Aussie Sides!!!

Blewy · 19-07-2002, 09:37 PM

I was glad to see a couple of things yesterday with the announcement of the 2 aussie sides...

The Australia 'A' Team to play South Africa included Greg Blewett, and also Justin Langer...
Both these guys are top players IMO are great players and fully deserve their spot in the side, as well as the announcement of Michael Clarke and Damien Wright who both have great potential...

As for the main Aussie side i was happy to hear the recall of Qld spinner Nathan Hauritz, Hauritz didn't have the best of tours when Australia toured South Africa earlier in the year but it was his 1st real step up in class.. I felt he was harshly done by when dropped for the 3 games against Pakistan but am glad to see he recieved a call up...

The 2 sides are

AUSTRALIA
Ricky Ponting (captain) TAS
Adam Gilchrist (vice-captain) WA
Michael Bevan NSW
Andrew Bichel QLD
Jason Gillespie SA
Nathan Hauritz QLD
Matthew Hayden QLD
Brett Lee NSW
Darren Lehmann SA
Jimmy Maher QLD
Damien Martyn WA
Glenn McGrath NSW
Shane Warne VIC
Shane Watson TAS

AUSTRALIA 'A'

Justin Langer (captain) WA
Simon Katich (vice-captain) NSW
Greg Blewett SA
Nathan Bracken NSW
Ryan Campbell WA
Michael Clarke NSW
Stuart Clark NSW
Ian Harvey VIC
Mark Higgs SA
Brad Hogg WA
Michael Hussey WA
Andrew Symonds QLD
Brad Williams WA
Damien Wright TAS

What do u think of these sides???

Tim · 19-07-2002, 10:19 PM

Yes I do,

What do Australians think of a Tasmanian leading the side? hehe

Kiwi · 19-07-2002, 10:33 PM

I thought Symonds might have been in the AUS team not the AUS 'A'.

cozmiccoyoete · 19-07-2002, 10:57 PM

Can anyone tell me as to how good this new guy Hauritz is ??

lord_of_darkness · 20-07-2002, 12:41 AM

sniff no place for both the waughs

im a big fan of them ! give them a chance they brought half of the recent glory to Australia more like 3/4 ! remember the wordlcup !!

MrPerko · 20-07-2002, 01:48 AM

I can't understand why there are sides like Kenya and Canada competing in the World Cup when this Australia A side would be odds-on to get to the Super-Six stage... if not further...

If the World Cup is about finding which players are "the best of the best" - then why can't countries field two teams if they're good enough???

Tim · 20-07-2002, 03:37 AM

MrPerko:

Thats pretty easy to answer, the fact is, is that ICC wants more countries to start playing test cricket & there is no way that this will happen if sides like Canada are put on the backseat for an Australia 'A' side, people will just lose interest aswell.

The more variety of countries the better in my opinion. We can all say that Kenya, Canada & Namibia are useless now but in about 15 years time or so all going well they should at least be able to play a solid game of cricket.

luckyeddie · 20-07-2002, 03:46 AM

True.

Looking back through history, the newest country to be accepted to full test status has tended to be the whipping boy for a time. This happened to West Indies, South Africa (the first time, not the second), well, all of them (including England - Charles Bannerman saw to that in the first-ever test match).

I propose that the Aussies be chucked out of test cricket for 5 years then re-admitted to the fold.

I reckon it would take a few years to re-establish their dominance.

The point is, once established, you eventually find your feet. It's a learning process.

MrPerko · 20-07-2002, 06:25 AM

Yeah - I agree that international cricket should be structured to let new cricketing nations "find their feet"... however, I think that the World Cup is about finding the best players and teams in the world....

I'll use this example to prove my point...

100 METRES - Men - Final 2000 Olympics

Greene Maurice USA 9.87
Boldon Ato TRI 9.99
Thompson Obadele BAR 10.04
Chambers Dwain GBR 10.08 (SB)
Drummond Jon USA 10.09
Campbell Darren GBR 10.13
Collins Kim STK 10.17
Zakari Abdul Aziz GHA

In this 100 metres final at the Sydney Olympics, there were 2 runners from both the USA and from Great Britain.... why?? Because these countries have the depth of talent to be able to field two runners. Now... let's say for example that the IOC (Int. Olympic Committee) decided that because Australia and New Zealand sprinters needed to "find their feet" that they'd say to America and Great Britain that they could only run ONE runner and that an Australian and New Zealand sprinter would replace them.... who's personal bests were waaaayy below the guys dropping out....

