"He's [Michael Clarke] on Twitter saying sorry for not walking? Mate if he did that in our side there'd be hell to play. AB would chuck his Twitter box off the balcony or whatever it is. Sorry for not walking? Jesus Christ man."RIP CraigosKnowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is knowing not to put it into a fruit salad
Un****ing believable. Now every member of the squad has played a test. Thus vindicating the squad selection. Fu CA.
marc71178 - President and founding member of AAAS - we don't only appreciate when he does well, but also when he's not quite so good!
Anyone want to join the Society?
Beware the evils of Kit-Kats - they're immoral apparently.
Watson at 3 eh
If Chris Woakes was Australian, he'd have played 25 tests by now.
It's pretty damming on Hughes that, despite batting being Australia's weak point, they chose to bring an all-rounder in to replace a batsman, instead of bringing in a different batsman.
I'm hoping that Australia bat first tomorrow and don't lose more than four wickets, because it will ruin my day out at the Oval if I see Faulkner participate with bat or ball.
RIP Philip Hughes - 1988-2014
Founder and Grand Wizard of the CW Football Thread Statluminati. Potential hater of abilities. Blocked on twitter by Michael Vaughan, Brad McNamara and AtlCricket for my hard hitting truths.
If Watson bowls a stack of overs come the Test anyway you will see me really let rip with a rant though. I'm already pretty angry because I just don't rate Faulkner but if Watson can bowl then I'll join the chorus of CW members angry about the team balance thing as well.
Rejecting 'analysis by checklist' and 'skill absolutism' since Dec '09
Rejecting 'selection deontology' since Mar '15
Thing is though, surely Watson's overs can be spread around the seamers/Lyon without much of an impact? He has bowled well so far in this series, no doubt but there is no reason why the Aussies 4 man attack can't handle 90 overs in a day.
I just think people are making a bit of a straw man with their arguments though. Australia haven't done this to strengthen the bowling at the expense of the batting IMO; they've done it to maintain the same team balance they've had all series in light of Watson's groin tweak. We should probably look at it more as Faulkner replacing Watson's role and then Watson replacing Khawaja than just straight up Faulkner in for Khawaja. It's the wrong call on team balance (I'd be wanting six specialist bats even if Watson was completely injured) and it's the wrong call on quality (Faulkner is dire) but the way people are summing up the situation is annoying me slightly.
It's pretty weird for me given when I got into cricket it was Australia who went for the simple four bowlers and a strong and long batting line up, whereas England looked for the fifth bowler and often left their batting resources weak as a result. What's weird is that in both instances the weaker batting line up used five bowlers, which leads me to think half the reason the all-rounders are used is because the selectors think they won't do that much worse than a specialist batsman anyway, which is why I made my point about it being damming on Hughes.
Edit: Made the post before seeing your last one FTR.
Last edited by Cabinet96; 20-08-2013 at 10:24 AM.
He's a bowling all rounder though so it's not the same team balance. Ultimately I think you're being too pedantic about it Cribbage.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)