• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Non Aussie/English CWers, who will you be supporting?

The team you will support


  • Total voters
    50

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
Yeah it's a tough one. Two absolute wankers when on the field.
Watson's at least an aesthetically pleasing cricketer though (at least IMO). Even when Broad's effective, it's not usually awesome to watch - barring that one day a year he swings the ball.
 

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
No, there is nothing pleasing about Twatto, except the look on his face when he gets out

Broad, on the other hand, is an angel :wub:
 

vcs

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Yeah, I don't find Broad entertaining to watch as a bowler, though he's been pretty effective recently. His batting is much more entertaining when he gets going.
 

Spark

Global Moderator
Watson's at least an aesthetically pleasing cricketer though (at least IMO). Even when Broad's effective, it's not usually awesome to watch - barring that one day a year he swings the ball.
Neither of them are great shakes to watch with the ball, unless Broad has that once-a-year magic spell. Aesthetically I actually quite like Broad's batting. Watson's is impressive, but like Hayden before him no matter how many runs he scores it never will really catch my eye/stick in my memory like a Ponting, Martyn or Clarke innings will.
 

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
Well..Aussies have to find bowlers.... **** it...call up Lee!
Lee's retired from First Class cricket.

And really, Australia do not have a shortage of fast bowling depth. They have 10-15 bowlers, all of a similar standard, who I'd be reasonably confident in to do a job at Test level. They're lacking an experienced, consistent world class performer, but they have plenty of options to try out if what they've got doesn't work out.
 

four_or_six

Cricketer Of The Year
Lee's retired from First Class cricket.

And really, Australia do not have a shortage of fast bowling depth. They have 10-15 bowlers, all of a similar standard, who I'd be reasonably confident in to do a job at Test level. They're lacking an experienced, consistent world class performer, but they have plenty of options to try out if what they've got doesn't work out.
If they end up dropping two each test, they will need 10-15. :p
 

Smudge

Hall of Fame Member
I never know the answer to these questions until the series start. And now, once it's started, I can happily say I'm supporting neither side. I'm just hoping for some hilariously bad bits of cricket (like Clarke's dropping of Trott on Monday) to brighten up the contest.
 

Faisal1985

International Vice-Captain
Lee's retired from First Class cricket.

And really, Australia do not have a shortage of fast bowling depth. They have 10-15 bowlers, all of a similar standard, who I'd be reasonably confident in to do a job at Test level. They're lacking an experienced, consistent world class performer, but they have plenty of options to try out if what they've got doesn't work out.
And yet they are reluctant to drop an out of form MJ. Clearly they have there doubts about others too.
 

bagapath

International Captain
i hate it when both australia and england are represented by mediocre teams. whenever that happens, world cricket becomes dull. for the game to be healthy, i would like to see both old dogs strong and competitive. for that to happen, the ashes should be changing hands as often as possible. if not, one of them, read australia, beats the hell out of the other, read england, and makes the whole competition lop sided and boring.

usually, test cricket is at its best when england beats australia - bodyline, 1981 and 2005 are good examples. because it is a case of underdog beating the top contender. this time, though, i would like to see, australia bounce back and take the series 2-1 because they look like the underdogs. if that happens, this series would be as historical as the 36-37 series.
 

vcs

Request Your Custom Title Now!
England are far from mediocre right now. I would like Australia to win for two reasons, one because I've cheered for them against England ever since I saw Warne bowl the "Ball of the Century" and secondly, because an England away win would send them shooting up the rankings. Don't want that happening for selfish reasons.
 

Howe_zat

Audio File
i hate it when both australia and england are represented by mediocre teams. whenever that happens, world cricket becomes dull. for the game to be healthy, i would like to see both old dogs strong and competitive. for that to happen, the ashes should be changing hands as often as possible. if not, one of them, read australia, beats the hell out of the other, read england, and makes the whole competition lop sided and boring.

usually, test cricket is at its best when england beats australia - bodyline, 1981 and 2005 are good examples. because it is a case of underdog beating the top contender. this time, though, i would like to see, australia bounce back and take the series 2-1 because they look like the underdogs. if that happens, this series would be as historical as the 36-37 series.
1981? You mean when both England and Australia had nothing on the West Indies or an isolated SA to leave them 3rd/4th in the world?
 

bagapath

International Captain
1981? You mean when both England and Australia had nothing on the West Indies or an isolated SA to leave them 3rd/4th in the world?
teams featuring lillee, border, botham, boycott, gower, marsh, knott, willis and gooch cant be mediocre.
 

Top