A good signing? Maybe. Does this mean Cole is leaving? Maybe. Does this mean Sullivan and Gold have no intention of spending MONEY on Long or Ngog? Probably. Why would they need to maintain these rumours now that the season ticket market has probably been exploited to the full?
Gold promised "at least one more signing". Well at least we have Carew.
Why were Sullivan and Gold attracted to him? He is on a free. Why was Doctor Evil attracted to him? Well stick bolts in his neck and who does he look like?
19 comments:
Sadly looks like Cole's going then...
Should just flog Hines or Pique
Now sell off Parker, Cole and possibly Green and it is mission accomplished! We buy cheap and salaries are down to a level that would quarantee the Davids a handsome profit whatever happens. Moreover, Sam has his Kevin Davies replacement so as to complete his "Bolton in disguise" agenda.
My only hope is that despite being ugly, it will work the first time of asking and take us back to the Premier League.
Stani, I dont think Cole leaving is a definite by any means because he doesnt seem to WANT to go. If so, he would have gone to Stoke, right? And what other team wants him that he would feel is a step up? QPR? Doubt it. CC just might be clever enough to know that isnt necessarily a step up. I realize that Carew and Cole are not well suited to play together, but again I am willing to give Sam the benefit of the doubt here.
If Cole were to leave it would be in January when prices are inflated and Sam has seen what works and what doesnt. SuGoBrat may be slashing and burning on many fronts, but getting back to the EPL is now their mission. If money means so much to them, then relegation must be driving them batty. And they will do whats needed to refill their wallets.
Oh, one more thng. Stani and HF should be happy to hear that one of my customers is a cricket freak and we had a nice long chat the other day. Definitely graduated form total moron to useful student.
very very good signing. The only striker we have who can head a ball with conviction. Much like when we signed Brian Deane when we was last relegated but this man has a greater pedigree. Very pleased no matter what slant is put on it free or not the man last went for 5 mil 3 years ago.
Glad to hear it Dave. Now trying watching some cricket on TV, see if it all begins to fall into place.
Bopara in Stani. Now we will see what he is made of!
Dave,
Oh no, I wouldn't mind a Cole Carew pairing at all. Could you imagine Barrera and Taylor delivering to them two? They'd cause havoc. Then Collison and Nolan behind....that's mid-table prem quality right there, no doubt.
I just feel they may use it as a excuse to shift Cole.
Has your customer told you about the LBW laws? What did you talk about exactly?
Im still going to give you a call, HF.
And if it does work first time Sav, then what?
Without massive investment it'll still be as UGLY as it is now! It may be in our best interest to watch each coming fixture with one eye shut and a hand over our other one. Hang on, did I just say massive investment..Lol..sorry guys, I got confused for a minute there with all this talk of fantasy football waftin' around.
If winning ugly and cheap gets us up, then as sad as it undoubtedly is, so be it! Though the fact that it make's some people happy leads me to wonder if they are the original West Ham UNITED fans or perhaps the new hybrid West Ham WANDERERS supporters? "The west Ham way" has not always been the winning way but it's the way the REAL fans liked it. This 'new era' is all wrong! It might be the medicine..but it's a bloody long way short of the cure!
I'm missing a comment HF.
They'll just drop at the first instance HF
No comment in pending and none in Spam Stani.
I'm surprised Bopara was picked in the first place!
Sorry for the delay Stani. I was at my niece's birthday party all day. Just got back
We went over some basics, just to be sure I got the concepts right. The fascinating TIMING involved in declaring. How many runs is enough to feel safe to....oh boy, I am forgetting my lingo....to let your opponent bat their second inning right away. Follow on? Sorry. And to hear him say in plain english that a team cannot win without collecting 20 wickets was clarifying to a newbie.
But it was fascinating. Really. I feel like I can read about or see a report on Sky Sports ( on three times per day here ) and understand it to a basic degree. And I can see how the game can be utterly addictive.
