Fighting Zone !

Fardin wrote:No one is here to judge me now

Viresh wrote:

Madmax wrote:
Watson is also a Right arm bowler but u cant compare Moises with Watson
Watson is a guy who is capable of picking wickets at regular intervals the thing HE IS USED AS PARTNERSHIP BREAKER

Moises dont have that Ability of breaking partnerships
If you Check Sheffield matches most of the wickets Moises took were of Tail Enders..

Even Sreesanth picks wickets of tail enders so you cant say that Sreesanth is better bowler than Zaheer

Moises isnt much as good as Faulkner where as he is slightly a touch above in batting..

Aus need an all rounder who can bat decently and bowl quite well as Shane Watson

FAulkner can do that..

So varying of the pace doesnt matter here..because if he have Variation in pace thats it or what

In test Cricket you need to Swing the ball and pitch the ball in right areas..that will cause problems..

Mind you if u ever saw Moises Bowling in ODI that was disastrous because he always pitches it in Full or else bangs in short..

I dont think so Kallis,Abd,Amla arent good enough in playing him while they played those three quicks.
quite well

Faulkner was very impressive with his accurate Line and length and ability of Swinging ball both ways ..

and He is a decent batsman ..A guy who has scored 5 fifties in 41 innings with an average of 25 by playing at 7 is good enough i guess..

where as Moises scored 10 fifties and a century in 61 innings averaging 31..Thats not quite good for a BATTING all rounder ..

so ..what i say is If There was Starc in the line up Moises would have been handy and good pick but as there is no Starc The guy who deserves to be picked ahead of Quiney is James Faulkner.

thats for sure..

First of all , i never compared Watto with Moises ..
Im not an IDIOT to compare him with Watson :O

You are saying the same thing again and again..
Read the previous posts again :O
I don't want to repeat those words again and again :bitch:

Aus need an all rounder who can bat decently and bowl quite well as Shane Watson

\
Moises CAN!

MadMax wrote:

Fardin wrote:Supposingly, you didn't understand the main motto to bring Quiney. Watson is a No.3 or an opener. It was obvious he was going to play at NO.3 this series as Cowan and Warner are there to open the innings. Now Quiney was brought in as he has good skills of an batsmen and can be up the order. At this moment, switching Watson with someone like D. Christian, S. Smith would mean that they would have to disturb the finishing order and hence the top orders would have to go up a spot. In order to main their tail ender and the top order combination, they chose Quiney over everyone else

Can i say some thing

Watson said even before the series that he is going to bat at 4 and Punter will bat his fav spot no 3
and Michael Clake will be at his best position no 5

So obviously there is no need to bring in Quiney because Watson will be at 4 and they could have brought in Faulkner and thus they could have made sure that Punter will be 3,Clarke at 4,Hussey 5,Wade 6 and Faulkner at 7 .

Faulkner is kinda player like Gilchrist who likes to HIT the ball and FAulkner is a sweet timer of the ball

and more over FAulkner can bowl Superbly even better than some quicks in the XI.

The thing they brought in Quiney just because he scored 85 Vs South Africans..

thats only reason they brought in

Fardin wrote:

MadMax wrote:

Fardin wrote:Supposingly, you didn't understand the main motto to bring Quiney. Watson is a No.3 or an opener. It was obvious he was going to play at NO.3 this series as Cowan and Warner are there to open the innings. Now Quiney was brought in as he has good skills of an batsmen and can be up the order. At this moment, switching Watson with someone like D. Christian, S. Smith would mean that they would have to disturb the finishing order and hence the top orders would have to go up a spot. In order to main their tail ender and the top order combination, they chose Quiney over everyone else

Can i say some thing

Watson said even before the series that he is going to bat at 4 and Punter will bat his fav spot no 3
and Michael Clake will be at his best position no 5

So obviously there is no need to bring in Quiney because Watson will be at 4 and they could have brought in Faulkner and thus they could have made sure that Punter will be 3,Clarke at 4,Hussey 5,Wade 6 and Faulkner at 7 .

Faulkner is kinda player like Gilchrist who likes to HIT the ball and FAulkner is a sweet timer of the ball

and more over FAulkner can bowl Superbly even better than some quicks in the XI.

The thing they brought in Quiney just because he scored 85 Vs South Africans..

thats only reason they brought in

I just saw that and I agree! But if watson was to bat at 4 then I think Moises Henriques could have come in

MadMax wrote:

Fardin wrote:

MadMax wrote:

Fardin wrote:Supposingly, you didn't understand the main motto to bring Quiney. Watson is a No.3 or an opener. It was obvious he was going to play at NO.3 this series as Cowan and Warner are there to open the innings. Now Quiney was brought in as he has good skills of an batsmen and can be up the order. At this moment, switching Watson with someone like D. Christian, S. Smith would mean that they would have to disturb the finishing order and hence the top orders would have to go up a spot. In order to main their tail ender and the top order combination, they chose Quiney over everyone else

Can i say some thing

Watson said even before the series that he is going to bat at 4 and Punter will bat his fav spot no 3
and Michael Clake will be at his best position no 5

So obviously there is no need to bring in Quiney because Watson will be at 4 and they could have brought in Faulkner and thus they could have made sure that Punter will be 3,Clarke at 4,Hussey 5,Wade 6 and Faulkner at 7 .

Faulkner is kinda player like Gilchrist who likes to HIT the ball and FAulkner is a sweet timer of the ball

and more over FAulkner can bowl Superbly even better than some quicks in the XI.

The thing they brought in Quiney just because he scored 85 Vs South Africans..

thats only reason they brought in

I just saw that and I agree! But if watson was to bat at 4 then I think Moises Henriques could have come in

But then too They needed a bowler like Watson

Moises isnt a bowler like Watto is

But Faulkner is that kinda guy

If you guys want evidencs to watch FC or Ryobi

He is just another Mitchell Jhonson i feel

M sure at one day he will replace Jhonsons place in Aus Squad

Fardin wrote:

MadMax wrote:

Fardin wrote:

MadMax wrote:

Fardin wrote:Supposingly, you didn't understand the main motto to bring Quiney. Watson is a No.3 or an opener. It was obvious he was going to play at NO.3 this series as Cowan and Warner are there to open the innings. Now Quiney was brought in as he has good skills of an batsmen and can be up the order. At this moment, switching Watson with someone like D. Christian, S. Smith would mean that they would have to disturb the finishing order and hence the top orders would have to go up a spot. In order to main their tail ender and the top order combination, they chose Quiney over everyone else

Can i say some thing

Watson said even before the series that he is going to bat at 4 and Punter will bat his fav spot no 3
and Michael Clake will be at his best position no 5

So obviously there is no need to bring in Quiney because Watson will be at 4 and they could have brought in Faulkner and thus they could have made sure that Punter will be 3,Clarke at 4,Hussey 5,Wade 6 and Faulkner at 7 .

Faulkner is kinda player like Gilchrist who likes to HIT the ball and FAulkner is a sweet timer of the ball

and more over FAulkner can bowl Superbly even better than some quicks in the XI.

The thing they brought in Quiney just because he scored 85 Vs South Africans..

thats only reason they brought in

I just saw that and I agree! But if watson was to bat at 4 then I think Moises Henriques could have come in

But then too They needed a bowler like Watson

Moises isnt a bowler like Watto is

But Faulkner is that kinda guy

If you guys want evidencs to watch FC or Ryobi

He is just another Mitchell Jhonson i feel

M sure at one day he will replace Jhonsons place in Aus Squad

Faulkner is good I agree.. But the thing is Faulkner doesn't perform in big stage unfortunately and about Moises, he is a good striker of the ball and he picks important wicket. A better choice

Fardin wrote:Yea true but how about this! Faulkner doesn't have much space and his ball goes out from the batsmen and its easier for them to hit. Once he develops the inswinger, he can definately be made into a bowling allrounder and replace a lot fo guys

MadMax wrote:

Fardin wrote:Yea true but how about this! Faulkner doesn't have much space and his ball goes out from the batsmen and its easier for them to hit. Once he develops the inswinger, he can definately be made into a bowling allrounder and replace a lot fo guys

Well did u saw Ind vs Aus t20 match or even NSW vs Tas RYOBI one day match ?

He does bowl touch above 140
and he can swing ball both ways thats what makes me to fight like this

He is just like Zak ..has that pace and swing both ways

That makes him soo special

He has the capability to bat as well

BIG HITTER OF THE CRICKET BALL as the Tasmanians known for.

and ofcourse he is the right choice to replace Watto

So obviously there is no need to bring in Quiney because Watson will be
at 4 and they could have brought in Faulkner and thus they could have
made sure that Punter will be 3,Clarke at 4,Hussey 5,Wade 6 and Faulkner
at 7

Faulkner comes in at 7 at that time all Bowlers would be little tired
off and So Faulkner can play his Natural Hitting game..But if Moises
comes into team he has to bat at 4 because Punter Moves to 3 and
everyone knnows that Clarke is Superb when he comes out at no 5..

Viresh wrote:

So obviously there is no need to bring in Quiney because Watson will be
at 4 and they could have brought in Faulkner and thus they could have
made sure that Punter will be 3,Clarke at 4,Hussey 5,Wade 6 and Faulkner
at 7

You said Clarke is superb at 5 then why he shuld he bat 4?

Proof :

Faulkner comes in at 7 at that time all Bowlers would be little tired
off and So Faulkner can play his Natural Hitting game..But if Moises
comes into team he has to bat at 4 because Punter Moves to 3 and
everyone knnows that Clarke is Superb when he comes out at no 5..

Inclusion of Faulkner in the team would have weakened OZ batting...!

Fardin wrote:

MadMax wrote:

Fardin wrote:Yea true but how about this! Faulkner doesn't have much space and his ball goes out from the batsmen and its easier for them to hit. Once he develops the inswinger, he can definately be made into a bowling allrounder and replace a lot fo guys

Well did u saw Ind vs Aus t20 match or even NSW vs Tas RYOBI one day match ?

He does bowl touch above 140
and he can swing ball both ways thats what makes me to fight like this

He is just like Zak ..has that pace and swing both ways

That makes him soo special

He has the capability to bat as well

BIG HITTER OF THE CRICKET BALL as the Tasmanians known for.

and ofcourse he is the right choice to replace Watto

He might be the right choice but he can't bat at No.4 though which Smith, Quiney, Or Moises can

Viresh wrote:

So obviously there is no need to bring in Quiney because Watson will be
at 4 and they could have brought in Faulkner and thus they could have
made sure that Punter will be 3,Clarke at 4,Hussey 5,Wade 6 and Faulkner
at 7

You said Clarke is superb at 5 then why he shuld he bat 4?

Proof :

Faulkner comes in at 7 at that time all Bowlers would be little tired
off and So Faulkner can play his Natural Hitting game..But if Moises
comes into team he has to bat at 4 because Punter Moves to 3 and
everyone knnows that Clarke is Superb when he comes out at no 5..

of course i said Clarke's best position is at 5 because he comes it at a position which was made famous by VVS

He is just like a Saviour as he did today

and i dont think so that it would have made weak because Hussey comes to bat at 5 which he used to do before and Clarke can bat at 4 of even 3

He comes at 3 IN ODI some times and there are instances that he also opened the innings.



Inclusion of Faulkner in the team would have weakened OZ batting...!

MadMax wrote:

Fardin wrote:

MadMax wrote:

Fardin wrote:Yea true but how about this! Faulkner doesn't have much space and his ball goes out from the batsmen and its easier for them to hit. Once he develops the inswinger, he can definately be made into a bowling allrounder and replace a lot fo guys

Well did u saw Ind vs Aus t20 match or even NSW vs Tas RYOBI one day match ?

He does bowl touch above 140
and he can swing ball both ways thats what makes me to fight like this

He is just like Zak ..has that pace and swing both ways

That makes him soo special

He has the capability to bat as well

BIG HITTER OF THE CRICKET BALL as the Tasmanians known for.

and ofcourse he is the right choice to replace Watto

He might be the right choice but he can't bat at No.4 though which Smith, Quiney, Or Moises can

Of course why not he can

He even bats at no 4 in Ryobi One day cup for Tasmania

He is just like a Saviour and he scored two of his fifties batting at no 3 and one fifty at no 5

So not a bad choice
he bats at no 6 because Tasmania have Luke Butterworth as another bowling all rounder

at present they dont need who can bat at no 4 they need some one who can bowl as good as watson and bat a quite well as well

Fardin wrote:

Viresh wrote:

So obviously there is no need to bring in Quiney because Watson will be
at 4 and they could have brought in Faulkner and thus they could have
made sure that Punter will be 3,Clarke at 4,Hussey 5,Wade 6 and Faulkner
at 7

You said Clarke is superb at 5 then why he shuld he bat 4?

Proof :

Faulkner comes in at 7 at that time all Bowlers would be little tired
off and So Faulkner can play his Natural Hitting game..But if Moises
comes into team he has to bat at 4 because Punter Moves to 3 and
everyone knnows that Clarke is Superb when he comes out at no 5..

Inclusion of Faulkner in the team would have weakened OZ batting...!

I mentioned that already

MadMax wrote:

Fardin wrote:

Viresh wrote:

So obviously there is no need to bring in Quiney because Watson will be
at 4 and they could have brought in Faulkner and thus they could have
made sure that Punter will be 3,Clarke at 4,Hussey 5,Wade 6 and Faulkner
at 7

You said Clarke is superb at 5 then why he shuld he bat 4?

Proof :

Faulkner comes in at 7 at that time all Bowlers would be little tired
off and So Faulkner can play his Natural Hitting game..But if Moises
comes into team he has to bat at 4 because Punter Moves to 3 and
everyone knnows that Clarke is Superb when he comes out at no 5..

Inclusion of Faulkner in the team would have weakened OZ batting...!

I mentioned that already

dont see that at position they bat see that how they can BAT.

Position isnt matters much for players like Dravid,Clarke,Punter,Gilcrhist

where ever they are THEY PLAY THEIR NATURAL GAME..

its in their batting how they perform not at which position they play

Fardin wrote:

MadMax wrote:

Fardin wrote:

MadMax wrote:

Fardin wrote:Yea true but how about this! Faulkner doesn't have much space and his ball goes out from the batsmen and its easier for them to hit. Once he develops the inswinger, he can definately be made into a bowling allrounder and replace a lot fo guys

Well did u saw Ind vs Aus t20 match or even NSW vs Tas RYOBI one day match ?

He does bowl touch above 140
and he can swing ball both ways thats what makes me to fight like this

He is just like Zak ..has that pace and swing both ways

That makes him soo special

He has the capability to bat as well

BIG HITTER OF THE CRICKET BALL as the Tasmanians known for.

and ofcourse he is the right choice to replace Watto

He might be the right choice but he can't bat at No.4 though which Smith, Quiney, Or Moises can

Of course why not he can

He even bats at no 4 in Ryobi One day cup for Tasmania

He is just like a Saviour and he scored two of his fifties batting at no 3 and one fifty at no 5

So not a bad choice
he bats at no 6 because Tasmania have Luke Butterworth as another bowling all rounder

at present they dont need who can bat at no 4 they need some one who can bowl as good as watson and bat a quite well as well

You just said Clarke can bat at 5 so why disturb him and move him to 4 if thats his best spot? Also thats domestic cricket, he can never bat at no.4 in International cricket for sure. Aussies would be disgraced

MadMax wrote:

Fardin wrote:

MadMax wrote:

Fardin wrote:

MadMax wrote:

Fardin wrote:Yea true but how about this! Faulkner doesn't have much space and his ball goes out from the batsmen and its easier for them to hit. Once he develops the inswinger, he can definately be made into a bowling allrounder and replace a lot fo guys

Well did u saw Ind vs Aus t20 match or even NSW vs Tas RYOBI one day match ?

