cricket - how to embarass a nation

[Ken Gargett]

anyone else feeling that we have a moron for chairman of selectors - hilditch.

have just heard that there will still be no clark and worse, we have decided to include watson. a rubbish, all talent no ticker, most potential ever but waste of time, showboat. average with the ball far greater than the bat - a test batsman who averages less than 20? why the hell would we bring him in? and the most injury prone player in history. be a miracle if he gets through the game. and he does go off for serious injuries like loss of comb and a hair out of place (he is the berrick barnes of cricket - i do not do forgiveness well). still, he has picked up about 1 and a half wickets every test he has played. at an average of 35 plus. that will strike fear into the hearts of the poms. talk about destroying a young bloke's confidence. hughes is built up by the selectors, and others, as the next bradman - two tests ago he became the youngest ever player to score two hundreds in the same test and last test he got dudded by a shocker decision and the english capt claiming a wonky catch - suddenly he is to be replaced by one of the most hopeless cricketers we have ever produced (i really hope i get to eat those words but..). and i was a big watson fan for years, believing he should be given an opp. he was given plenty and wasted the lot. he should not have been picked for the tour let alone the test. if we had to drop the opener, we have phil jaques (test av near 50 and 3 tons) and chris rogers (first class av over 50 and plenty of success in england) or brad hodge (test av of 55) who are proven big innings guys but we picked a clothes horse. i am ashamed to be from the same nation as someone so braindead as hilditch. hilditch, our chairman of selectors, is a moron of the highest order. couldn't bat and can't select. no clark? we are fools. i can only assume that hilditch has heavily backed the poms. no other rational reason i can think of.

[Guest rob]

A good 'ol fashion Gargett-rant.

[Ken Gargett]

A good 'ol fashion Gargett-rant.

you can't let imbecilic sports administrators get away with anything. we have to live through another four years of crap from the worst sporting nation on the planet because of the stupidity of people like hilditch.

[Padrino]

Ken, you might as well get another thread started after we thump you next week in the Tri Nations....

[Ken Gargett]

Ken, you might as well get another thread started after we thump you next week in the Tri Nations....

break that toad barnes' legs and all will be forgiven. although to get him off the field, all you'll need to do is a tiny bump. anyone remember the last time he finished a test?

[Padrino]

break that toad barnes' legs and all will be forgiven.

What are the odds of him picking up some kind of "injury" before next weekend, the boks might be a touch too physical for his liking

[El Presidente]

What are the odds of him picking up some kind of "injury" before next weekend, the boks might be a touch too physical for his liking

I will give $10,000 to any Bok who see's him off on a stretcher.

[bunburyist]

you can't let imbecilic sports administrators get away with anything. we have to live through another four years of crap from the worst sporting nation on the planet because of the stupidity of people like hilditch.

Aside from the fact ''the worst sporting nation on the planet'' spanks Australia at just about every sport going (cricket, rugby u, football, tennis, olympics....er, golf.....etc, I'd say you were bang on there.

[Ken Gargett]

Aside from the fact ''the worst sporting nation on the planet'' spanks Australia at just about every sport going (cricket, rugby u, football, tennis, olympics....er, golf.....etc, I'd say you were bang on there.

i have always admired the rose coloured world that the 'wet muddy island that used to run an empire' has created. merlin, tolkein, harry potter - much as i love all that - could only ever have come from one place. and walt disney must have based fantasyland on english sports.

with the greatest respect -

cricket. over a very long history, on any measure, we are streets ahead. games won, ashes held, series won, players. we do actually still hold the ashes (possibly not for long) as a result of giving the poms the greatest thrashing in test history (5-0, remember that? or are those rose coloured glasses working overtime?). even in this series, we were utterly dominant in test one, played badly in test two (not helped by the imbecile rudi but nothing one can do re that).

golf - well let's just take the british open, though happy to widen it if you like. granted neither country has starred of late but go back 50 odd years and i think england have won 4? (faldo three and jacklin once). we have 9 or 10. not bad for visitors. well, we could mention the US open - we have had a couple of winners over recent years (graham and ogilvy). i think england needs to go back to jacklin again (late 60's? - forgive me if i have forgotten someone and i won't crack the obvious joke about english golf being so forgetable). i will delibarately omit reference to the masters as that has not been kind to aussies. the pga? i think it has been as unkind to poms as the masters to us. but aussies in recent years - elkington, grady, graham).

rugby union - think we currently hold the cook cup as well as a very healthy for and against winning ratio against england. two world cups as opposed to one (would have been three zip but for an errant post that deflected flatley's kick). and we did give you a shellacking the last time we played.

tennis???? now, either you are taking the piss or on some serious drugs or, and again with the greatest respect, would struggle to tell a tennis racquet from a wombat. looking at tennis from a national standpoint, england doesn't get to play by itself. as so often happens, it needs support so plays as the british isles and has won a creditable 9 davis cups, though mostly by playing no one else when the various wars were in full swing.

