Findings from a rubbish cricket survey of Aussie cricketers

Conducted by the ACA of current national and state contracted players:

Some related stories:

T20 fosters negative bowling

Fear for 50 over game

Home is where the heart is...

http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/australia/content/current/story/326447.html

"In what could be a major move, 41% of Cricket Australia-contracted players expressed their support for wearing shorts during Twenty20 matches..."


We could start by shooting this lot.

furriner wrote:http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/australia/content/current/story/326447.html

"In what could be a major move, 41% of Cricket Australia-contracted players expressed their support for wearing shorts during Twenty20 matches..."


We could start by shooting this lot.

They were probably Wozzies or Billies anyway, so nobody would really notice.

Phurt.

Didn't the vomits play a season in shorts for the ODs in the 90s?

I seem to remember lots of hilarity ensued.

Yes you're spot on there Zim.

It was the same summer that those other great innovations: 'moon-ball' day-night matches in the Shield, and Aus A in the one day series, were let loose on us.

Of the three, the shorts prob had the least impact. I never realised they'd made us carry that one on our Pat Malone. I'm kinda reminded of that scene at the start of 'Risky Business' where the kid is tricked into 'going drag' on his own.

But as I recall we did win the one-day comp that summer.

Invader Zim wrote:Some related stories:

T20 fosters negative bowling

Fear for 50 over game

Home is where the heart is...

I hope the 50 over game is farked. It's been my view for 10 years that one day cricket should be 2 X 25 overs per side, with the batting order just continuing where it left off but allowed to restart when 10 wickets have fallen.

"In what could be a major move, 41% of Cricket Australia-contracted players expressed their support for wearing shorts during Twenty20 matches..."

Err, and 59% DIDN'T express their support for it, so it probably wont get off the ground.

It's called bullshit journalism. Surely you have heard of it. After all you're fluent in bullshit.

Invader Zim wrote:Phurt.

Didn't the vomits play a season in shorts for the ODs in the 90s?

I seem to remember lots of hilarity ensued.

That and Tony Greig was rating the players' legs on a scale of 1-10.

Nath wrote:

Invader Zim wrote:Phurt.

Didn't the vomits play a season in shorts for the ODs in the 90s?

I seem to remember lots of hilarity ensued.

That and Tony Greig was rating the players' legs on a scale of 1-10.

Thank christ, Nicholarse wasn't in the commentary box!

Interesting that the Franger is seen as more prestigious than ITT.

tac wrote:

Nath wrote:

Invader Zim wrote:Phurt.

Didn't the vomits play a season in shorts for the ODs in the 90s?

I seem to remember lots of hilarity ensued.

That and Tony Greig was rating the players' legs on a scale of 1-10.

Thank christ, Nicholarse wasn't in the commentary box!

doesn't he only rate blond purdy Dubbers?

Nath wrote:

tac wrote:

Nath wrote:

Invader Zim wrote:Phurt.

Didn't the vomits play a season in shorts for the ODs in the 90s?

I seem to remember lots of hilarity ensued.

That and Tony Greig was rating the players' legs on a scale of 1-10.

Thank christ, Nicholarse wasn't in the commentary box!

doesn't he only rate blond purdy Dubbers?

But imagine him rating players legs . . .

JGK wrote:Interesting that the Franger is seen as more prestigious than ITT.

Aye, players know what it's all about...