marc71178
Eyes not spreadsheets
Except your point regarding the West Indies was ludicrous and did make you look silly.Scallywag said:Until the last word you had a point then something about pots and kettles........
Except your point regarding the West Indies was ludicrous and did make you look silly.Scallywag said:Until the last word you had a point then something about pots and kettles........
Well, there's an admission and a half. For many years, various Australians have been telling the rest of the world that their team is so awesome that their second eleven should be given Test status so that the first team could have some competition.Kenny said:Gee Mike - I don't think even the Aussies would be too flash without their best 15 players in the side mate - whaddya need a slide rule or something?![]()
It's the ICC that approached the SA and Indian boards to help out as they have good relations with the ZCU.Langeveldt said:Interesting to see the South Africans putting pressure on the ICC to sort out Zim... Pity they cant do that kind of thing on the political stage..
I agree with this last paragraph of yours, although it seems to contradict what preceded it (how can you complain about the inactiveness of the ICC if you don't believe they should have acted before now?).badgerhair said:ICC threatening dire penalties on countries which don't want to take part in farcical matches is not a method for maintaining international cricket as the kind of special occasion which commands premium pricing for gate money and TV rights, and it's the fact that places like India have got better ways of making money than to host matches which nobody will attend or watch on TV that has finally made ICC realise that something has to be done about the racists who run the ZCU, not that ICC is prepared to take a moral stand. Under the present ICC regime, there would have been no boycott of South Africa, and they'd still be picking whites-only teams.
If you're talking about Murali, I can see where you're coming from, but why would you say that the situation in Zimbabwe is not threatening the sanctity of test cricket???Kenny said:You all know by now what I think is threatening the sanctity of test cricket.....and it ain't Zimbabwe!
Of course you are probably right - it's just that they were never going to beat either Sri Lanka or Australia anyway!!Slow Love™ said:If you're talking about Murali, I can see where you're coming from, but why would you say that the situation in Zimbabwe is not threatening the sanctity of test cricket???
ok so without the offending final line there is a very interesting point raised..........Scallywag said:How will they validate Sri Lankas win if they turn around and say that the same team is not up to standard for playing Australia.
What possible reason could they give for allowing Zim to play SL and then say they are not good enough to play Aus.
anzac said:and the fact that only about 300 locals turned up to watch the Tests sort of killed the arguement re local support for the game in ZIM..........
At least another 15.marc71178 said:How many turned up before this trouble though?
Not many more I don't think.
its not because of the current problem that crowd is not coming it was always like that in Zim and pakistan is another example of crowd not coming for testsroseboy64 said:I would think quite a lot more.Maybe a 1/4 to a 1/2 full stadium.