Originally posted by Crowleygood point- i remember the days (70s) when we never had any ranking systems and people were asking for one.
The rankings aren't flawed, but they don't necessarily indicate current form accurately.
This is an inherent flaw in any sports ranking system.
Originally posted by StarrmanI don't mind one day cricket but I must say nothing beats watching five days of test match cricket.
One day cricket should be nothing more than a fun interlude between test series. Ranking it is retarded and serves only to confuse the balance between the real game and the hybrid versions for the attention span deficient.
Originally posted by Zort BoyBoth forms of cricket have their place- even 20/20. I'm a huge cricket fan and love it all- still,I have to admit, even 7-0 will not make up for the poor showing in the ashes where the aussies lost it, rather than england winning it.
I don't mind one day cricket but I must say nothing beats watching five days of test match cricket.
Originally posted by karoly aczelYeah, listening on the ABC at the moment. Not a good effort on the Aussie's part but 6-1 is good considering our one day and T20 form of late.
Both forms of cricket have their place- even 20/20. I'm a huge cricket fan and love it all- still,I have to admit, even 7-0 will not make up for the poor showing in the ashes where the aussies lost it, rather than england winning it.
Anyway tha aussies only got 176 in the 6th game, so if they win this one maybe the rankings are a bit more justified.
Originally posted by karoly aczelUnlikely that Mike Hussey will open. Although he started his career as an opener for Western Australia he came into the Aussie one day side as a middle order batsman and the made his way into the test team as a middle order batsman.
Geez the english batters are pretty crap though...
I wish australia had one experienced openner. Maybe Hussey?
Originally posted by Zort BoyI can't see both Phil Hughes and David Warner opening for Australia in all forms of the game - Phil Hughes possibly, but not Warner. Both are very aggressive batsmen which is great in 20/20 cricket and possibly one-day cricket.. but not test cricket - no way. I'd prefer a steadier player at the top of the order to anchor the innings - eg. Simon Katich - and Phil Hughes seems a good foil for him to get the innings ticking over.
Phillip Hughes and David Warner will eventually be the opeing partnership in all forms of the game for Australia.
Originally posted by Zort BoyHughes looks a very unlikely type and has a number of deficencies (eg. short ball) but 2 centuries in South Africa shows he's got potential. However, with Warner, I glad you can see some potential there.. as most others can't! VERY big call you made! The guy is a one-hit wonder. He got lucky one night but has failed miserably to produce the goods again. I hope you're right and he does flourish...
His recent axing on the Ashes tour will cause Hughes to pull his head in a bit. Warner has the potential to be as good a batsman as Sanath Jayasuria, big call on my part but I believe it.