27 Feb 2007 05:04:09
vignes1961@hotmail.com
Australia's all time XI

Andrew Symonds? Hmmm....

Vicky:



27 Feb 2007 13:15:19
Wog George
Re: Australia's all time XI


<vignes1961@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1172581449.410485.100660@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> Andrew Symonds? Hmmm....
>
>
I know he's good, but I to XI? That's asking a bit much of the bloke.

--
George
"Dolphins, Eskimos, who cares?! It's all a bunch of tree hugging hippie
crap!" - Eric Cartman - 20 August 1997




27 Feb 2007 09:31:48
Re: Australia's all time XI

On Feb 27, 3:04 pm, "vignes1...@hotmail.com" <vignes1...@hotmail.com >
wrote:
> Andrew Symonds? Hmmm....

I think not.

Rodney Ulyate
The cricket blog to which I grudgingly contribute: http://crickex.blogspot.com/
My Wikipedia talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Robertson-Glasgow



28 Feb 2007 22:34:46
Grinner
Re: Australia's all time XI


<rodney.ulyate@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1172597508.211612.22520@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 27, 3:04 pm, "vignes1...@hotmail.com" <vignes1...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>> Andrew Symonds? Hmmm....
>
> I think not.


given time.
>
> Rodney Ulyate
> The cricket blog to which I grudgingly contribute:
> http://crickex.blogspot.com/
> My Wikipedia talk page:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Robertson-Glasgow
>




28 Feb 2007 11:42:50
Re: Australia's all time XI

On Feb 28, 1:34 pm, "Grinner" <grin...@nowhere.com > wrote:
> <rodney.uly...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1172597508.211612.22520@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Feb 27, 3:04 pm, "vignes1...@hotmail.com" <vignes1...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >> Andrew Symonds? Hmmm....
>
> > I think not.
>
> given time.

Agreed.

Rodney Ulyate
The cricket blog to which I grudgingly contribute: http://crickex.blogspot.com/
My Wikipedia talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Robertson-Glasgow



01 Mar 2007 18:36:37
MisterE
Re: Australia's all time XI


<vignes1961@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1172581449.410485.100660@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> Andrew Symonds? Hmmm....
>
> Vicky:

If you only take into account what he did at last years world cup and just
after it and ignore 06/07 then maybe.




01 Mar 2007 21:52:28
Mad Hamish
Re: Australia's all time XI

On Thu, 1 Mar 2007 18:36:37 +1000, "MisterE" <voids@sometwher.world >
wrote:

>
><vignes1961@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1172581449.410485.100660@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>> Andrew Symonds? Hmmm....
>>
>> Vicky:
>
>If you only take into account what he did at last years world cup and just
>after it and ignore 06/07 then maybe.
>
Symonds 1-1-2006 onwards
31 26 4 935 151 103* 76 42.50 2 6
batting

31 164.5 903 23 3/48 2/6 39.26 5.47 43.0
bowling

what's wrong with that as performance?

Who else would go for the allrounder spot for Aus ahead of him?
--
"Hope is replaced by fear and dreams by survival, most of us get by."
Stuart Adamson 1958-2001

Mad Hamish
Hamish Laws
newsunspammelaws@iinet.unspamme.net.au


01 Mar 2007 08:24:57
Re: Australia's all time XI

On Mar 1, 12:52 pm, Mad Hamish
<newsunspammel...@iinet.unspamme.net.au > wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Mar 2007 18:36:37 +1000, "MisterE" <v...@sometwher.world>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> ><vignes1...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:1172581449.410485.100660@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> >> Andrew Symonds? Hmmm....
>
> >> Vicky:
>
> >If you only take into account what he did at last years world cup and just
> >after it and ignore 06/07 then maybe.
>
> Symonds 1-1-2006 onwards
> 31 26 4 935 151 103* 76 42.50 2 6
> batting
>
> 31 164.5 903 23 3/48 2/6 39.26 5.47 43.0
> bowling
>
> what's wrong with that as performance?
>
> Who else would go for the allrounder spot for Aus ahead of him?

There doesn't necessarily have to be an allrounder's spot, does there?

Rodney Ulyate
The cricket blog to which I grudgingly contribute: http://crickex.blogspot.com/
My Wikipedia talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Robertson-Glasgow



03 Mar 2007 11:02:05
Mad Hamish
Re: Australia's all time XI

On 1 Mar 2007 08:24:57 -0800, rodney.ulyate@gmail.com wrote:

>On Mar 1, 12:52 pm, Mad Hamish
><newsunspammel...@iinet.unspamme.net.au> wrote:
>> On Thu, 1 Mar 2007 18:36:37 +1000, "MisterE" <v...@sometwher.world>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> ><vignes1...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >news:1172581449.410485.100660@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>> >> Andrew Symonds? Hmmm....
>>
>> >> Vicky:
>>
>> >If you only take into account what he did at last years world cup and just
>> >after it and ignore 06/07 then maybe.
>>
>> Symonds 1-1-2006 onwards
>> 31 26 4 935 151 103* 76 42.50 2 6
>> batting
>>
>> 31 164.5 903 23 3/48 2/6 39.26 5.47 43.0
>> bowling
>>
>> what's wrong with that as performance?
>>
>> Who else would go for the allrounder spot for Aus ahead of him?
>
>There doesn't necessarily have to be an allrounder's spot, does there?
>
In one day cricket there does.
Unless you want an extremely long tail or to depend on some very part
time bowlers to get slogged every match.
--
"Hope is replaced by fear and dreams by survival, most of us get by."
Stuart Adamson 1958-2001

Mad Hamish
Hamish Laws
newsunspammelaws@iinet.unspamme.net.au


03 Mar 2007 20:04:12
Mark Shea
Re: Australia's all time XI

Mad Hamish wrote:
> On 1 Mar 2007 08:24:57 -0800, rodney.ulyate@gmail.com wrote:

>>There doesn't necessarily have to be an allrounder's spot, does there?
>
> In one day cricket there does.
> Unless you want an extremely long tail or to depend on some very part
> time bowlers to get slogged every match.

