Why in the world isn't my name considered for OD representative selection? I'm gun as. I'm better than Armstrong and just as good as Thornton IMO....
Because you scored all your runs last season when the attacks were weaker due to rep players missing games. You've been better in the last couple of games, admittedly, but you're yet to convince that you can do it consistently against good bowling attacks.
One fifty in one game != consistency If you wanted to be in rep calculations you needed to keep doing what you did last season again this season. Instead what you did was fail for three games (and not only fail, but spectacularly fail and waste a heap of balls before throwing your wicket away) and then make three fifties which you didn't convert (which is a bit of a sin as an opener who doesn't score particularly quickly). You're still in the frame but you're down the list. Others above you have done more.
According to that mole article, people that have done less than I have have been mentioned, whereas I didn't even get a mention. Now, I know that people which have had consistent representative records should be first picked, but OD cricket is a completely different ball game. Would people be picked because of their reputation over form? Probably, but they've never played OD rep cricket. So I should at least be in the frame.
Me and Burridge have pretty much reversed OD careers, I failed against shit and now I'm dominating full strength teams. Am I still shit at OD, ****?
The thing about that Mole article is, though, I'm pretty sure the info that sparked it came from a few rounds ago. This part: .. suggests that it was written just after Round 4. There's also the fact that I haven't spoken to anyone on MSN about the team since just before Round 4, so there's no way anyone can have accurate info based on anything that happened after that. Since that time you've hit three fifties in a row.
