Let's Talk Cricket
Sep 13th 2005, 10:04 am
#31
da Bonehead
Joined: Jan 2004
Location: Lion in da jungle
Posts: 22,767
Re: Let's Talk Cricket
ASH-tishoo.
Beg pardon
Beg pardon
Sep 13th 2005, 10:08 am
#32
Proudly Deplorable
Joined: May 2003
Location: Alloha snack bar
Posts: 24,246
Re: Let's Talk Cricket
Originally Posted by Bix
ASH-tishoo.
Beg pardon
Beg pardon
FantASHtic!.
Sep 13th 2005, 10:12 am
#33
da Bonehead
Joined: Jan 2004
Location: Lion in da jungle
Posts: 22,767
Re: Let's Talk Cricket
When is Ash Tuesday ? Or have we got two now ? 
Dec 18th 2006, 5:44 am
#34
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Jun 2003
Location: Sydney beachside
Posts: 3,505
Re: Let's Talk Cricket
Well, it's been 15 months - shortest Ashes tenure in history - anyone like to talk cricket now?
Dec 18th 2006, 6:18 am
#35
Fighting my corner
Joined: Aug 2005
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 11,948
Re: Let's Talk Cricket
I like this one, from last year:
Famous last words.
Originally Posted by diddy
As for England, bloody brilliant, they deserved it and we'll do again down under next year.
Langer, Hayden, Martyn, Katich, McGrath, Gillespie, Warney are either coming to the end of their careers or aren't good enough. Where's the Aussie players gonna come from in the future?
Langer, Hayden, Martyn, Katich, McGrath, Gillespie, Warney are either coming to the end of their careers or aren't good enough. Where's the Aussie players gonna come from in the future?
Dec 18th 2006, 9:03 am
#36
Banned
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 27
Re: Let's Talk Cricket
Originally Posted by Vash the Stampede
I like this one, from last year:
Famous last words.
Famous last words.
Let's have a look at dad's army though, seriously. Do you think that Langer deserves his spot? Maybe he should of retired after his head knock, Hayden is still a class player but his class is now becoming further and further apart. Martyn, well.........
McGrath will not be touring to defend the Ashes in England and wales and warne will probably retire after the World cup next year.On the plus side for Australia is Clark, actually both Clark and Clarke.
Australia will miss Warne and McGrath badly though, they will be much more beatable without them.
Roll on the dead rubber Boxing day.
Dec 18th 2006, 9:45 am
#37
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Nov 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 7,949
Re: Let's Talk Cricket
Originally Posted by Ellesse
Let's have a look at dad's army though, seriously. Do you think that Langer deserves his spot? Maybe he should of retired after his head knock, Hayden is still a class player but his class is now becoming further and further apart. Martyn, well......... McGrath will not be touring to defend the Ashes in England and wales and warne will probably retire after the World cup next year.
On the plus side for Australia is Clark, actually both Clark and Clarke.
Australia will miss Warne and McGrath badly though, they will be much more beatable without them.
Roll on the dead rubber Boxing day.
McGrath will not be touring to defend the Ashes in England and wales and warne will probably retire after the World cup next year.On the plus side for Australia is Clark, actually both Clark and Clarke.
Australia will miss Warne and McGrath badly though, they will be much more beatable without them.
Roll on the dead rubber Boxing day.
Warne and McGrath will be hard acts to follow but Stewie McGill has a better test average than Warnie and Stuart Clarke has emerged to take McGrath's place. Tait and Johnson wait in the wings as does Jaques to come in as an opener. Don't think new excellent players won't be introduced into the team.In all the hullabaloo last year it must be remembered how close England were to losing the Ashes in 2005. I'd suggest a few millimetres because that's what it was - Jones' outstretched glove just catching Kasper instead of the ball going to the boundary (unlikely Aussie win became an England win). Australia played badly by their standards the last time and learned from it. They regrouped and have won 13 of the last 14 tests. England have not built on their success. They wallowed too long in self-congratulation, had poor preparation and selection for this series and probably just the South African apart have not shown the bottle or character required.