Can you imagine the uproar that would occur if this happened??? Well - it's the same with the World Cup. If Australia (and whoever else) is capable of fielding another world-class side, then it is only logical that they should have their shot at the "Gold Medal"...

I rest my case. 8D

8D

luckyeddie · 20-07-2002, 07:13 AM

Quote:

If Australia (and whoever else) is capable of fielding another world-class side, then it is only logical that they should have their shot at the "Gold Medal"...

I rest my case.

Dangerous precedent which could be the death of international team sports as we know it. Next Aussie test series is against . . . Australia.

Next year, Manure (sorry, Man U) are invited to enter 3 teams in the FA Cup.

Not going to happen, MrPerko. Ever!

Sorry, case dismissed.

MrPerko · 20-07-2002, 07:34 AM

Hmmmm.... I think I'll take that as a huge compliment, Luckyeddie - on behalf of Australia!!

Ok - I'm not for a second planning to start up the "Australia A for the World Cup" interest group or anything... it was simply a hypothetical I threw out.

However, can we agree on one thing.... that the entire concept of "finals" - whether it be a 100 metres final, or the FIFA World Cup Finals or a World Series Cricket final - is about finding out which is the best team. Therefore, the inclusion of those parties who don't come under the heading of "the best teams" is illogical - and not to mention unfair.

However, I do agree that the inclusion of minow countries will enhance the game.... don't want cricket to turn into Rugby League or anything... Jeezus!!

luckyeddie · 20-07-2002, 08:25 AM

I frequently compliment Australia - they have been the nearest thing to a perfect cricket team over the last couple of decades we have ever seen.
They have the best grass-roots set-up in the world, were the first to introduce central contracts (I think), and their own policy of allowing foreign players to attend their cricket academies is (in part) a recognition of the fact that a single, soaraway team in world cricket is not a healthy situation.
One thing I would like to say, though, regarding your hypothetical suggestion :

An Australia v Australia 'A' final would make the rest of the cricket world sit up and realise that any complacency or comfort regarding being the second-best side in the world is pointless, and that they would have to set their own houses in order before they could progress.

Mind you, I would rather watch 10 Australias than one Manchester United

Neil Pickup · 20-07-2002, 08:34 AM

As for the Olympics - Your argument is very flawed. All nations can have one runner in the event in the early stages - As with the World Cup. They then have the opportunity to beat the established ones.

Denying Kenya, Canada etc. the opportunity to beat them would have no purpose. They most likely won't reach the Super Six but where's the harm in letting them try.

And Cricket is a Team Sport whereas the 100m is Individual...

aussie_beater · 20-07-2002, 08:46 AM

Quote:

If Australia (and whoever else) is capable of fielding another world-class side, then it is only logical that they should have their shot at the "Gold Medal"...I rest my case. 8D

8D

By your logic, Brazil and Argentina should have fielded more then two teams in the football world cup. Dream on buddy, it ain't happening and rightfully so.There is nothing comparable between a world cup(football or cricket) and olympic sprint competitions which are individual events just like a host of other individual tournaments in various sports like tennis et al.

Kiwi · 20-07-2002, 02:20 PM

The 100metres is an individual sport. They basicly race for themselves and just have their country name beside them. I represent New Zealand in an Individual sport and while the 'New Zealand team' is what i am in, It would be mean to only send one person to the Olympics when 3 have Qualified.

Cricket is a team sport. Australia could probably put out 10 teams that would beat Kenya but to represent your country in the world cup is what u should dream about. What good would it do if u had 'B' players playing in the world cup for their country.

