Good onya Matty :(

[jmk89]

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 ). 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.

[silentC]

Just another thing to keep in mind:

Aftab Ahmed c Hayden b MacGill
Enamul Haque jnr c Hayden b MacGill

[Gumby]

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.

I wonder if there'll be a Davis Love IV ?

[jmk89]

Just another thing to keep in mind:

Aftab Ahmed c Hayden b MacGill
Enamul Haque jnr c Hayden b MacGill

OK, so he can catch. So can Warne. Put him in at first slip for MacGill.

[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.

[Gumby]

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.

[CameronPotter]

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...

[craigb]

I'm tired of the ACB and others sucking the life out of cricket by playing constantly.

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.

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.

[ptc]

What about Bevan ?

[ss_11000]

.

Then there are all the pointless one day contests and now, on top of all that, there is this 20/20 rubbish.

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 ashes

[CameronPotter]

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)...

[silentC]

20/20s are for people with short attention spans. Like Americans.

[ss_11000]

I would respectfully disagree about that Stirlo. I reckon that 20/20 should be left to state cricket )...

whatever...just as long as they show em on tv

[CameronPotter]

Yep. It would be good for state cricket (but don't tell Silent I said that).

[outback]

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.