Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
I didn't say he hasn't broke through, I'm saying they quite clearly favour Cox, they have other lads who can keep wicket if for whatever reason Cox missed a few games, I just think there's very little need to have Swindells on the books as well
Doesn't seem that arsed about keeping wicket......
As I said if Cox is out Handscomb or Hill are more than capable of standing in, the fact we've done that rather than bring Swindells in speaks volumes, despite you saying Handscomb doesn't want to do it
Regardless, if you hadn't heard of him and saw we'd actually paid to get him out of his current job rather then plonk for an out of work manager, it shows a bit more ambition
He kept wicket for Victoria a few months ago, I'm sure if required through necessity he'd do it, plus there's Hill. I'm sure he's not on a huge amount, but just seems a bit of a waste of money
Not going to ever happen, but along with Lisci, Vasco Matos looks superb, got Santa Clara promoted then finished 5th in the top flight and qualified for the Conference League
New contract to not play, no thanks. If Handscomb comes back we have him and Hill also capable of stepping in if Cox gets injured. Weirdly for all the criticism of the club losing money, you seem very happy for us to pay Swindells when he isn't really needed.