Aussie Ashes Squad

embee wrote:...or should they have just told him to STFU about selections

I opt for (c) JSTFU.

And is there any truth in the rumour that Roy is on standby if WHI mercifully fails the fitness test??

So far, it all sounds like pre-emptive bullshit excuses to me.... shoulda picked him; shouldn'ta picked him; no team balance yaka yaka yaka....

For the BJ to rubbish Hussey's selection (despite the past year's stats) is astonishing! Tuned to English conditions, surely both he and Symmo would have had to be first-picks ... but the inclusion of Watto and Lee and the absence of a recognized spinner does excite ...

All in all I'd say that looks like a beatable team.

Most definitely beatable, Merls. Certainly far more beatable on paper than the team that jetted into Heathrow in June 2005. And looked what happened then.

Merlin wrote:So far, it all sounds like pre-emptive bullshit excuses to me.... shoulda picked him; shouldn'ta picked him; no team balance yaka yaka yaka....

For the BJ to rubbish Hussey's selection (despite the past year's stats) is astonishing! Tuned to English conditions, surely both he and Symmo would have had to be first-picks ... but the inclusion of Watto and Lee and the absence of a recognized spinner does excite ...

All in all I'd say that looks like a beatable team.

I think he was using the Hussey selection to show the BS the NSP has used when they use the "form" excuse as a reason for not picking some people

If Lee bowls the stuff he was before was injured in India he should do OK ...not holding my breath that he does

Watto ...made my thoughts clear earlier on him

we dont have a recognized spinner ...unless we can talk Warnie out of retirement ...

Lee? (sighs).

ashes match winners in our squad - hughes, ponting, midge, siddle

ashes match losers in our squad - katich, haddin, lee, hauritz mcdonald...watson (when he breaks down at drinks on the first morning of the first test)

more losers than winners

I heard Watson got a paper cut after being handed his boarding pass. Ruled out of the series.

Nath wrote:I heard Watson got a paper cut after being handed his boarding pass. Ruled out of the series.

Nah, he was playing rock, paper, scissors.

taipan wrote:

Nath wrote:I heard Watson got a paper cut after being handed his boarding pass. Ruled out of the series.

Nah, he was playing rock, paper, scissors.

You wouldn't believe me - 16 it was.

Are you crowing over your prediction of the number of players in the squad?

FFS

Red wrote:

taipan wrote:

Nath wrote:I heard Watson got a paper cut after being handed his boarding pass. Ruled out of the series.

Nah, he was playing rock, paper, scissors.

You wouldn't believe me - 16 it was.

Whoooooooooosh

I notice we have no specialist reserve batsman in the squad.

We will be forced to play five batsman and an "all-rounder" even if we don't want to.

What happens if Hussey continues his poor form in the first two matches? Who's breathing down his neck. What happens if Ponting gets injured? Do we just pick an out of form Hussey?

They've picked seven fast/medium fast bowlers in this squad (including Watson and McDonald) to cover for the fact that three of the pacemen are returning from injury.

What is McDonald doing in this squad? He is useless. He is a bits and pieces type player reminiscent of countless mediocre New Zealanders. He is taking up the space of a real batsman. Which brings us back to Watson. I'd have him in the squad but he has to be 3000 to 1 to make it through the series unhurt. So McDonald appears to be in there just in case Watson breaks down.

Australia still deserve to be strong favourites, but the selectors aren't doing them any favours.

embee wrote:Are you crowing over your prediction of the number of players in the squad?

FFS

Because I said it was sixteen, Taipan predicted it would be fifteen. Otherwise I wouldn't give a rat's tossbag about it.

embee wrote:Are you crowing over your prediction of the number of players in the squad?

FFS

FFS I was taking the piss and as usual it went straight over the top of her head.

Red wrote:

embee wrote:Are you crowing over your prediction of the number of players in the squad?

FFS

Because I said it was sixteen, Taipan predicted it would be fifteen. Otherwise I wouldn't give a rat's tossbag about it.

So you really have no comprehension skills ...

taipan wrote:

embee wrote:Are you crowing over your prediction of the number of players in the squad?

FFS

FFS I was taking the piss and as usual it went straight over the top of her head.

I disgree, you're very much into brinkmanship.

embee wrote:

Red wrote:

embee wrote:Are you crowing over your prediction of the number of players in the squad?

FFS

Because I said it was sixteen, Taipan predicted it would be fifteen. Otherwise I wouldn't give a rat's tossbag about it.

So you really have no comprehension skills ...

More proof she's really a woman?

Red wrote:

taipan wrote:

embee wrote:Are you crowing over your prediction of the number of players in the squad?

FFS

FFS I was taking the piss and as usual it went straight over the top of her head.

I disgree, you're very much into brinkmanship.

This kinda proves my point.

Red wrote:

taipan wrote:

embee wrote:Are you crowing over your prediction of the number of players in the squad?

FFS

FFS I was taking the piss and as usual it went straight over the top of her head.

I disgree, you're very much into brinkmanship.

Thus proving taipan correct ...or maybe crrect

embee wrote:

Red wrote:

embee wrote:Are you crowing over your prediction of the number of players in the squad?

FFS

Because I said it was sixteen, Taipan predicted it would be fifteen. Otherwise I wouldn't give a rat's tossbag about it.

So you really have no comprehension skills ...

I wasn't crowing, merely pointing something out. Taipan never passes up an opportunity to point out a prediction gone wrong. In fact if fifteen players had been picked, he/she would have gloated about being right that I was wrong.

taipan wrote:

Red wrote:

skully wrote:So has the squad number been sorted? Is it 15 or 16?

The latter according to tonight's news.

So it's 15 then?

Bump

Red wrote:

embee wrote:

Red wrote:

embee wrote:Are you crowing over your prediction of the number of players in the squad?

FFS

Because I said it was sixteen, Taipan predicted it would be fifteen. Otherwise I wouldn't give a rat's tossbag about it.

So you really have no comprehension skills ...

I wasn't crowing, merely pointing something out. Taipan never passes up an opportunity to point out a prediction gone wrong. In fact if fifteen players had been picked, he/she would have gloated about being right that I was wrong.

...and he made the comment as an obvious piss take on your predictive powers ...

The battle of the white bikinis continues . . .

Hass wrote:I notice we have no specialist reserve batsman in the squad.

We will be forced to play five batsman and an "all-rounder" even if we don't want to.

What happens if Hussey continues his poor form in the first two matches? Who's breathing down his neck. What happens if Ponting gets injured? Do we just pick an out of form Hussey?

They've picked seven fast/medium fast bowlers in this squad (including Watson and McDonald) to cover for the fact that three of the pacemen are returning from injury.

What is McDonald doing in this squad? He is useless. He is a bits and pieces type player reminiscent of countless mediocre New Zealanders. He is taking up the space of a real batsman. Which brings us back to Watson. I'd have him in the squad but he has to be 3000 to 1 to make it through the series unhurt. So McDonald appears to be in there just in case Watson breaks down.

Australia still deserve to be strong favourites, but the selectors aren't doing them any favours.

Ferguson would have been a logical choice though Hilditch tried somewhat unconvincingly to suggest that Hodge was uppermost in their minds.