19-07-2002, 09:37 PM	#1 (permalink)
Blewy Cricketer Of The Year Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Your house Posts: 9,964	Aussie Sides!!! I was glad to see a couple of things yesterday with the announcement of the 2 aussie sides... The Australia 'A' Team to play South Africa included Greg Blewett, and also Justin Langer... Both these guys are top players IMO are great players and fully deserve their spot in the side, as well as the announcement of Michael Clarke and Damien Wright who both have great potential... As for the main Aussie side i was happy to hear the recall of Qld spinner Nathan Hauritz, Hauritz didn't have the best of tours when Australia toured South Africa earlier in the year but it was his 1st real step up in class.. I felt he was harshly done by when dropped for the 3 games against Pakistan but am glad to see he recieved a call up... The 2 sides are AUSTRALIA Ricky Ponting (captain) TAS Adam Gilchrist (vice-captain) WA Michael Bevan NSW Andrew Bichel QLD Jason Gillespie SA Nathan Hauritz QLD Matthew Hayden QLD Brett Lee NSW Darren Lehmann SA Jimmy Maher QLD Damien Martyn WA Glenn McGrath NSW Shane Warne VIC Shane Watson TAS AUSTRALIA 'A' Justin Langer (captain) WA Simon Katich (vice-captain) NSW Greg Blewett SA Nathan Bracken NSW Ryan Campbell WA Michael Clarke NSW Stuart Clark NSW Ian Harvey VIC Mark Higgs SA Brad Hogg WA Michael Hussey WA Andrew Symonds QLD Brad Williams WA Damien Wright TAS What do u think of these sides???

20-07-2002, 12:41 AM	#5 (permalink)
lord_of_darkness Cricket Web XI Moderator Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Auckland , New Zealand Posts: 13,252	sniff no place for both the waughs im a big fan of them ! give them a chance they brought half of the recent glory to Australia more like 3/4 ! remember the wordlcup !! __________________ Don L-o-d , Legion Of Doom Lords Lounge, Off Topic, The Happening Place in CW and OT. Co Chairman CWBCC - Cricketweb XI - CW Green \| Manager of Hampshire CC - Wccc \| Chairman of the Muralitharan Supporters Club ~MSC~ \| Current Stats: 2* - 17-4-35-3 - Season Ends.. Current Record Batting - RHB: M:48 Inns:43 Runs:457 H/S:33* Ave:15.5 N.O:10 Bowling - Off Spin: O:280 M:40 Runs:975 Wickets:104 Ave:9.3 S.R:15.6

20-07-2002, 03:46 AM	#8 (permalink)
luckyeddie Hall of Fame Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Derby, England Posts: 17,629	True. Looking back through history, the newest country to be accepted to full test status has tended to be the whipping boy for a time. This happened to West Indies, South Africa (the first time, not the second), well, all of them (including England - Charles Bannerman saw to that in the first-ever test match). I propose that the Aussies be chucked out of test cricket for 5 years then re-admitted to the fold. I reckon it would take a few years to re-establish their dominance. The point is, once established, you eventually find your feet. It's a learning process. __________________ Nigel Clough's Black and White Army, beating Forest away with 10 men

20-07-2002, 08:34 AM	#13 (permalink)
Neil Pickup Cricket Web Staff Member / Global Moderator Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Oxford, England Posts: 26,361	As for the Olympics - Your argument is very flawed. All nations can have one runner in the event in the early stages - As with the World Cup. They then have the opportunity to beat the established ones. Denying Kenya, Canada etc. the opportunity to beat them would have no purpose. They most likely won't reach the Super Six but where's the harm in letting them try. And Cricket is a Team Sport whereas the 100m is Individual... __________________ MSN Messenger: minardineil2000 at hotmail dot com \| AAAS Chairman CricketWeb Black \| CricketWeb XI Captain ClarkeWatch: We're Watching Rikki - Are You? Up The Grecians - Exeter City FC Completing the Square: My Cricket Web Blog

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

19-07-2002, 10:19 PM	#2 (permalink)
Tim Cricketer Of The Year Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Auckland Posts: 7,888	Yes I do, What do Australians think of a Tasmanian leading the side? hehe

19-07-2002, 10:33 PM	#3 (permalink)
Kiwi State Vice-Captain Join Date: May 2002 Location: New Zealand Posts: 1,079	I thought Symonds might have been in the AUS team not the AUS 'A'.

19-07-2002, 10:57 PM	#4 (permalink)
cozmiccoyoete Banned Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: India Posts: 77	Can anyone tell me as to how good this new guy Hauritz is ??

