Non Aussie/English CWers, who will you be supporting?

[Prince EWS]

Yeah it's a tough one. Two absolute wankers when on the field.

Watson's at least an aesthetically pleasing cricketer though (at least IMO). Even when Broad's effective, it's not usually awesome to watch - barring that one day a year he swings the ball.

 

[GIMH]

No, there is nothing pleasing about Twatto, except the look on his face when he gets out

Broad, on the other hand, is an angel

 

[vcs]

Yeah, I don't find Broad entertaining to watch as a bowler, though he's been pretty effective recently. His batting is much more entertaining when he gets going.

 

[Spark]

Watson's at least an aesthetically pleasing cricketer though (at least IMO). Even when Broad's effective, it's not usually awesome to watch - barring that one day a year he swings the ball.

Neither of them are great shakes to watch with the ball, unless Broad has that once-a-year magic spell. Aesthetically I actually quite like Broad's batting. Watson's is impressive, but like Hayden before him no matter how many runs he scores it never will really catch my eye/stick in my memory like a Ponting, Martyn or Clarke innings will.

 

[DragonPunk]

What we really need to know who @theashes is supporting.

 

[Faisal1985]

Well..Aussies have to find bowlers.... **** it...call up Lee!

 

[Prince EWS]

Well..Aussies have to find bowlers.... **** it...call up Lee!

Lee's retired from First Class cricket.

And really, Australia do not have a shortage of fast bowling depth. They have 10-15 bowlers, all of a similar standard, who I'd be reasonably confident in to do a job at Test level. They're lacking an experienced, consistent world class performer, but they have plenty of options to try out if what they've got doesn't work out.

 

[four_or_six]

Lee's retired from First Class cricket.

And really, Australia do not have a shortage of fast bowling depth. They have 10-15 bowlers, all of a similar standard, who I'd be reasonably confident in to do a job at Test level. They're lacking an experienced, consistent world class performer, but they have plenty of options to try out if what they've got doesn't work out.

If they end up dropping two each test, they will need 10-15.

 

[Smudge]

I never know the answer to these questions until the series start. And now, once it's started, I can happily say I'm supporting neither side. I'm just hoping for some hilariously bad bits of cricket (like Clarke's dropping of Trott on Monday) to brighten up the contest.

 

[Faisal1985]

Lee's retired from First Class cricket.

And really, Australia do not have a shortage of fast bowling depth. They have 10-15 bowlers, all of a similar standard, who I'd be reasonably confident in to do a job at Test level. They're lacking an experienced, consistent world class performer, but they have plenty of options to try out if what they've got doesn't work out.

And yet they are reluctant to drop an out of form MJ. Clearly they have there doubts about others too.

 

[Prince EWS]

And yet they are reluctant to drop an out of form MJ. Clearly they have there doubts about others too.

Nah they're just stubborn with it tbh. They wouldn't drop Johnson for Lee either.

 

[Faisal1985]

Nah they're just stubborn with it tbh. They wouldn't drop Johnson for Lee either.

They sure have there heads stuck in there asses then.

 

[bagapath]

i hate it when both australia and england are represented by mediocre teams. whenever that happens, world cricket becomes dull. for the game to be healthy, i would like to see both old dogs strong and competitive. for that to happen, the ashes should be changing hands as often as possible. if not, one of them, read australia, beats the hell out of the other, read england, and makes the whole competition lop sided and boring.

usually, test cricket is at its best when england beats australia - bodyline, 1981 and 2005 are good examples. because it is a case of underdog beating the top contender. this time, though, i would like to see, australia bounce back and take the series 2-1 because they look like the underdogs. if that happens, this series would be as historical as the 36-37 series.

 

[vcs]

England are far from mediocre right now. I would like Australia to win for two reasons, one because I've cheered for them against England ever since I saw Warne bowl the "Ball of the Century" and secondly, because an England away win would send them shooting up the rankings. Don't want that happening for selfish reasons.

 

[Howe_zat]

i hate it when both australia and england are represented by mediocre teams. whenever that happens, world cricket becomes dull. for the game to be healthy, i would like to see both old dogs strong and competitive. for that to happen, the ashes should be changing hands as often as possible. if not, one of them, read australia, beats the hell out of the other, read england, and makes the whole competition lop sided and boring.

usually, test cricket is at its best when england beats australia - bodyline, 1981 and 2005 are good examples. because it is a case of underdog beating the top contender. this time, though, i would like to see, australia bounce back and take the series 2-1 because they look like the underdogs. if that happens, this series would be as historical as the 36-37 series.

1981? You mean when both England and Australia had nothing on the West Indies or an isolated SA to leave them 3rd/4th in the world?

 

[bagapath]

1981? You mean when both England and Australia had nothing on the West Indies or an isolated SA to leave them 3rd/4th in the world?

teams featuring lillee, border, botham, boycott, gower, marsh, knott, willis and gooch cant be mediocre.