As ever though I bet England will have a 'sepia approach' of looking back at past triumph rather than looking forward and doing something about it (1966, 2005, Rule Britannia, Jerusalem, Swing Low etc) and will make excuses - if only Michael wasn't injured and captain, if only Ash had held that catch off Ponting, if only we played Monty from Brissie onwards, if only we stuck with Read instead of Jones, if only Harmy started well etc.
The simple fact remains, they weren't good enough 9 out of the last 10 times!
OzTennis
Last edited by OzTennis; Dec 18th 2006 at 9:48 am.
Dec 18th 2006, 9:48 am
#38
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Nov 2005
Location: at the bottom of a wine glass
Posts: 28,176
Re: Let's Talk Cricket
Originally Posted by OzTennis
The point you are missing is that 'Dad's Army' is good enough to beat the pride of England. Warne and McGrath will be hard acts to follow but Stewie McGill has a better test average than Warnie and Stuart Clarke has emerged to take McGrath's place. Tait and Johnson wait in the wings as does Jaques to come in as an opener. Don't think new excellent players won't be introduced into the team.
In all the hullabaloo last year it must be remembered how close England were to losing the Ashes in 2005. I'd suggest a few millimetres because that's what it was - Jones' outstretched glove just catching Kasper instead of the ball going to the boundary (unlikely Aussie win became an England win). Australia played badly by their standards the last time and learned from it. They regrouped and have won 13 of the last 14 tests. England have not built on their success. They wallowed too long in self-congratulation, had poor preparation and selection for this series and probably just the South African apart have not shown the bottle or character required.
As ever though I bet England will have a 'sepia approach' of looking back at past triumph rather than looking forward and doing something about it (1966, 2005, Rule Britannia, Jerusalem, Swing Low etc) and will make excuses - if only Michael wasn't injured and captain, if only Ash had held that catch off Ponting, if only we played Monty from Brissie onwards, if only we stuck with Read instead of Jones, if only Harmy started well etc.
OzTennis
Warne and McGrath will be hard acts to follow but Stewie McGill has a better test average than Warnie and Stuart Clarke has emerged to take McGrath's place. Tait and Johnson wait in the wings as does Jaques to come in as an opener. Don't think new excellent players won't be introduced into the team.In all the hullabaloo last year it must be remembered how close England were to losing the Ashes in 2005. I'd suggest a few millimetres because that's what it was - Jones' outstretched glove just catching Kasper instead of the ball going to the boundary (unlikely Aussie win became an England win). Australia played badly by their standards the last time and learned from it. They regrouped and have won 13 of the last 14 tests. England have not built on their success. They wallowed too long in self-congratulation, had poor preparation and selection for this series and probably just the South African apart have not shown the bottle or character required.
As ever though I bet England will have a 'sepia approach' of looking back at past triumph rather than looking forward and doing something about it (1966, 2005, Rule Britannia, Jerusalem, Swing Low etc) and will make excuses - if only Michael wasn't injured and captain, if only Ash had held that catch off Ponting, if only we played Monty from Brissie onwards, if only we stuck with Read instead of Jones, if only Harmy started well etc.
OzTennis
You forgot one...if only it had rained
Dec 18th 2006, 10:07 am
#39
Banned
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 27
Re: Let's Talk Cricket
Originally Posted by OzTennis
The point you are missing is that 'Dad's Army' is good enough to beat the pride of England. Warne and McGrath will be hard acts to follow but Stewie McGill has a better test average than Warnie and Stuart Clarke has emerged to take McGrath's place. Tait and Johnson wait in the wings as does Jaques to come in as an opener. Don't think new excellent players won't be introduced into the team.