He does bowl touch above 140
and he can swing ball both ways thats what makes me to fight like this

He is just like Zak ..has that pace and swing both ways

That makes him soo special

He has the capability to bat as well

BIG HITTER OF THE CRICKET BALL as the Tasmanians known for.

and ofcourse he is the right choice to replace Watto

He might be the right choice but he can't bat at No.4 though which Smith, Quiney, Or Moises can

Of course why not he can

He even bats at no 4 in Ryobi One day cup for Tasmania

He is just like a Saviour and he scored two of his fifties batting at no 3 and one fifty at no 5

So not a bad choice
he bats at no 6 because Tasmania have Luke Butterworth as another bowling all rounder

at present they dont need who can bat at no 4 they need some one who can bowl as good as watson and bat a quite well as well

You just said Clarke can bat at 5 so why disturb him and move him to 4 if thats his best spot? Also thats domestic cricket, he can never bat at no.4 in International cricket for sure. Aussies would be disgraced

lol
for team requirements there is a need to change the order

Punter's best spot is 3 but he bats at 4 today ? because of Teams Requirements

being a captain skipping up one Position isnt much as far as i know

and more over
Aussies would be disgraced for what ?

Promoting Faulkner to 4 ? OH LOL ..then what does Moises would have done ?

he too would have batted at 4 ..

and mind you moises bats at 5/6 in Domestic Ciruit or else as an opener in T20

so if he moves up the order

wont be aussies be disgraced ?

Fardin wrote:

MadMax wrote:

Fardin wrote:

Viresh wrote:

So obviously there is no need to bring in Quiney because Watson will be
at 4 and they could have brought in Faulkner and thus they could have
made sure that Punter will be 3,Clarke at 4,Hussey 5,Wade 6 and Faulkner
at 7

You said Clarke is superb at 5 then why he shuld he bat 4?

Proof :

Faulkner comes in at 7 at that time all Bowlers would be little tired
off and So Faulkner can play his Natural Hitting game..But if Moises
comes into team he has to bat at 4 because Punter Moves to 3 and
everyone knnows that Clarke is Superb when he comes out at no 5..

Inclusion of Faulkner in the team would have weakened OZ batting...!

I mentioned that already

dont see that at position they bat see that how they can BAT.

Position isnt matters much for players like Dravid,Clarke,Punter,Gilcrhist

where ever they are THEY PLAY THEIR NATURAL GAME..

its in their batting how they perform not at which position they play

How do you know that Clarke won't score 0's if he is moved up the order?

Throw Me Out wrote:WINNER WILL BE DECIDED AT NIGHT

Fardin wrote:

MadMax wrote:

Fardin wrote:

MadMax wrote:

Fardin wrote:

MadMax wrote:

Fardin wrote:Yea true but how about this! Faulkner doesn't have much space and his ball goes out from the batsmen and its easier for them to hit. Once he develops the inswinger, he can definately be made into a bowling allrounder and replace a lot fo guys

Well did u saw Ind vs Aus t20 match or even NSW vs Tas RYOBI one day match ?

He does bowl touch above 140
and he can swing ball both ways thats what makes me to fight like this

He is just like Zak ..has that pace and swing both ways

That makes him soo special

He has the capability to bat as well

BIG HITTER OF THE CRICKET BALL as the Tasmanians known for.

and ofcourse he is the right choice to replace Watto

He might be the right choice but he can't bat at No.4 though which Smith, Quiney, Or Moises can

Of course why not he can

He even bats at no 4 in Ryobi One day cup for Tasmania

He is just like a Saviour and he scored two of his fifties batting at no 3 and one fifty at no 5

So not a bad choice
he bats at no 6 because Tasmania have Luke Butterworth as another bowling all rounder

at present they dont need who can bat at no 4 they need some one who can bowl as good as watson and bat a quite well as well

You just said Clarke can bat at 5 so why disturb him and move him to 4 if thats his best spot? Also thats domestic cricket, he can never bat at no.4 in International cricket for sure. Aussies would be disgraced

lol
for team requirements there is a need to change the order

Punter's best spot is 3 but he bats at 4 today ? because of Teams Requirements

being a captain skipping up one Position isnt much as far as i know

and more over
Aussies would be disgraced for what ?

Promoting Faulkner to 4 ? OH LOL ..then what does Moises would have done ?

he too would have batted at 4 ..

and mind you moises bats at 5/6 in Domestic Ciruit or else as an opener in T20

so if he moves up the order

wont be aussies be disgraced ?

Not really because Moises bats up the order!

Viresh wrote:U kidding me ? :mother:

Faulkner bats an no 3 ?

Scorecard plz..