to be fair, you did manage to sneak in as runners-up in 1978 so it hasn't all been doom and gloom since the war. on the other hand, our tiny little population has managed a mere 28 cups, and runner up on another 19 occasions. individually, it doesn't get much better for dank island. wimbledon - since the war, england has racked up precisely ZERO men's winners. australia, 16. so if things go really well, by about 2030, you'll still be a mile behind. you do a bit better at women's. only down 5 or 6 so to 2, though again it is that great brit thing.

the french - same criteria. aussies 10, poms zip. not sure about pommy women but margaret court won five on her own.

the US? since the war, aussies 18. poms consistent. zip. women. again, not sure as don't recognise many of the names (had to cheat and check the website) but i know that margaret court snagged another five herself.

and the aussie open? well, we've had three poor decades of late, not that the winners have come from the ranks of pommy players but even with that, we have about 25 or more since the war. women? i do know that virginia wade won one in the early 70's. margaret court won ten or eleven herself (really puts the question of whether federer or sampras or laver etc etc is best into perspective) and evonne goolagong won another three.

i mean really, what possesed you to mention tennis?

olympics? again england hides beneath the 'great brit' mantle but even with that, the most recent olympics was the first time in many years you've collected more medals than australia, even with a massively disproportionate population.

football? are you kidding? that is like me saying that we are better at aussie rules. it is a minor sport here realistically. but, i would point out that the last time the two sides played, and i believe england were not only at full strength but at home, you got flogged three blot. must have had an off day for english sport.

any other sports you'd like to toss up? darts?

perhaps we have different definitions for spanking, though from my time in the UK, the amount of enjoyment the very curious english pollies seemed to get from copping a good spanking, perhaps we don't.

[Ken Gargett]

really not trying to cause offence but i have been really trying to work out why you would mention tennis. tim henman is the only english player i can even name and he was, with respect, the tennis equivalent of the english cricket team over the last few decads only worse. suddenly dawned on me - andy murray. i assume that is who you are thinking of???? nt a bad player though yet to win a major, but he is scottish, not english. is there someting i am missing????

there is more life left in the australian democrats than in english tennis.

[Bill Hayes]

Watson is not out 60 odd overnight. Must get on sportsbet that he'll do a groin running between the wickets and be unable to bowl, field or bat in the second innings. But I fear the odds would be too short to make a profit.

[Ken Gargett]

Watson is not out 60 odd overnight. Must get on sportsbet that he'll do a groin running between the wickets and be unable to bowl, field or bat in the second innings. But I fear the odds would be too short to make a profit.

strong wind and he'll do a muscle or his hairdo and it'll be all over. england don't realise that to get him off the paddock, ruffle his hair. retired hurt in an instant.

[bunburyist]

really not trying to cause offence but i have been really trying to work out why you would mention tennis. tim henman is the only english player i can even name and he was, with respect, the tennis equivalent of the english cricket team over the last few decads only worse. suddenly dawned on me - andy murray. i assume that is who you are thinking of???? nt a bad player though yet to win a major, but he is scottish, not english. is there someting i am missing????

there is more life left in the australian democrats than in english tennis.

To be fair I was occupying the safe ground between England and Britain - you sort of have to as in some sports that's how we're represented. But if you want to be feel better about the state of Australian sport then sure, I'll drop tennis as of course I was talking about Murray.

I should also have made clear I was refering to the here and now. My football team back home is Tottenham Hotspur, and my fellow supporters are constantly going on about the glory days, 1961 etc etc. Who cares? History is of course important, but what's matters is the savage humiliation you boys are enjoying now. I feel more pity than anything else right now.

Cricket - will you even take a test?

Looks like your hopes rest entirely on pretty boy Watson eh? There'll be more of this to come...

As for the rest - athletics, rugby, football etc - every last competition you boys have taken one hell of a beating. The same old SH line of 'population imbalances' I don't buy. The UK is small, crowded, with relatively little space for sports (aside from football) and the weather is crap for much of the year. There's a reason Fiji often beats Canada at rugby you know. Aside from inventing and exporting just about every sport going, I think it's a bit much to expect us to be top at everything. But the worst sporting nation on the planet we are not. And come on....golf wasn't serious. It's not even a sport for a start...

I'm obviously new here and I don't want to overstep the mark though, all meant in good humour of course

I know how sensitive Aussies can be.

[Ken Gargett]

To be fair I was occupying the safe ground between England and Britain - you sort of have to as in some sports that's how we're represented. But if you want to be feel better about the state of Australian sport then sure, I'll drop tennis as of course I was talking about Murray.

I should also have made clear I was refering to the here and now. My football team back home is Tottenham Hotspur, and my fellow supporters are constantly going on about the glory days, 1961 etc etc. Who cares? History is of course important, but what's matters is the savage humiliation you boys are enjoying now. I feel more pity than anything else right now.

Cricket - will you even take a test?