Very funny, Dave! We could take this show on the road!
I gotta go to bed. 8am kickoff for me.
Here we go.....
It's a bit more complicated than that Dave. You can win without taking twenty wickets because of declarations. A team can declare their first innings and still lose! And it has happened more often than you would imagine!
So, for example, Australia are playing England. England are all out in their first innings for 150. Australia then bat and pile up 550 for the loss of just 3 wickets. Rain is threatened on the last day, so to be sure of enough time to bowl England out a second time, the Australians declare and England bat again. It doesn't rain, and England score 550 in their second innings. Australia now come out to bat needing 151 to win the game and England bowl them out for 130. England win by 20 runs!
Now in that example, England lose 20 wickets in the game and WIN, whilst Australia lose just 13 wickets in the game and LOSE!
By the way, it is 6.59 am over here as I type this. I am awake because my guts are churning in excitement, anticipation and dread. A new season is upon us and I can't sleep!
No worries Dave.
The notion of having to take 20 wickets to win a Test match isn't completely false (so don't worry), and as HF has shown, neither is it completely true either. It's often repeated by pundits that you need to take 20 wickets to win a Test. Whilst this may be the case in some games, the phrase is not to be taken in the literal sense. What they're basically saying is that you need good attacking bowlers that can take wickets (rather than just containing or economic bowlers who do not give away many runs) to win games (taking every wicket is not necessary).
If games run their natural course (i.e, no declarations, forfeitures etc), then yes, you have to take 20 wickets to win.
You'll get used to these....what shall we call them...idioms and intricacies in time. I mean, there are some rules even I don't know. You're doing well though ;)
Yep, it's appeared HF. Either that or I missed it when scrolling.
Why are you surprised? He's a classy player. Just needs to be given a bit of faith, the kind afforded to Cook...still afforded to Cook I might add, as he's gone on a slump again.
You reckon they're gonna put him at 3 though, or tell Bell to carry on there as he did in the other innings? There'll be too much unfair pressure for Ravi to come straight in at 3, in my opinion.
Bell will bat at 3. You keep going on about Cook. He is set to break every record in the book! Yes he has had a couple of bad tests now but he will score a century before this series is over. Bopara? I think you are blinded by the fact that he is an Asian cricketer from Newham. I'd love to see him succeed but I don't expect him to deliver on the biggest stage against the best bowling attacks.
I keep going on about Cook because it's a clear example of favouritism. Others like Bopara, Bell, Shah, Prior had to work much harder than this guy. And then to make him captain...come on HF, it's obvious.
I think you're blinded by the fact that you think I support him just because he is Asian! Their strange decision to go Morgan over him certainly backfired don't you think?
With regards to Cook, I well remember Bothan donning a shirt reading, "Form is temporary, class is permanent" when he was dropped in favour of Capel. England identified Cook very early and have stuck with him when he has had form dips for the very good reason that the guy oozes class. Yes he is being done LBW again which suggests a technical flaw but he has sorted it before and he will sort it again.
Cook is not alone in being "persisted with". Bell has had his critics in the past. Collingwood was retained too. You might argue that Pietersen was allowed lots of chances too. And people said Prior wasn't worth his place in the team at one stage!
You are definitely suggesting some sort of prejudice with regards to Bopara. The truth is, his test scores have not been great. An average of 33 from 10 tests is pretty pathetic for a front line batsman in the modern game, especially when you allow for the fact that he scored 3 centuries early doors on batsman friendly wickets. Take out those big scores and his average would see him batting at 9 in the current England team!
I think he is lucky to be in the team. I would have gone with the Leicester kid personally or would have played 5 bowlers. I suspect Bopara is an ugly compromise, selected because he can turn his arm over, like Trott, for 5 or 6 overs. The trouble is, Trott is a run machine at test level and Bopara is not.
But I hope he proves me wrong!
LOL BothaM of course. Bad typo!
That makes perfect sense, actually. Thanks.
Post a Comment