In all the hullabaloo last year it must be remembered how close England were to losing the Ashes in 2005. I'd suggest a few millimetres because that's what it was - Jones' outstretched glove just catching Kasper instead of the ball going to the boundary (unlikely Aussie win became an England win). Australia played badly by their standards the last time and learned from it. They regrouped and have won 13 of the last 14 tests. England have not built on their success. They wallowed too long in self-congratulation, had poor preparation and selection for this series and probably just the South African apart have not shown the bottle or character required.
As ever though I bet England will have a 'sepia approach' of looking back at past triumph rather than looking forward and doing something about it (1966, 2005, Rule Britannia, Jerusalem, Swing Low etc) and will make excuses - if only Michael wasn't injured and captain, if only Ash had held that catch off Ponting, if only we played Monty from Brissie onwards, if only we stuck with Read instead of Jones, if only Harmy started well etc.
The simple fact remains, they weren't good enough 9 out of the last 10 times!
OzTennis
Warne and McGrath will be hard acts to follow but Stewie McGill has a better test average than Warnie and Stuart Clarke has emerged to take McGrath's place. Tait and Johnson wait in the wings as does Jaques to come in as an opener. Don't think new excellent players won't be introduced into the team.In all the hullabaloo last year it must be remembered how close England were to losing the Ashes in 2005. I'd suggest a few millimetres because that's what it was - Jones' outstretched glove just catching Kasper instead of the ball going to the boundary (unlikely Aussie win became an England win). Australia played badly by their standards the last time and learned from it. They regrouped and have won 13 of the last 14 tests. England have not built on their success. They wallowed too long in self-congratulation, had poor preparation and selection for this series and probably just the South African apart have not shown the bottle or character required.
As ever though I bet England will have a 'sepia approach' of looking back at past triumph rather than looking forward and doing something about it (1966, 2005, Rule Britannia, Jerusalem, Swing Low etc) and will make excuses - if only Michael wasn't injured and captain, if only Ash had held that catch off Ponting, if only we played Monty from Brissie onwards, if only we stuck with Read instead of Jones, if only Harmy started well etc.
The simple fact remains, they weren't good enough 9 out of the last 10 times!
OzTennis
Sour grapes I know and the convicts did win fair and square but the point I am making is they will struggle without these two key bowlers in the tour to defend the ashes in two years time.
Key wickets at key times in a match.
Dec 18th 2006, 10:22 am
#40
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Nov 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 7,949
Re: Let's Talk Cricket
Originally Posted by Ellesse
You can pad it out but the way I (and most cricket fans) see it is australian bowling has been domonated by 2 key players over the last few years, warne and McGrath, take these players out of the side and already in this series alone the convicts would have had to find someone to take 27 wickets, yes, between them they have taken 27 of the 53 wickets which have been bowled in this series so far.
Sour grapes I know and the convicts did win fair and square but the point I am making is they will struggle without these two key bowlers in the tour to defend the ashes in two years time.
Key wickets at key times in a match.
Sour grapes I know and the convicts did win fair and square but the point I am making is they will struggle without these two key bowlers in the tour to defend the ashes in two years time.
Key wickets at key times in a match.
Stuart Clarke will be a superb bowler in English conditions in a few years time.
We'll just have to see what happens in 2 years, someone else will take the wickets, but you are forgetting the batsmen. Michael Clarke, Mike Hussey and Ricky Ponting are going to dominate for many years to come.
If you don't mind me saying the Convict jibe is typical of the 'sepia', backward looking approach I speak about - smacks of we used to be the jailer and you the jailed in the days of our once mighty empire. As I keep saying the Poms just don't get it as to why we like putting one over the 'mother country'. When we do its whinge, whinge, whinge or putdown.
At least Flintoff, decent chap that he is, had the decency to say no matter what we came up with the Aussies were too good.
OzTennis
Dec 18th 2006, 10:33 am
#41
Banned
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 27
Re: Let's Talk Cricket
Originally Posted by OzTennis
McGrath hasn't taken a lot of wickets this series, nor has Warne - by their past standards. As I said they will be hard acts to follow but the gulf between the 2 teams is such that I don't think their retirement will be a turning factor.
