LOL...
Warnie's biggest weapon?
The wrong 'un? Nope.
The leg-break? Nope.
The flipper? Nope.
Answer: The dirty look at the umpire! :eek: ;) :p
Printable View
LOL...
Warnie's biggest weapon?
The wrong 'un? Nope.
The leg-break? Nope.
The flipper? Nope.
Answer: The dirty look at the umpire! :eek: ;) :p
how about the mobile phone ? :DQuote:
Originally Posted by CameronPotter
and the one cent txt mesages:eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by Gumby
Yeah, great for self inflicted wounds!! :D :D :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Gumby
Yeah, but fellas, some things are just too horrible to contemplate! ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Gumby
I have held off contributing to this, but it's just got too much for me...
Warney was the best thing since sliced bread when he came on the scene. The first leggie who gave the ball a real rip since Terry Jenner (and yes, I am old enought to have seen TJ in the flesh). And he had variation (unlike Jim Higgs and Trevor Hohns).
But... Shoulder injuries meant that his effectiveness is nowhere near what it used to be. I was at Kensington Oval in Bridgetown in 1999 when MacGill and Warne were both in the team and Lara won the test with one wicket to spare. It was clear then that MacGill was the more penetrative and dangerous bowler, even if his RPO was greater. He just bowled more unplayable balls. Yet S Waugh kept bowling Warne for more and more ineffective overs while MacGill was fielding (not his strong suit - he's a better batsman:D ). Why? Reputation.
Since then, every time there has been a chance to compare the two head to head, MacGill has shown himself to be not only more dangerous, but improving. Warne is not getting better.
I still think that the best attack for Australia is two quicks and the two leggies and force Symonds or Hussey to bowl 10-15 overs and innings of tight medium pace.
But to get backl to the main theme of tonight's symposium.... DROP HAYDEN - HE'S A FLAT TRACK BULLY WHO'S LOST HIS HAND-EYE CO-ORDINATION. Watchig him bat now is like watching the last fights of Ali or Tyson - it makes you feel sad that someone who was so good has become so pitiful.
Just another thing to keep in mind:
Aftab Ahmed c Hayden b MacGill
Enamul Haque jnr c Hayden b MacGill
Enamul Haque snr was a much better player. Imagine trying to live up to those expectations. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by silentC
I wonder if there'll be a Davis Love IV ?
OK, so he can catch. So can Warne. Put him in at first slip for MacGill.Quote:
Originally Posted by silentC
Not saying it's the only reason to keep him in the side but there are two sides to the game and catches win matches too.
Like when everyone wanted to dump Mark Waugh. OK, he was off form with the bat but he saved a lot of runs and took a lot of catches. You'd have to keep Symonds in the side for the same reason, even if he gets a bloody duck every time he walks out.
maybe we could all agree on one thing - we shouldn't be playing this stupid, pointless 'test' in the first place. After SA, they should have been straight home for a rest.
I'm tired of the ACB and others sucking the life out of cricket by playing constantly.
Well, I would have said you were right for sure before the result that has happened. Mind you, that might well come from not taking it seriously.
I reckon that there needs to be a second tier test set of nations. Otherwise how can the wannabes get up to the right level?
I would think that the nations in the Second Tier League might be:
Zimbabwe
Bangladesh
Kenya
Canada
Netherlands
Ireland
Scotland
USA
Bermuda
That would make the top tier set have nine teams and the bottom tier set have nine teams. In fact, some of those teams may be too weak and it might be better to replace some with second XI teams from some of the stronger nations.
Then, you could also have some kind of system where there are a set number of teams in tier 1 and a set number of teams in tier 2 and then every four-or-so years, you re-evaluate whether the bottom teams in tier 1 should swap with the top teams in tier 2...
Hear hear. There is far too much cricket played for mine. Australia will have played 16 tests since the beginning of the Ashes by the time they leave Bangladesh. That's in less than 12 months.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gumby
Then there are all the pointless one day contests and now, on top of all that, there is this 20/20 rubbish.
The ICC will end up killing the gooose that laid the golden egg I reckon.
What about Bevan ?
20/20s are good to watch and the players look like they enjoy them.......i agree with you about one dayers, theres too many of them in a series. as for tests, i think 3 to a series is fine but 5 if its something big like the ashesQuote:
Originally Posted by craigb
I would respectfully disagree about that Stirlo. I reckon that 20/20 should be left to state cricket and I would prefer all test series to ideally be 5 tests long (but I do think that the one-day series drag on a bit)...