Isn't the problem the same as in Test cricket - you really want five
bowlers, six batsmen, and a keeper, and it doesn't quite go... ergo
the bowlers who bat are more valuable than the batsmen who bowl, and
the keepers who bat become ever more mandatory.

There's a case for just picking five fast bowlers in ODI sides.

Mark Shea


03 Mar 2007 20:05:17
Mark Shea
Re: Australia's all time XI

Mad Hamish wrote:

> Who else would go for the allrounder spot for Aus ahead of him?

'99 World Cup edition Moody? Or in fact, much earlier WA-player Moody?

Mark Shea


03 Mar 2007 22:58:24
Mad Hamish
Re: Australia's all time XI

On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 20:05:17 +0900, Mark Shea <zadeja@hotmail.com >
wrote:

>Mad Hamish wrote:
>
>> Who else would go for the allrounder spot for Aus ahead of him?
>
>'99 World Cup edition Moody?

odi batting average 23.28 strike rate 69

the 99 world cup is 1 of 2 series he played in where he averaged over
30 with the bat and the only 1 he averaged more than 40.

commonly batting at #8 which means he's competing with the specialist
bowlers.

> Or in fact, much earlier WA-player Moody?

a) when he batted well domestically he didn't bowl much
b) if domestic form comes in then Hayden has an almost irresistable
claim as an opener.
--
"Hope is replaced by fear and dreams by survival, most of us get by."
Stuart Adamson 1958-2001

Mad Hamish
Hamish Laws
newsunspammelaws@iinet.unspamme.net.au


03 Mar 2007 22:59:09
Mad Hamish
Re: Australia's all time XI

On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 20:04:12 +0900, Mark Shea <zadeja@hotmail.com >
wrote:

>Mad Hamish wrote:
>> On 1 Mar 2007 08:24:57 -0800, rodney.ulyate@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>>There doesn't necessarily have to be an allrounder's spot, does there?
>>
>> In one day cricket there does.
>> Unless you want an extremely long tail or to depend on some very part
>> time bowlers to get slogged every match.
>
>Isn't the problem the same as in Test cricket - you really want five
>bowlers, six batsmen, and a keeper, and it doesn't quite go... ergo
>the bowlers who bat are more valuable than the batsmen who bowl, and
>the keepers who bat become ever more mandatory.
>
>There's a case for just picking five fast bowlers in ODI sides.
>
Care to mention what side has succeeded with that composition?
--
"Hope is replaced by fear and dreams by survival, most of us get by."
Stuart Adamson 1958-2001

Mad Hamish
Hamish Laws
newsunspammelaws@iinet.unspamme.net.au


03 Mar 2007 04:18:31
Re: Australia's all time XI

On Mar 3, 1:04 pm, Mark Shea <zad...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> Mad Hamish wrote:
> > On 1 Mar 2007 08:24:57 -0800, rodney.uly...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>There doesn't necessarily have to be an allrounder's spot, does there?
>
> > In one day cricket there does.
> > Unless you want an extremely long tail or to depend on some very part
> > time bowlers to get slogged every match.
>
> Isn't the problem the same as in Test cricket - you really want five
> bowlers, six batsmen, and a keeper, and it doesn't quite go... ergo
> the bowlers who bat are more valuable than the batsmen who bowl, and
> the keepers who bat become ever more mandatory.
>
> There's a case for just picking five fast bowlers in ODI sides.

Indeed.

Rodney Ulyate
The cricket blog to which I grudgingly contribute: http://crickex.blogspot.com/
My Wikipedia talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Robertson-Glasgow



04 Mar 2007 11:59:48
Nathan Dunn
Re: Australia's all time XI


"Mad Hamish" <newsunspammelaws@iinet.unspamme.net.au > wrote in message
news:l8oiu2hf5k72jhnhtkkb6uaa9od76p1bca@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 20:05:17 +0900, Mark Shea <zadeja@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Mad Hamish wrote:
> >
> >> Who else would go for the allrounder spot for Aus ahead of him?
> >
> >'99 World Cup edition Moody?
>
> odi batting average 23.28 strike rate 69
>
> the 99 world cup is 1 of 2 series he played in where he averaged over
> 30 with the bat and the only 1 he averaged more than 40.
>
> commonly batting at #8 which means he's competing with the specialist
> bowlers.
>
> > Or in fact, much earlier WA-player Moody?
>
> a) when he batted well domestically he didn't bowl much
> b) if domestic form comes in then Hayden has an almost irresistable
> claim as an opener.

if domestic form comes into it then Stuart Law clearly owns the #3 spot! ;o)

Cheers,
Nathan.