by pipers » Mon Nov 20, 2006 11:05 pm
by am Bays » Mon Nov 20, 2006 11:16 pm
by rod_rooster » Tue Nov 21, 2006 12:07 am
1980 Tassie Medalist wrote:Maybe he's got a heart of glass?? Debbie can you confirm???
by Adelaide Hawk » Tue Nov 21, 2006 6:18 am
by Rik E Boy » Tue Nov 21, 2006 8:52 am
by blink » Tue Nov 21, 2006 9:13 am
by rod_rooster » Tue Nov 21, 2006 10:18 am
blink wrote:Jaques should be at 6, no questions. Clarke hasn't proved himself since the last Ashes series at all. I guess he will get a chance on Thursday to prove us wrong.
by blink » Tue Nov 21, 2006 12:19 pm
rod_rooster wrote:Jaques should actually be opening. Clarke still shoudn't play though.
by rod_rooster » Tue Nov 21, 2006 12:33 pm
blink wrote:rod_rooster wrote:Jaques should actually be opening. Clarke still shoudn't play though.
Who would play at 6 then RR (assuming all are 100% fit)? I would say it would come from one of Watson or Symonds. I personally would like to see MacGill in the side, move Gilchrist up to 6 and play 5 bowlers. 2 Spinners, 3 Pace.
by Rik E Boy » Tue Nov 21, 2006 1:11 pm
by MW » Tue Nov 21, 2006 1:13 pm
by Rik E Boy » Tue Nov 21, 2006 1:23 pm
by scoob » Tue Nov 21, 2006 1:34 pm
Rik E Boy wrote:Yeah let's bring in a one day bowler who averages 18 runs an innings in Test Cricket instead of a guy who has scored two tons already against England this summer. Have you actually seen Jaques bat MW? He is flat out attacking, an ideal type of batsman for the number six position.
Plenty of Australian batsmen debuted down the order when serving their apprenticeship and I'm astounded that Jaques wasn't the first cab off the rank when Watto went down.
by mal » Tue Nov 21, 2006 3:52 pm
by Aerie » Tue Nov 21, 2006 4:02 pm
mal wrote:Something I dont understand![]()
The selectors pick Watson to be the allrounder[good logic] because they want one.
If he does not play why is a batsman [Clark] taking his spot![]()
The logic should be Symmonds or Hopes.
by Blue Boy » Tue Nov 21, 2006 4:51 pm
by Rik E Boy » Tue Nov 21, 2006 4:54 pm
Blue Boy wrote:Bring back Roy - One more chance please !!!
by Blue Boy » Tue Nov 21, 2006 5:07 pm
Rik E Boy wrote:Blue Boy wrote:Bring back Roy - One more chance please !!!
Australian cricket rules the roost and the reason is this...when in doubt, Bring in a Bluebagger. Why change a winning combination? Only this time the gits have picked the wrong one!
regards,
REB
by ORDoubleBlues » Tue Nov 21, 2006 5:24 pm
by rod_rooster » Tue Nov 21, 2006 10:48 pm
Aerie wrote:mal wrote:Something I dont understand![]()
The selectors pick Watson to be the allrounder[good logic] because they want one.
If he does not play why is a batsman [Clark] taking his spot![]()
The logic should be Symmonds or Hopes.
I think the selectors consider Watson's batting to be at least equal, if not better, than the other batsman not in the Test team and the added fact that he can bowl nudges him ahead.
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |