought of his paper's coverage of Phil Hughes: "Okay, this is becomig absurd."
Posted by Tony Tea on Monday, March 09, 2009 at 04:40 PM in South Africa 2008/09 | Permalink
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Dave Warner > Phil Hughes
Big Ramifications |
Monday, March 09, 2009 at 06:14 PM
But then, Bradman didn't need to score tons in both digs. He made the first one count for enough. More than anything though, Hughes needs to work at turning the strike over. He is facing 60% of the deliveries. Good if you are batting with the tail or Clarke just before stumps, not so much with a belligerent Ponting.
Monday, March 09, 2009 at 06:42 PM
Russ, I don't think its a bad thing, looks like a beligerent ponting is a good thing
Tuesday, March 10, 2009 at 04:11 PM
Joshn, I'm not sure what you mean? That it doesn't matter if Hughes doesn't turn over the strike, or that Ponting being belligerent is good. If the latter, I agree, with attached caveats for daft first innings dismissals. If the former, you'd better explain why.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009 at 05:10 PM
kill em all
Monday, December 12, 2011 at 11:58 AM
This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.
The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.
As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.
Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.
(You can use HTML tags like <b> <i> and <ul> to style your text. URLs automatically linked.)
(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)
Name is required to post a comment
Please enter a valid email address