20/20s are for people with short attention spans. Like Americans.
whatever...just as long as they show em on tvQuote:
Originally Posted by CameronPotter
Yep. It would be good for state cricket (but don't tell Silent I said that). :p
A test series IS five tests, these bloody mini-series are crap. Too much cricket is playes, I like the idea of a tiered system, Stick in Australia A, make it a purely development team, and the Aus public gets to see lotsa cricket ACB gets lots revenue, and MAtty gets to rest his dicky ticker.
Yeah, they could open it up to regional teams as well and we could call it World Series Cricket but not let any other country play. And they could have half time entertainment and foot longs and cheerleaders. :pQuote:
Yep. It would be good for state cricket
Sounds great Silent... You have really put a lot of thought into this haven't you? ;) :p
Actually, I will soon be going to the land of World Series Baseball, so I had better start being nice about them. Any hints? :confused: :rolleyes:
I don't think mentioning foot longs and cheer leaders in the same sentence is a good move silent. :D :DQuote:
Originally Posted by silentC
we have 14 year olds with us now :rolleyes:
(as if)
Had a bad experience with a cheerleader in the past eh? Came as a surprise when "she" showed you her foot long? Poor ol' Gumby!Quote:
Originally Posted by Gumby
...Lucky it isn't your birthday or I would have to be nice to you!!:p
Certainly did, the worst experience of all. I married her. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by CameronPotter
When she lead the cheers, the whole stadium shook :eek:
https://www.ubeaut.biz/chuckle2.gifhttps://www.ubeaut.biz/chuckle2.gifhttps://www.ubeaut.biz/chuckle2.gif
Gumby, Gumby, Gumby...
Try before you buy... ;)
no comment :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by CameronPotter
But seriously, when I had to help underpin the grandstand, it sparked my interest in building. :D
Well something good came from it then! :D
thanx for looking out for me uncle gumby:p https://www.ubeaut.biz/thumbupwink.gifbut i hear worse at skool:eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by Gumby
Listen to some advice from your Uncle Gumby then, just pay attention in class, you seem to be struggling in the spelling dept. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by ss_11000
(I think I've hijacked my own thread? :( )
yep but others were first...it ws hijacked from hayden to warne vs macgill to something to something to thisQuote:
Originally Posted by Gumby
Seen the score in Bangla ?
Ponting 169 not out, and the men who lost us the Ashes, Clarke and Martin, both failed AGAIN ... bye bye idiots. We'll pick a batsman next time.
94 to go with 4 wickets left tomorrow
Gumby, try and be a bit more accurate will yah? You had me going into cardiac arrest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gumby
Correctly, we are DOWN 4 wickets and Ponting (and Hayden) are on 72. NOT 4 wickets left and Ponting on 169.
Australia 212 for 4 at stumps
Incidentally, the selectors lost us the ashes (only temporary tho)
ooops :o I just caught the back end of it and I thought he got to that score pretty fast :o :o sorryQuote:
Originally Posted by Bodgy
but martin and Clarke are still useless
Seems that way, at least Martin has contributed in the past. Clarke's just a wanna be wanker.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gumby
Wottabout poor old Jacques, poor bastard suffers from over success at his first attempt and got sent to Coventry. I bet he could put a post or two in the pet peeves thread. The poor bugger could replace both MArtin and Clarke, although I do have little time for Clarke, he's young and enthusiastic, OK, arrogant, that doesn't hurt at his age.
Jacques is out of his depth at test level and the selectors know it.Quote:
Originally Posted by outback
So is Clarke.
We may be four down but Haydo's is out (controversial run-out by the third ump).
It's the Punter and Gilly show for now.
That run out decision was woeful. He has to give the batsman the benefit of the doubt and it looked like the bat hit the crease at exactly the same time as the ball hit the stumps. Not out !Quote:
Originally Posted by craigb
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gumby
May I respectfully suggest that you have been in the sun too much and your head has gone soggy. Jacques will undoubtably make an impression when he finally makes the test team. Clarke, well I think, he has the ability, but he hasn't really looked like producing it any where near regularly enough.
If Gilly fires, we'll have the runs in the first few overs, if we lose a few quick wickets, the bangers may be celebrating.