[Rich the Great]

My team...

Robinson
Neville Ferdinand Terry A. Cole
Beckham Lampard Gerrard King/Wright-Phillips (Depending on the situation)
Rooney Owen

Substitutes
Kirkland, Campbell, Young, Downing, J. Cole, Bent, Defoe.

[Rich the Great]

Downing isn't that experienced at the international level, would be quite a risk of playing him before someone more experienced and just as capable.

[Valgard]

Cricket is a great sport hard to understand when you first start but stick with it and it becomes a great game. i never got into baseball went to a game in san francisco and have never been so bored in all my life nothing happened at least in cricket there is always something going on. In baseball they stood around for so long doing nothing. Maybe it is because I didn't understand what was supposed to be happening that I hated it, but since then I have never been able to enjoy it.

Cricket is a game for people who love strange rules the english cricket teams rules are incredibly complecated I mean so much more so than is needed thanks to the victorians.

Also rugby is the greatest game ever created, Role on England vs Scotland six nation sin murrayfield (yey).

[garden_rake]

hhhm but this season he hasnt been good enough has he? although i do think he has a lot of potential, but the problem is anyone with half a left foot looks good on englands left because theres no-one else - nick barmby, jason wilcox!? Like yourself i would give him as many of the remaining friendlies to really get himself into the team and by next summer england could have two of the best young wingers around (wp on the right).

i agree with the holding midfielder (anyone who's played champ manager knows how important they are ) but on current form id put carrick in there ahead of parker and then king. I cant understand why sven has king as his apparent first choice def mid - he's a good defender yes but just because he cant get a game at centre half doesnt mean he should stick him in somewhere else - sven's done that far too much with the midfield if you ask me....

and as for lurch (crouch) id definately have him on the bench. His touch isnt as poor as the media hype assures us it is, and if you say 'he wouldnt get into the team if he wasnt 70ft tall'...... well he is 70 ft tall and because of that he does give the team something else - the plan 'B' if you will - which is essential if you're going to win a big tourney......

...... and thats why niall quinn should still be playing for ireland!!

[garden_rake]

Brick Tamland said:

I agree with the sentiments about King, it's the same baffling reason he picks Alan Smith as a bloody DM (and it's not champ man, it's football man 2006 now ) even Roy Keane knows the boy can't play there until he learns the trade so how he can be in a WC squad is beyond me. Carrick definitely should start if not for his display against Arsenal alone.

Yes Crouch is an excellent plan B but he doesn't win headers! being 17ft tall is all well and good but if the defence is winning headers against you then there is something wrong. I saw him in the flesh against Austria and he was diabolical, christ he even tried an overhead kick. Hello. You are huge. Try heading the ball. He's only good for the last 20mins of a match and England just play continuous high balls into the box hoping he'll get a knock down or actually score.

How many goals has he got this season? None isn't it...

yeah but he was injured for a fair bit at the beginning of the season, and he's at a new club etc so i give him the benefit of the doubt so far, i do think he'll start scoring soon, and his assists will increase the more he plays with someone as well, as they learn to play off him. as for the headers (he does win some ) its probably a little unfair to expect him to win EVERY header, the majority yes but not all, but i think the main problem is that he's trying to overcompensate for his height by playing deep and showing critics what he can do with the ball at his feet, which although isnt absolutely nothing, its still not going to be anything better than a championship striker at best. When he gains some experience and realises he should play to his strengths i do think he could be a valuable member of the squad - if not the team.

As for smithy (or Smiffy ) i see potential there as a def mid, especially from the MOM performance against chelski. Keano said what he said to get a certain reaction, as he always does, and look what happened..... remember this is his first season in a new position - after a full season of playing and training in a position, his positional sense (which is what he's mainly lacking) will improve an awful lot - add to that his committment/desire/passion, his ability to tackle and his leftover skills as a forward i think he could do a good job there..... although i agree that the world cup would be too soon and carrick and parker should be there first.

And as for FM 2006 - what a load of (insert very bad swear word).... its nothing more than a patch for 2005 and even then its not that different at all. I liked FM2005 a lot but there was so much room to improve it just looks like they couldnt be (insert milder swear word)

[cruz1701]

Sonnyboy said:

Thanks guys.

Oh, and Cruz -- A fastball thrown by the hardest throwers (at the professional level) can exceed 100 mph, though 80's-low 90's is most common. I don't know how to convert that to km/h. Well 100km/h ~ 60mph. So maybe up to 160-170 km/h? But because of the construction of the ball, it's also possible to make it curve, wobble, or dip in mid flight, and a pitcher who throws all fastballs is just serving up home runs. I take it the ball in cricket is harder than a baseball, but the sucker's still pretty hard.

I'm English, most metric units I don't get either, although some US units are iffy too, slugs?

Anywho the balls are made as follows according to a website I found:

Baseball: A baseball is made up of 4 main layers. At the center of the ball is a rubber core. Around the core is a layer of cork. Then twine is wrapped around the core. Over the twine is stitched a layer of leather that makes up the cover of the ball.

Cricket Ball: the cricket ball itself, made of cork wound with string, covered with leather.

So basically there isn't a world of difference they are both a lot harder than say a tennis ball.

Have you ever seen a cricket ball (I don't mean that in a rude way)?

http://www.saathee.c...cket%20ball.jpg

The stitching around the edge makes for extremly complicated aerodynamics and compared to a cricket ball a baseball never seems to move that much, but again as much of this is due to the impact of the ground as anything, think a cross between snooker and baseball for the variation in flight path. You can go for outright power (95mph ish) or ridiculous spin (50mph) aka Warne, or somewhere inbetween (80mph) i.e. Flintoff.

[Tiste Simeon]

Sonnyboy said:

Thanks guys.

Oh, and Cruz -- A fastball thrown by the hardest throwers (at the professional level) can exceed 100 mph, though 80's-low 90's is most common. I don't know how to convert that to km/h. Well 100km/h ~ 60mph. So maybe up to 160-170 km/h? But because of the construction of the ball, it's also possible to make it curve, wobble, or dip in mid flight, and a pitcher who throws all fastballs is just serving up home runs. I take it the ball in cricket is harder than a baseball, but the sucker's still pretty hard.

Kolon of the Angels being one of the best pitchers in the league - best as in he can completely surprise a batter by suddenly throwing fast or slow etc.

[Tiste Simeon]

I think people are discounting Beckham too much as well... He could still pull a few surprises. And you know he is going to be on every start up anyway...

[cruz1701]

Brick Tamland said:

Yes but the ball doesn't reach the batsmen at 90mph does it? I thought, from watching the Ashes coverage this year, the ball leaves the bowler's hand at 90mph, hits the wicket at 70+mph and finally arrives at the batsman round about 60-70mph. Which is still bloody quick obviously!

Thought old Freddie could bang it round about the 95mph mark? Is Acktar still the fastest bowler in the world?

I thought Freddie wasn't a super fast bowler, his fastest is 89mph and averages at 80 ish, or did when I watched over the summer.

Do you really think in under 20m a ball is going to slow down by 20mph? Seems a little excessive to me, especially given how little time it then takes to get the the boundary if the wicket keeper misses it.

[caladanbrood]

It does slow down by that much, yeah. The used Hawkeye to proove it.