Breaking news for next test

We disagree. I have evidence. You've got none.

1.

'bitter, Saffie-hating Bill'

what 'Bitter Bill' thinks about the 1970 South Africans

note the direct quotes

lardbucket wrote:We disagree. I have evidence. You've got none.

Okay you've got a hard on for Lawry, hope you get over it.

Is that the best you can do? I was just refuting your arrant nonsense.

Evidence.

As I said you are so used to the shyte coming out of the Nein box you don't even recognise it anymore,

Wasn't Marsh chucked out for daring to criticse the Aussie team.

Taips is flailing around like a punch-drunk dervish.

Brass Monkey wrote:Taips is flailing around like a punch-drunk dervish.

Really Dan? PMSL'ing myself really.

lardy, don't bother.Evidence won't change a stubbornly made up mind.

He'll be saying you're niave next.

eowyn wrote:lardy, don't bother.Evidence won't change a stubbornly made up mind.

He'll be saying you're niave next.

Ah, but I would at least spell it right.

Anyway, it's Friday and I'm off for lunch with a customer so that's my day done.

have fun children

"Anyway, it's Friday"

See - he DOES know what day it is after all.....

The lunch defence - Taip's variation of the poo defence.

Barely news anyway - these days Niggles is 'out to lunch' on a permanent basis.

doremi wrote:The lunch defence - Taip's variation of the poo defence.

Aye - and I love the part about 'children' - I thought adults were the ones who dealt in facts.

taipan wrote:

lardbucket wrote:We disagree. I have evidence. You've got none.

Okay you've got a hard on for Lawry, hope you get over it.

stooping to childish personal attack = an admission of defeat

Interesting thread to read.



I wish Bill L, in the first picture in this

http://www.news.com.au/sport/cricket/bill-lawry-lost-following-the-death-of-his-great-mate-tony-greig/story-fndpt0dy-1226547330851

didn't remind me of the farmer in Babe.

To be serious, he speaks with moving simple eloquence about a friend missed.

Interesting to hear Benaud, Chappelli and Stuart Clark on a panel this morning discussing this. The consensus seems to be from them that the punishment was too harsh and should have been sorted in-house. The more you settle things off-field, the more it undermines your authority on-field. According to Chappelli it wasn't the same guys transgressing all the time. To him backchat is foreign to the Aussie dressingroom. If it's like that, there are problems. They were questioning Clarke's leadership. Clark thought that those using the illicit substances should have been punished not those who committed the offences in recent times. You can tell Benaud thinks that the line in the sand has become a bit of a hackneyed, meaningless phrase.

Chappelli is adamant that Watto is in the best six batsmen in the country but Clarke needs to find a way of getting the best out of him. If he's not in the best six according to him, Clarke must have some others hidden away that he hasn't seen. He thinks he should be opening.

Chappelli unhappy with the system today breeding yesmen and he was happy with the way Watto responded.

Benaud made the point that he never had a coach and was never a selector himself, he made it clear that he thinks there should be a clear delineation between selection and captaining.

Not been here on this forum lately, and haven't read this whole thread, so some of the following may or may not have been discussed already - apologies in that case.

They are perfectly entitled to punish players as they see fit. Though someone like Watson may not care that much. He is making loads more from the whole 20-20 circus than he would by playing a few test matches a year. That whole contradiction of cricket is a subject of another debate.

But where is the accountability of the whole "modern coaching" mafia which has come to infest cricket? The fitness levels are abysmal. The skill levels are a joke. So where are the results which justify all these people with fancy titles (and I suspect with not much else behind those titles).

One of the characteristics of a failing organization is that there are more and more paper pushers, more and more bureaucracy and less and less of actual work. The paper pushers justify their existence by creating more and more useless regulations. It is all a show and a farce in reality. Australian cricket seems to fit the mold from what can be observed.

Just my two cents...

One of the characteristics of a failing organization is that there are more and more paper pushers, more and more bureaucracy and less and less of actual work. The paper pushers justify their existence by creating more and more useless regulations. It is all a show and a farce in reality.

Fark me, you've just described my work.

Red wrote:Interesting to hear Benaud, Chappelli and Stuart Clark on a panel this morning discussing this. The consensus seems to be from them that the punishment was too harsh and should have been sorted in-house. The more you settle things off-field, the more it undermines your authority on-field. According to Chappelli it wasn't the same guys transgressing all the time. To him backchat is foreign to the Aussie dressingroom. If it's like that, there are problems. They were questioning Clarke's leadership. Clark thought that those using the illicit substances should have been punished not those who committed the offences in recent times. You can tell Benaud thinks that the line in the sand has become a bit of a hackneyed, meaningless phrase.

Chappelli is adamant that Watto is in the best six batsmen in the country but Clarke needs to find a way of getting the best out of him. If he's not in the best six according to him, Clarke must have some others hidden away that he hasn't seen. He thinks he should be opening.

Chappelli unhappy with the system today breeding yesmen and he was happy with the way Watto responded.

Benaud made the point that he never had a coach and was never a selector himself, he made it clear that he thinks there should be a clear delineation between selection and captaining.

Ian Chappell is very consistent with his views! AUS are lucky to have had such a good player( and a person) to have been part of their cricket for the last 40 or 50 years now.

Hear, hear! He needs more power, and his own show.

Chairman Chappelli - how does that sound?

JGK wrote:Have to go with Lardy on this - I have never heard Lawry being disparaging against the 69/70 Saffers.

If he is bitter it was because Bradman the Qunt dropped him as captain without telling him. He heard it while he was in a cab.

agree entirely...the pigeon fancier has always been effusive in his praise about the saffies in that series...he is always unstinting in his praise of Graeme Pollock - who I also had the great pleasure of watching...

just because I was strong proponent of the then sporting bans against SA should not be confused for my admiration of players from that era

So Watson is flying back to India tonight. Geez Australia have no conviction in their actions, do they. Even though they wont win this Mohali test, it's the best they've played all series, and Watson wasn't in the side. Coincidence? In fact, most of their best cricket of late has come when Watson has been sulking on the sidelines, nursing an injury.

Why are they so afraid to admit they don't need Watson and are better off without him? Why is he so special?

What's the point of him flying back to re-join a series that's already lost, when he's in terrible form anyway, and recently been suspended for poor discipline? Best to give him another couple of weeks off to be with his wife and newborn child, and get his mind fresh again.

As it is, he could well be captaining Australia at Delhi. F*cking hilarious!

could things possibly get worse?

all we need is a coup in the NSP with only bernie surviving...he would be joined by Hilditch and Simpson...that and RN Harvey being appointed to a new post as head of team morale...with those two events happening the Bangles will call us easybeats

I'd like to know how James Sutherland has survived for so long. What needs to happen for him to get sacked? He's been in the job for what...11 years? Isn't he the guy who ultimately appoints the selectors, coach, and high performance manager?