I think how a country plays a sport, especially with football, can often be reflective of the culture. E.g. South Americans play football much like they express other elements of their culture - with flair, zeal and flamboyance. Countries like Australia, England and the US have a far more mechanical approach to playing, which in general just isn't as successful.
At the risk of stereotyping I guess you can see it in cricket as well. Asia tends to come up with the more unorthodox players compared to places like England. Sometimes it's good, other times not so much.
Many counter examples obviously..
I wasn't placing Rugby Union in any sort of ranking order, I was merely replying to Burgmeisters comment.....
Apart from being a predictable and rather weak response from someone from the losing side, it is also bollocks. You might only rank Union 4th or 5th in the pecking order here and that may be the case, but to say no one in Australia cares about the sport is just rubbish. These 3 Lions games were played in packed stadiums in 3 different States, no idea what the TV viewing figures were like but if Channel 10 were showing the games in prime time one would assume very decent. I myself had half a dozen texts during Saturday along the lines of "Go Wallabies" from friends around the country (funnily enough I haven't had any response to my replies sent on Sunday!!)Umm, no one in Australia gives a **** about rugby mate.
I doubt tennis ranks that highly in England as a sport, but I'll bet more than half the country stopped and watched the Wimbledon Mens Final yesterday........but no one in England gives a **** about tennis right?? If by some major miracle the Aussie rabble should manage to win this Ashes series, I'm going to pull out a Burgesque line that no one in England gives a **** about cricket.........wonder how far that will get me in here.
Just because something isn't the most popular, doesn't mean it still can't be popular. There was plenty of interest in this Rugby Series in Oz, to say otherwise is bull****.
Heard a report this morning that Lehmann had indicated the batting order is really a matter for Clarke (as it traditionally would be). Assuming that's the case, you would think Clarke will bat five as its his preferred spot. Presumably that means Cowan and Hughes at three and four with Smith or Khawaja at six.
Does anyone really think Faulkner will play? I'd have thought a standard line up with Haddin at seven and four bowlers would be favoured for this test.
Siddle, Patto and Lyon seem to be a lock, so it's probably out of Starc and Bird for the third quick spot, unless there's a real concern about Siddle's form in the lead up. I think they'll run with Starc, which actually would give us a ridiculously strong tail, not that that should really come into reckoning.
Forkers won't get a start IMO. After the peanut gallery came down hard on Invers for the all-rounder strategy in India it's hard to see him as either our 6th best option with the bat or 4th best option with the ball. Didn't really see the logic of him in the squad ahead of Smith.
If injuries really hit the fan he'll get a go, but it won't be in Ashes-winning circumstances.
I'm quite inclined to be conservative and field Siddle/Patto/Harris/Lyon, which on paper is our best Test attack since 06/07.
"The Australian cricket captain is the Prime Minister Australia wishes it had. Steve Waugh is that man, Michael Clarke is not." - Jarrod Kimber
RIP Fardin Qayyumi and Craig Walsh - true icons of CricketWeb.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)