Stuart Clarke will be a superb bowler in English conditions in a few years time.
We'll just have to see what happens in 2 years, someone else will take the wickets, but you are forgetting the batsmen. Michael Clarke, Mike Hussey and Ricky Ponting are going to dominate for many years to come.
If you don't mind me saying the Convict jibe is typical of the 'sepia', backward looking approach I speak about - smacks of we used to be the jailer and you the jailed in the days of our once mighty empire. As I keep saying the Poms just don't get it as to why we like putting one over the 'mother country'. When we do its whinge, whinge, whinge or putdown.
At least Flintoff, decent chap that he is, had the decency to say no matter what we came up with the Aussies were too good.
OzTennis
Stuart Clarke will be a superb bowler in English conditions in a few years time.
We'll just have to see what happens in 2 years, someone else will take the wickets, but you are forgetting the batsmen. Michael Clarke, Mike Hussey and Ricky Ponting are going to dominate for many years to come.
If you don't mind me saying the Convict jibe is typical of the 'sepia', backward looking approach I speak about - smacks of we used to be the jailer and you the jailed in the days of our once mighty empire. As I keep saying the Poms just don't get it as to why we like putting one over the 'mother country'. When we do its whinge, whinge, whinge or putdown.
At least Flintoff, decent chap that he is, had the decency to say no matter what we came up with the Aussies were too good.
OzTennis
If england had faced an Aussie side minus these two and including McGill and Tait/Johnson/Watson they would have done a lot better in the batting department and obviously scored more and crucially batted for longer and where needed grab a draw.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree on some of these points.
But I must say regarding the convict 'Jibe' it is in use as much between sporting fans as you calling us Poms.
Most Aussies I know would be proud to say that they had a distant relative on the first fleet or as an early convict setteler.
Now, regarding the Tennis...........Hewitt.....Convict......Henman... ...Unlucky...Again.
Dec 18th 2006, 10:58 am
#42
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Nov 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 7,949
Re: Let's Talk Cricket
Originally Posted by Ellesse
Batting is one thing, anyone can bat and get a good score if the bowling is crap as England proved against WA last week, the difference between these two sides has been the bowling. England have been undone by some fine bowling and I honestly can't remember a series where McGrath and Warne took more wickets.
If england had faced an Aussie side minus these two and including McGill and Tait/Johnson/Watson they would have done a lot better in the batting department and obviously scored more and crucially batted for longer and where needed grab a draw.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree on some of these points.
But I must say regarding the convict 'Jibe' it is in use as much between sporting fans as you calling us Poms.
Most Aussies I know would be proud to say that they had a distant relative on the first fleet or as an early convict setteler.
Now, regarding the Tennis...........Hewitt.....Convict......Henman... ...Unlucky...Again.
If england had faced an Aussie side minus these two and including McGill and Tait/Johnson/Watson they would have done a lot better in the batting department and obviously scored more and crucially batted for longer and where needed grab a draw.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree on some of these points.
But I must say regarding the convict 'Jibe' it is in use as much between sporting fans as you calling us Poms.
Most Aussies I know would be proud to say that they had a distant relative on the first fleet or as an early convict setteler.
Now, regarding the Tennis...........Hewitt.....Convict......Henman... ...Unlucky...Again.
In my view Ponting, M Clarke and Hussey have been the major difference between the 2 teams. Pieterson has been consistently good, Collingwood a couple of times - Strauss, Bell, Flintoff, Cook too inconsistent, Jones lamentable. You are wanting to rationalise in some way I can see - Warne and McGrath have been the main difference, they are old, in 2 years time when they are retired we will win. I see the logic.
Rest assured, have a look at the stats - Warne and McGrath have had many better series in the past.
http://www.cricketstatz.com/testdb/tes1875.htm
http://www.cricketstatz.com/testdb/tes1966.htm
It's conveniently forgotten I guess that McGrath stood on a ball before the 2nd Test at Edgbaston in 2005 and didn't play in 3 matches. If one plays the English IF only game, I very much doubt England would have won the Ashes were it not for McGrath's injury (and Ponting's silly decision at Edgbaston to bowl, without McGrath, after winning the toss - many Aussie pundits said that one mistake cost the Ashes).
