SA Footy

Botham reportedly called the Aussies "Dad's Army" today, a term the British tabloids are using saying the Aussies are too old.

The highlight was Warney's response.

"You wouldn't want to lose to the oldest team though, would you!".

I think the Aussies are too old on average but then again why would you retire when there's so much money to be made?

Yes players are fitter than they were 30 years ago but reflexes don't get any sharper as the years pass on no matter how many situps and circuits you do.
I wonder if it was a deteriorating of reflexes that saw Langer get hit flush in the helmet by Ntini over in South Africa

It will be interesting to see the order in which the older players leave the team. I'd say it would be:

Langer
Martyn
McGrath
Warne
Hayden
Gilchrist

GWW wrote:It will be interesting to see the order in which the older players leave the team. I'd say it would be:

Langer
Martyn
McGrath
Warne
Hayden
Gilchrist

Your on the ball
Refer first test eleven in cricket room
9-22 post by MAL

This is Test Cricket. You pick the best available 11 players in the country. If those players happen to be over 30, then that's just the way it is. I can't believe English people would accuse others of having old players. They would have selected more players over 40 years old than any other country.

Spot on Hawk. There is nothing wrong with having an older side as long as the next generation is capable. Just how capable was displayed last Friday.

regards,

REB

Over the years the Poms may as well have been called "The Combined Foreign Legion". They have that many people from other countries who have ended up playing for them. South Africans, Australians, Zimbabweans, West Indians, etc.

at about 120!!

regards,

REB

Send him to the weight loss challenge thread. Fat cnut would feel right at home in there with us lot.

While I agree Hawk - he does have a point.

Remember how we laughed in the 90s whenever we came up against Gooch, Gower, Gatting and even Gus Fraser cos they were so old.

We taunted them with the age comment, calling Dad's Army. It's only fair to repay the jibes.

Aussie test team if announced as predicted will be the oldest test team in 80 years

Botham has dumped a whole lot of pressure on the POM's

I would not want to be beaten by Dad's Army

Dogwatcher wrote:Remember how we laughed in the 90s whenever we came up against Gooch, Gower, Gatting and even Gus Fraser cos they were so old.

I never laughed coming up against Gooch and Gower, they were two very great batsmen, and it was always a relief to see the back of them.

sydney-dog wrote:Aussie test team if announced as predicted will be the oldest test team in 80 years

Botham has dumped a whole lot of pressure on the POM's

I would not want to be beaten by Dad's Army

Botham is allowed to say what he likes. This series is being built and built but the poms seem to have bad luck here with injuries and what not, so they never have there best team here. So what name can we think of for the english team...

Adelaide Hawk wrote:This is Test Cricket. You pick the best available 11 players in the country.

Then why isn't Phil Jacques in the team?
Cricket selectors tend to select players after the horse has bolted- make 12 centiuries in a row at State level, yet you're kept out of the Australian side for a bloke who used to be a really good player.
Happens all the time, I think the selectors are way to re-active, & not pro-active.

Punk Rooster wrote:

Adelaide Hawk wrote:This is Test Cricket. You pick the best available 11 players in the country.

Then why isn't Phil Jacques in the team?
Cricket selectors tend to select players after the horse has bolted- make 12 centiuries in a row at State level, yet you're kept out of the Australian side for a bloke who used to be a really good player.
Happens all the time, I think the selectors are way to re-active, & not pro-active.

Winning form is good form.

Punk Rooster wrote:

Adelaide Hawk wrote:This is Test Cricket. You pick the best available 11 players in the country.

Then why isn't Phil Jacques in the team?
Cricket selectors tend to select players after the horse has bolted- make 12 centiuries in a row at State level, yet you're kept out of the Australian side for a bloke who used to be a really good player.
Happens all the time, I think the selectors are way to re-active, & not pro-active.

Winning form is good form.

Punk Rooster wrote:

Adelaide Hawk wrote:This is Test Cricket. You pick the best available 11 players in the country.

Then why isn't Phil Jacques in the team?
Cricket selectors tend to select players after the horse has bolted- make 12 centiuries in a row at State level, yet you're kept out of the Australian side for a bloke who used to be a really good player.
Happens all the time, I think the selectors are way to re-active, & not pro-active.

So, you're not happy with the performance of the Australian teams over the past 10 or so years? I don't think the selectors have done too bad a job.

Adelaide Hawk wrote:

Punk Rooster wrote:

Adelaide Hawk wrote:This is Test Cricket. You pick the best available 11 players in the country.

Then why isn't Phil Jacques in the team?
Cricket selectors tend to select players after the horse has bolted- make 12 centiuries in a row at State level, yet you're kept out of the Australian side for a bloke who used to be a really good player.
Happens all the time, I think the selectors are way to re-active, & not pro-active.

So, you're not happy with the performance of the Australian teams over the past 10 or so years? I don't think the selectors have done too bad a job.

No they haven't but the point is Jaques currently is a far better player than Langer. Langer at his best was a very good player but that is behind him. Jaques right at this time is playing better cricket therefore should be picked. Seriously if Langer and Jaques opened next week for Australia and you had to bet your life on who would score more runs who would you pick?

rod_rooster wrote:

Adelaide Hawk wrote:

Punk Rooster wrote:

Adelaide Hawk wrote:This is Test Cricket. You pick the best available 11 players in the country.

Then why isn't Phil Jacques in the team?
Cricket selectors tend to select players after the horse has bolted- make 12 centiuries in a row at State level, yet you're kept out of the Australian side for a bloke who used to be a really good player.
Happens all the time, I think the selectors are way to re-active, & not pro-active.

So, you're not happy with the performance of the Australian teams over the past 10 or so years? I don't think the selectors have done too bad a job.

No they haven't but the point is Jaques currently is a far better player than Langer. Langer at his best was a very good player but that is behind him. Jaques right at this time is playing better cricket therefore should be picked. Seriously if Langer and Jaques opened next week for Australia and you had to bet your life on who would score more runs who would you pick?

Langer.

Adelaide Hawk wrote:

rod_rooster wrote:

Adelaide Hawk wrote:

Punk Rooster wrote:

Adelaide Hawk wrote:This is Test Cricket. You pick the best available 11 players in the country.

Then why isn't Phil Jacques in the team?
Cricket selectors tend to select players after the horse has bolted- make 12 centiuries in a row at State level, yet you're kept out of the Australian side for a bloke who used to be a really good player.
Happens all the time, I think the selectors are way to re-active, & not pro-active.

So, you're not happy with the performance of the Australian teams over the past 10 or so years? I don't think the selectors have done too bad a job.

No they haven't but the point is Jaques currently is a far better player than Langer. Langer at his best was a very good player but that is behind him. Jaques right at this time is playing better cricket therefore should be picked. Seriously if Langer and Jaques opened next week for Australia and you had to bet your life on who would score more runs who would you pick?

Langer.

Fair enough. I must put a higher value on my life than you do on yours i guess