The highlight was Warney's response.
"You wouldn't want to lose to the oldest team though, would you!".

by Squawk » Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:22 pm
by westozfalcon » Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:47 pm
by GWW » Tue Nov 14, 2006 12:19 am
by mal » Tue Nov 14, 2006 12:41 am
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
by Adelaide Hawk » Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:16 am
by Rik E Boy » Tue Nov 14, 2006 8:45 am
by Squawk » Tue Nov 14, 2006 10:43 am
by Rik E Boy » Tue Nov 14, 2006 12:10 pm
by smac » Tue Nov 14, 2006 2:08 pm
by Dogwatcher » Tue Nov 14, 2006 4:37 pm
by sydney-dog » Tue Nov 14, 2006 8:24 pm
by Adelaide Hawk » Tue Nov 14, 2006 9:24 pm
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.
by stan » Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:54 pm
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
by Punk Rooster » Thu Nov 16, 2006 7:40 pm
Adelaide Hawk wrote:This is Test Cricket. You pick the best available 11 players in the country.
Ralph Wiggum wrote:That's where I saw the leprechaun. He told me to burn things
by mal » Thu Nov 16, 2006 7:45 pm
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.
by mal » Thu Nov 16, 2006 7:47 pm
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.
by Adelaide Hawk » Thu Nov 16, 2006 8:27 pm
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.
by rod_rooster » Thu Nov 16, 2006 8:54 pm
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.
by Adelaide Hawk » Thu Nov 16, 2006 9:18 pm
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?
by rod_rooster » Fri Nov 17, 2006 8:54 am
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.
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |