Our likely bowling lineup: Bullpitt, Choco, Tyson, Wilson, Taylor. Which is better than any attack ever fielded, even in rep cricket.
How I see it.... Gamblers (test lineup + Taylor. Pretty obvious who's the best lineup really) Stingrays (Farnsworth, Weaver and King are 3 handy bowlers) Ravens (no real stars but no weak links either) Vipers (Eggman is a gun) Cyclones (lack a star, overall alright though) Crusaders (Wilkinson, Kovas and Rocker are good, but they are still meh) Pumas (Hunt looks like the only **** that can take wickets) Stickies (no guns and seam bowling is dire)
He's been at the Vipers and Cyclones, and the Ravens won't sign him due to his sluttiness. Not sure about the Stickies, but he never goes to clubs that need him.
Taylor would be a better bowler than Speirz at test level probably. Also Taylor >>> Speirz at FC level.
Haha there's no way Speirz is a better bowler than Taylor at any level tbh. The Gamblers attack, assuming they aren't bullshitting about who they're signing, will be better than the Test bowling attack.
Yeah, but look at how much he's bowled. But whatever, apparently being a specialist bowler is a disadvantage, so there.
9 wickets in 6 games isn't a great sample size though, nor particularly influential barring one innings where he took 5.