20-07-2002, 01:48 AM	#6 (permalink)
MrPerko School Boy/Girl Captain Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Bris Vegas, Australia Posts: 197	I can't understand why there are sides like Kenya and Canada competing in the World Cup when this Australia A side would be odds-on to get to the Super-Six stage... if not further... If the World Cup is about finding which players are "the best of the best" - then why can't countries field two teams if they're good enough???

20-07-2002, 03:37 AM	#7 (permalink)
Tim Cricketer Of The Year Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Auckland Posts: 7,888	MrPerko: Thats pretty easy to answer, the fact is, is that ICC wants more countries to start playing test cricket & there is no way that this will happen if sides like Canada are put on the backseat for an Australia 'A' side, people will just lose interest aswell. The more variety of countries the better in my opinion. We can all say that Kenya, Canada & Namibia are useless now but in about 15 years time or so all going well they should at least be able to play a solid game of cricket.

20-07-2002, 06:25 AM	#9 (permalink)
MrPerko School Boy/Girl Captain Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Bris Vegas, Australia Posts: 197	Yeah - I agree that international cricket should be structured to let new cricketing nations "find their feet"... however, I think that the World Cup is about finding the best players and teams in the world.... I'll use this example to prove my point... 100 METRES - Men - Final 2000 Olympics Greene Maurice USA 9.87 Boldon Ato TRI 9.99 Thompson Obadele BAR 10.04 Chambers Dwain GBR 10.08 (SB) Drummond Jon USA 10.09 Campbell Darren GBR 10.13 Collins Kim STK 10.17 Zakari Abdul Aziz GHA In this 100 metres final at the Sydney Olympics, there were 2 runners from both the USA and from Great Britain.... why?? Because these countries have the depth of talent to be able to field two runners. Now... let's say for example that the IOC (Int. Olympic Committee) decided that because Australia and New Zealand sprinters needed to "find their feet" that they'd say to America and Great Britain that they could only run ONE runner and that an Australian and New Zealand sprinter would replace them.... who's personal bests were waaaayy below the guys dropping out.... Can you imagine the uproar that would occur if this happened??? Well - it's the same with the World Cup. If Australia (and whoever else) is capable of fielding another world-class side, then it is only logical that they should have their shot at the "Gold Medal"... I rest my case. 8D 8D

20-07-2002, 07:34 AM	#11 (permalink)
MrPerko School Boy/Girl Captain Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Bris Vegas, Australia Posts: 197	Hmmmm.... I think I'll take that as a huge compliment, Luckyeddie - on behalf of Australia!! Ok - I'm not for a second planning to start up the "Australia A for the World Cup" interest group or anything... it was simply a hypothetical I threw out. However, can we agree on one thing.... that the entire concept of "finals" - whether it be a 100 metres final, or the FIFA World Cup Finals or a World Series Cricket final - is about finding out which is the best team. Therefore, the inclusion of those parties who don't come under the heading of "the best teams" is illogical - and not to mention unfair. However, I do agree that the inclusion of minow countries will enhance the game.... don't want cricket to turn into Rugby League or anything... Jeezus!!

20-07-2002, 08:25 AM	#12 (permalink)
luckyeddie Hall of Fame Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Derby, England Posts: 17,629	I frequently compliment Australia - they have been the nearest thing to a perfect cricket team over the last couple of decades we have ever seen. They have the best grass-roots set-up in the world, were the first to introduce central contracts (I think), and their own policy of allowing foreign players to attend their cricket academies is (in part) a recognition of the fact that a single, soaraway team in world cricket is not a healthy situation. One thing I would like to say, though, regarding your hypothetical suggestion : An Australia v Australia 'A' final would make the rest of the cricket world sit up and realise that any complacency or comfort regarding being the second-best side in the world is pointless, and that they would have to set their own houses in order before they could progress. Mind you, I would rather watch 10 Australias than one Manchester United

20-07-2002, 02:20 PM	#15 (permalink)
Kiwi State Vice-Captain Join Date: May 2002 Location: New Zealand Posts: 1,079	The 100metres is an individual sport. They basicly race for themselves and just have their country name beside them. I represent New Zealand in an Individual sport and while the 'New Zealand team' is what i am in, It would be mean to only send one person to the Olympics when 3 have Qualified. Cricket is a team sport. Australia could probably put out 10 teams that would beat Kenya but to represent your country in the world cup is what u should dream about. What good would it do if u had 'B' players playing in the world cup for their country.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)