SOCCERROO FOX Posted 2 June 2013 Posted 2 June 2013 Watson said 12 months ago he no longer wants to bowl, Watto promises with the bat but rarely turns them in to big scores. If Warner Bats for 2 sessions Aussies will not loses, yeah sure he is more likely to go out cheaply but he is a match winner and on his day can make 100 off 70 balls....in fairness has only done it on a few occasions but has the ability. Faulkner is a great option as an All round, good left arm quick who will be suited in the English conditions and is more than handy with the bat, will the selectors select him....probably not but is in the squad
marko Posted 2 June 2013 Posted 2 June 2013 No different than having Trott, KP etc in ya side. Is a very good bowler at first class level as compared to Lyon he can actually turn the ball. Only issue is that test cricket and especially Ashes test cricket is a big step up. Are you for real? KP, Prior, Strauss all have an English parent - in Strauss' case two. Trott has English grandparents. Their situation is nothing like the Ahmed situation.
SOCCERROO FOX Posted 2 June 2013 Posted 2 June 2013 Trott had already represented South Africa at u/19 level, that's an each way bet right there. No difference for mine, the rules allowed him to then go on and play for England. Ahmed has served his time in Australia as a refugee and the rules state once he is a citizen he can play for Australia. Also was it Trotts or Straus whos brother played for Holland? I've got a English mother (well she was born there and has never been back) which could qualify me to represent England. Am i english fook no! I'm sure if i was living in England to collect the dole you would want me to Bugger off back to Australia, if i was good at cricket you would want me to stay and play for England
Aus Fox Posted 2 June 2013 Posted 2 June 2013 The difference is the Australian government are getting involved and granting a citizenship early because he can play cricket. Which is wrong, every other migrant has to wait so should he, when he has served his 4 years and jumped through all the hoops then fine let him represent Australia. Until then it's boardline cheating for me
SOCCERROO FOX Posted 2 June 2013 Posted 2 June 2013 The difference is the Australian government are getting involved and granting a citizenship early because he can play cricket. Which is wrong, every other migrant has to wait so should he, when he has served his 4 years and jumped through all the hoops then fine let him represent Australia. Until then it's boardline cheating for me It's only being pushed forward 8-9 weeks, which actually offsets the period he was in the country prior too seeking asylum.
marko Posted 4 June 2013 Posted 4 June 2013 Trott had already represented South Africa at u/19 level, that's an each way bet right there. No difference for mine, the rules allowed him to then go on and play for England. Ahmed has served his time in Australia as a refugee and the rules state once he is a citizen he can play for Australia. Also was it Trotts or Straus whos brother played for Holland? I've got a English mother (well she was born there and has never been back) which could qualify me to represent England. Am i english fook no! I'm sure if i was living in England to collect the dole you would want me to Bugger off back to Australia, if i was good at cricket you would want me to stay and play for England Hilarious I have absolutely no problem with Ahmed playing for Australia when he becomes eligible to become a citizen, like the other migrants who are waiting their full statutory time to become citizens. It's the fact legislation is being introduced and you're taking advantage of this to enable him to play in all the Tests, as opposed to just the Oval Test that smacks of utter desperation - especially from a country who previously took the moral high ground with England's selection of South African born players despite them having an English parent and heritage.
Corky Posted 4 June 2013 Posted 4 June 2013 Roo Fox, think of the public. You are denying us the chance to see great bowlers like Mitchell Johnson and Mike Kasprowicz through picking these players.
Guest MattP Posted 4 June 2013 Posted 4 June 2013 I have no idea why anyone has a problem with KP, Trott etc playing for England, they both qualify through parentage and they are both entitled to play for us. This Australian situation is a little bit embarrassing when you consider what they have been saying about us for the last ten years or so.
SOCCERROO FOX Posted 4 June 2013 Posted 4 June 2013 I have no idea why anyone has a problem with KP, Trott etc playing for England, they both qualify through parentage and they are both entitled to play for us. This Australian situation is a little bit embarrassing when you consider what they have been saying about us for the last ten years or so. I think the fact that Trott had already chosen to play for South Africa is the main one and both were born and grew over there, i really couldn't give a shit i just think it's more banter and if they had Aussie Parents we would try to snare them too. Hilarious I have absolutely no problem with Ahmed playing for Australia when he becomes eligible to become a citizen, like the other migrants who are waiting their full statutory time to become citizens. It's the fact legislation is being introduced and you're taking advantage of this to enable him to play in all the Tests, as opposed to just the Oval Test that smacks of utter desperation - especially from a country who previously took the moral high ground with England's selection of South African born players despite them having an English parent and heritage. Yep hopefully before the first test Roo Fox, think of the public. You are denying us the chance to see great bowlers like Mitchell Johnson and Mike Kasprowicz through picking these players. The Only positive for Mitch Johnson playing is that i wont have to stay up to all hours in the morning watching the cricket, i will just go to bed early knowing we will definetly lose. I also think you are all missing the point we are trying to bring in a bloke who has played 13 or similar first class games and his in his 30's not Shane Warne. If the shoe was on the other foot i really don't think you would care.
Guest MattP Posted 4 June 2013 Posted 4 June 2013 I think the fact that Trott had already chosen to play for South Africa is the main one and both were born and grew over there, i really couldn't give a shit i just think it's more banter and if they had Aussie Parents we would try to snare them too. Yep hopefully before the first test The Only positive for Mitch Johnson playing is that i wont have to stay up to all hours in the morning watching the cricket, i will just go to bed early knowing we will definetly lose. I also think you are all missing the point we are trying to bring in a bloke who has played 13 or similar first class games and his in his 30's not Shane Warne. If the shoe was on the other foot i really don't think you would care. We aren't really that bothered about Ahmed, he looks ok but he's got an average of 32 in a few first class games, it says more about the state of your spinners than anything that this guy is being called up anyway. It's not something we are going to lose any sleep over and I'm sure Lyon will start the opening anyway.
SOCCERROO FOX Posted 4 June 2013 Posted 4 June 2013 We aren't really that bothered about Ahmed, he looks ok but he's got an average of 32 in a few first class games, it says more about the state of your spinners than anything that this guy is being called up anyway. It's not something we are going to lose any sleep over and I'm sure Lyon will start the opening anyway. Agreed! Lyon isn't as bad as people make him out to be, but he lacks confidence and trys to bowl too fast. He needs slow it down and just try to clog up an end and build pressure instead of thinking he has to take 10 wickets a match.
Guest MattP Posted 4 June 2013 Posted 4 June 2013 Agreed! Lyon isn't as bad as people make him out to be, but he lacks confidence and trys to bowl too fast. He needs slow it down and just try to clog up an end and build pressure instead of thinking he has to take 10 wickets a match. It was Lyon's performance in India that killed his reputation for a lot of people, to only get 15 wickets in four matches out there is poor and when Ashwin gets 30 odd on the same pitches you realise where he is. I agree he isn't that bad, but if you had told me 10 years ago you would have a spinner like him I wouldn't have believed it.
SOCCERROO FOX Posted 4 June 2013 Posted 4 June 2013 It was Lyon's performance in India that killed his reputation for a lot of people, to only get 15 wickets in four matches out there is poor and when Ashwin gets 30 odd on the same pitches you realise where he is. I agree he isn't that bad, but if you had told me 10 years ago you would have a spinner like him I wouldn't have believed it. Spinner or glorfied medium pacer? He bowls most of his balls at about 105km when he first got selected he would be bowling around 80-90km that's his biggest issue and not surprising he got smacked all over the park in India. We may need to bring back Coling 'Funky' Miller
Guest MattP Posted 4 June 2013 Posted 4 June 2013 Spinner or glorfied medium pacer? He bowls most of his balls at about 105km when he first got selected he would be bowling around 80-90km that's his biggest issue and not surprising he got smacked all over the park in India. We may need to bring back Coling 'Funky' Miller Vague memory of him in the early 2000's lol If Lyon does that over here he'll get nothing, you have to bowl slow to get anything out of these pitches spin wise.
Captain... Posted 5 June 2013 Posted 5 June 2013 It was Lyon's performance in India that killed his reputation for a lot of people, to only get 15 wickets in four matches out there is poor and when Ashwin gets 30 odd on the same pitches you realise where he is. I agree he isn't that bad, but if you had told me 10 years ago you would have a spinner like him I wouldn't have believed it. But Warne was the exception, I don't really remember a time before him, but from what I've read there wasn't really a history of spin bowling in Australia before, feel free to prove me wrong on that, so why should there be one after, he was an exception a freak, and he rescued a dying art if you believe the hyperbole. What he had was natural talent, not something that could be taught or coached, so whilst I'm sure many tried to emulate him in Australian backyards, there is no reason to think that any actually could.
Guest MattP Posted 5 June 2013 Posted 5 June 2013 Don't really remember the time before either so you are right, Warne and MacGill were two superb spinners though so I've never seen an Australian team without a World Class one. It's probably even more obvious now as the seam bowling can't disguise it either.
Bobby Hundreds Posted 5 June 2013 Posted 5 June 2013 Michael Clarke's a better bowler than Lyon, trouble is his back is more knackered than Michael Atherton's.
Captain... Posted 5 June 2013 Posted 5 June 2013 Don't really remember the time before either so you are right, Warne and MacGill were two superb spinners though so I've never seen an Australian team without a World Class one. It's probably even more obvious now as the seam bowling can't disguise it either. Must have been gutting for MacGill, any other era and he would have had loads of test and one day caps, and a good few wickets too, saying that he still managed 200 tests and 44 wickets.
Corky Posted 5 June 2013 Posted 5 June 2013 Must have been gutting for MacGill, any other era and he would have had loads of test and one day caps, and a good few wickets too, saying that he still managed 200 tests and 44 wickets. When did he manage that?
Guest MattP Posted 5 June 2013 Posted 5 June 2013 Must have been gutting for MacGill, any other era and he would have had loads of test and one day caps, and a good few wickets too, saying that he still managed 200 tests and 44 wickets. I'd be dropping my spinner if he was taking a wicket in just over every four test matches
SOCCERROO FOX Posted 6 June 2013 Posted 6 June 2013 But Warne was the exception, I don't really remember a time before him, but from what I've read there wasn't really a history of spin bowling in Australia before, feel free to prove me wrong on that, so why should there be one after, he was an exception a freak, and he rescued a dying art if you believe the hyperbole. What he had was natural talent, not something that could be taught or coached, so whilst I'm sure many tried to emulate him in Australian backyards, there is no reason to think that any actually could. Did the 80's era for test cricket really have many spinners at all apart from the sub continent teams? For Austrlaia before Warne there was Tim May, Peter Taylor and Mo Mathews was a bit of a tweaker. The best prior to Warne was probably Ashleigh Mallet who took 130-140 wickets at an average of below 30 which wasn't bad and before him was probably the great Richie Benaud. Around the time Warney came around there wasn't too many Leg Spinners around.
Captain... Posted 6 June 2013 Posted 6 June 2013 When did he manage that? I'd be dropping my spinner if he was taking a wicket in just over every four test matches Ooops, got my numbers the wrong way round. 44 tests and 200 wickets.
Bobby Hundreds Posted 8 June 2013 Posted 8 June 2013 I can't wait to see us batter these mugs this summer.
Bert Posted 20 June 2013 Posted 20 June 2013 Is Micky Arthur for real? Says Australia have the best all round bowling attack in the world.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.