It must feel terrible, the 'master race' losing to a 'bunch of convicts'!
OzTennis
Dec 18th 2006, 11:03 am
#43
Banned
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 27
Re: Let's Talk Cricket
Originally Posted by OzTennis
Patently, 'anyone can bat' is nonsense.
In my view Ponting, M Clarke and Hussey have been the major difference between the 2 teams. Pieterson has been consistently good, Collingwood a couple of times - Strauss, Bell, Flintoff, Cook too inconsistent, Jones lamentable. You are wanting to rationalise in some way I can see - Warne and McGrath have been the main difference, they are old, in 2 years time when they are retired we will win. I see the logic.
Rest assured, have a look at the stats - Warne and McGrath have had many better series in the past.
http://www.cricketstatz.com/testdb/tes1875.htm
http://www.cricketstatz.com/testdb/tes1966.htm
It's conveniently forgotten I guess that McGrath stood on a ball before the 2nd Test at Edgbaston in 2005 and didn't play in 3 matches. If one plays the English IF only game, I very much doubt England would have won the Ashes were it not for McGrath's injury (and Ponting's silly decision at Edgbaston to bowl, without McGrath, after winning the toss - many Aussie pundits said that one mistake cost the Ashes).
It must feel terrible, the 'master race' losing to a 'bunch of convicts'!
OzTennis
In my view Ponting, M Clarke and Hussey have been the major difference between the 2 teams. Pieterson has been consistently good, Collingwood a couple of times - Strauss, Bell, Flintoff, Cook too inconsistent, Jones lamentable. You are wanting to rationalise in some way I can see - Warne and McGrath have been the main difference, they are old, in 2 years time when they are retired we will win. I see the logic.
Rest assured, have a look at the stats - Warne and McGrath have had many better series in the past.
http://www.cricketstatz.com/testdb/tes1875.htm
http://www.cricketstatz.com/testdb/tes1966.htm
It's conveniently forgotten I guess that McGrath stood on a ball before the 2nd Test at Edgbaston in 2005 and didn't play in 3 matches. If one plays the English IF only game, I very much doubt England would have won the Ashes were it not for McGrath's injury (and Ponting's silly decision at Edgbaston to bowl, without McGrath, after winning the toss - many Aussie pundits said that one mistake cost the Ashes).
It must feel terrible, the 'master race' losing to a 'bunch of convicts'!
OzTennis
I guess we will have to agree to disagree but please be my guest and drag this thread up in a few years once Keith and Donald have retired and the convicts are soundly beaten on their tour of England and Wales. Normal order will then be resumed. Bladdy convicts.
Dec 18th 2006, 11:22 am
#44
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Nov 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 7,949
Re: Let's Talk Cricket
Originally Posted by Ellesse
Anyone can bat if the bowling is crap, I stand by that statement.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree but please be my guest and drag this thread up in a few years once Keith and Donald have retired and the convicts are soundly beaten on their tour of England and Wales. Normal order will then be resumed. Bladdy convicts.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree but please be my guest and drag this thread up in a few years once Keith and Donald have retired and the convicts are soundly beaten on their tour of England and Wales. Normal order will then be resumed. Bladdy convicts.
OzTennis
Dec 18th 2006, 2:37 pm
#45
Account Closed
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,693
Re: Let's Talk Cricket
Originally Posted by OzTennis
But, the England bowling was 'good enough' against Pakistan, what changed? Who they were bowling to. They also said, let's bring Giles back who hasn't bowled for a year because of operations and drop Panesar who succeeded while Giles was out. Mind you they brought Panesar in, he took 9 was it of the 15 wickets to fall and they still fell 209 short with 20 wickets.
OzTennis
OzTennis
0 -5 looming
Dave