His stats equal his performance. 45 runs from our top order opening batsman who is, presumably, getting a very handsome salary is - ABYSMAL.Nick_Glam wrote: ↑Sat Sep 15, 2018 4:28 amSo that's a no I presume.
Obviously Cook needs to score more runs, but you seem to be suggesting that a player can be judged solely on stats from two games without even watching them? What I actually question most though is that you described his performances in both games as "abysmal". Not his stats, but his performances.
Now having actually watched the Gloucester game, I would say that definitely wasn't an "abysmal" performance. The other top order batsmen were all dismissed before him and were lucky to survive as long as they did in some cases. Cook's performance was at least that of a professional cricketer and he was dismissed twice by a very good bowler in difficult conditions. Disappointing, but hardly abysmal.
Anyway, as others have mentioned it is presumably with next season in mind that he is here. And it may be that it doesn't work out, but he is exactly the kind of signing that the club need to be making for next year. Something tells me that if they'd stuck solely with the struggling youngsters, they would be getting at least as much criticism.
Scoring a " classy " 20 just doesn't cut it for me. I'd rather he ground out 21.
I am SO tired of excuses being made for the players who are constantly underachieving, viz, he was " unlucky ", etc.
Mercifully no one has come out with, well, the grass was too long, too short, too green.
Oh, and those nasty bowlers, they just kept on bowling, too straight, too fast, and don't get me started on those dreadful fielders who WOULD insist on catching those balls that we hit so temptingly in the air towards them.
Just HOW " unlucky " can a team be ?
As you can see, or perhaps you can't, I just don't take it seriously.