larus
Well-known member
and still lose
.
Nice to know their bowling attack is still top drawer without Warne & Mcgrath eh?



Nice to know their bowling attack is still top drawer without Warne & Mcgrath eh?
Last edited:
6 in 7larus said:Poor sod.
Bit like Colly getting a double-ton and still ending up losing the test.
They m,ust be going through some self doubt now. What's that, 6 straight defeats?
Man of Harveys said:I still reckon they'll win the world cup.![]()
Gritt23 said:They are really struggling to defend a total aren't they.
This is the root of my frustration this winter, is that I don't believe the players coming through are anything like as good as the old guard who are retiring. IF only we could have got off to a good start this winter, and put the Aussies under some pressure, who knows what would have happened.
Dave the Gaffer said:With South Africa on top form and Sri Lanka looking very good, I can see this being the best WC for ages. Atherton was castigating the organisers for having so many "dead rubber" games, ie Scotland, Bangladesh etc etc.
He was suggesting you should only have the best teams in the competition:
South Africa
Sri lanka
pakistan
India
Australia
England
West Indies
New Zealand
That is 8 teams split into two groups of 4, top two going through to the semi's and then winners to the final. I suppose that is in effect what is going to happen but there will be games that mean absolutely nothing.
Dave the Gaffer said:With South Africa on top form and Sri Lanka looking very good, I can see this being the best WC for ages. Atherton was castigating the organisers for having so many "dead rubber" games, ie Scotland, Bangladesh etc etc.
He was suggesting you should only have the best teams in the competition:
South Africa
Sri lanka
pakistan
India
Australia
England
West Indies
New Zealand
That is 8 teams split into two groups of 4, top two going through to the semi's and then winners to the final. I suppose that is in effect what is going to happen but there will be games that mean absolutely nothing.
ChapmansThe Saviour said:I think you've got to have those teams in it, World cricket cannot be a closed book. Bangladesh have beaten India and Sri Lanka ( I think ) and will improve in the way that Sri Lanka did.
Pavilionaire said:I heard Atherton's comments and I totally disagree with him.
Too many dead rubbers? Well, both teams want to be on the field of player, the fans want to be there and the TV audience wants to watch. The pundits are kept in work, as are the media.
All this and minnows like Kenya and Holland will learn from the best and, occasionally, give teams a run for their money.
It took long enough to admit Sri Lanka as a test nation and they ended up winning the World Cup.
Part of the excitement of watching a World Cup is seeing a minnow beat a bigger nation, and so what if it is a dead rubber? Western Samoa beating Wales in the rubgy, Costa Rica beating Scotland in the football are both examples of "dead rubbers" that have stayed in my memory, for sure.
Man of Harveys said:What Pavilionaire said. To their eternal credit, Fifa have done a BRILLIANT job in keeping the tournament away from what be the more lucrative option for them, i.e. having more rich/western countries and fewer African countries in the world cup. Atherton is talking shit.
What Fifa have done is gear up qualification so that all major football markets now have a significant chance of qualifying - including "new" football countries. That really isn't a bad thing of course, but on the flip side, how many countries are now capable of hosting the thing? South Africa is the first developing nation to host it since 1986 and they're already talking about pulling the plug on that one and letting the USA host it.Man of Harveys said:What Pavilionaire said. To their eternal credit, Fifa have done a BRILLIANT job in keeping the tournament away from what be the more lucrative option for them, i.e. having more rich/western countries and fewer African countries in the world cup. Atherton is talking shit.