who says these players could not be great with grooming?

[it is a scourge that we've lost the talent we've had but these guys can learn to play cricket - better if they start with less formidable foe - and with a bit of experience around them for guidance but...]

our batting was ALWAYS fragile - even when campbell, goodwin, johnson and flower were in the team we failed to hit 90 to win a test against WI (i was heartbroken) - in truth those guys i expected from and they often failed to deliver and with the loss of johnson and goodwin the batting simply never looked competitive again - despite some decent performances. Saying that, however, a new bunch were draughted in : taibu, price, ervine and of course streak's batting had improved immensely through exposure...and a team described exactly as this one is (with less accuracy) was suddenly being commended for their efforts in OZ and an unlucky result against WI. of course there are some stark differences - age (and therefore experience) being obvious - which lend weight to the calls for relegation...if that happens i'll accept it readily. if not - i will support the promise i see:

(batting)
chibhabha 14 matches with a 28 average vs. collingwood after 14 had 29

taylor after 49 had 30 ave vs. G. jones after the same has 25

------------------
(bowling)
M'pariwa after 12 had 22 wkts@ 24ave vs. Mahmood has 12 wkts @ 46 ave

Ireland after 18 has 25 @ 31 vs. plunkett after 16 has 16 @ 45



just a bit of fun for greg - you started it