Looks like your hopes rest entirely on pretty boy Watson eh? There'll be more of this to come...

As for the rest - athletics, rugby, football etc - every last competition you boys have taken one hell of a beating. The same old SH line of 'population imbalances' I don't buy. The UK is small, crowded, with relatively little space for sports (aside from football) and the weather is crap for much of the year. Aside from inventing and exporting just about every sport going, I think it's a bit much to expect us to be top at everything. But the worst sporting nation on the planet we are not. There's a reason Fiji often beats Canada at rugby you know. And come on....golf wasn't serious. It's not even a sport for a start...

I'm obviously new here and I don't want to overstep the mark though, all meant in good humour of course

I know how sensitive Aussies can be.

all taken in good humour of course and i do understand how the english value their very rare sporting successes. you are welcome to respond as vehmently as you wish and no offence will ever be taken.

tha said, the cricket really is a bit rich. we may not win a test but you won one on the back of some good batting in an innings by your blokes, poor bowling by us and some seriously dodgy decisions but that is all part and parcel. and don't forget, for a little while, it looked like we might even run you down with that.

the first one you were utterly and comletely outplayed at every turn and we just didn't get the last wicket - we are but a shadow of our better teams of the past few years but i would uggest it is two very ordinay teams playing each other. if you'll recall, for most of the first test, all the english and their media ravaged thier side as hopeless. sneak one win and it is time for a parade. no doubt flintoff bowled well but when you read how it has been declared as one of the great spells in ashes history, for god's sake, time for a grip. he knocked over a few tailenders in the fourth innings of a test. his third, i think, 5 wicket haul in 77 tests. that is a disgrace. rather than carrying on about what a great bowler he is - and no argument that he can on occasion bowl well - the question should be why is his record so appalling. bloke called lillee got something like 23 five-fors in less tests and tossed in another 7, i think, ten-fors as well.

i do not understand your thoughts re rugby. last time we played, we thumped your, embarassed your scrum and woin the cook cup.

i would also say that never in my wildest, most drunken fantasies have i ever expected england to be top at everything (anything actually).

fully understand the history attitude but it is nicer to have a history of wins than not.

atheltics i'll concede. we have rarely perfomed well but then that is because most aussies grow up playing real sport.

and as a final comment, which i can't resist, as you mentioned spurs - been a gunners fan for nearly three decades.

[Kangaroo495]

i have always admired the rose coloured world that the 'wet muddy island that used to run an empire' has created. merlin, tolkein, harry potter - much as i love all that - could only ever have come from one place. and walt disney must have based fantasyland on english sports.

with the greatest respect -

cricket. over a very long history, on any measure, we are streets ahead. games won, ashes held, series won, players. we do actually still hold the ashes (possibly not for long) as a result of giving the poms the greatest thrashing in test history (5-0, remember that? or are those rose coloured glasses working overtime?). even in this series, we were utterly dominant in test one, played badly in test two (not helped by the imbecile rudi but nothing one can do re that).

golf - well let's just take the british open, though happy to widen it if you like. granted neither country has starred of late but go back 50 odd years and i think england have won 4? (faldo three and jacklin once). we have 9 or 10. not bad for visitors. well, we could mention the US open - we have had a couple of winners over recent years (graham and ogilvy). i think england needs to go back to jacklin again (late 60's? - forgive me if i have forgotten someone and i won't crack the obvious joke about english golf being so forgetable). i will delibarately omit reference to the masters as that has not been kind to aussies. the pga? i think it has been as unkind to poms as the masters to us. but aussies in recent years - elkington, grady, graham).

rugby union - think we currently hold the cook cup as well as a very healthy for and against winning ratio against england. two world cups as opposed to one (would have been three zip but for an errant post that deflected flatley's kick). and we did give you a shellacking the last time we played.

tennis???? now, either you are taking the piss or on some serious drugs or, and again with the greatest respect, would struggle to tell a tennis racquet from a wombat. looking at tennis from a national standpoint, england doesn't get to play by itself. as so often happens, it needs support so plays as the british isles and has won a creditable 9 davis cups, though mostly by playing no one else when the various wars were in full swing.

to be fair, you did manage to sneak in as runners-up in 1978 so it hasn't all been doom and gloom since the war. on the other hand, our tiny little population has managed a mere 28 cups, and runner up on another 19 occasions. individually, it doesn't get much better for dank island. wimbledon - since the war, england has racked up precisely ZERO men's winners. australia, 16. so if things go really well, by about 2030, you'll still be a mile behind. you do a bit better at women's. only down 5 or 6 so to 2, though again it is that great brit thing.

the french - same criteria. aussies 10, poms zip. not sure about pommy women but margaret court won five on her own.

the US? since the war, aussies 18. poms consistent. zip. women. again, not sure as don't recognise many of the names (had to cheat and check the website) but i know that margaret court snagged another five herself.

and the aussie open? well, we've had three poor decades of late, not that the winners have come from the ranks of pommy players but even with that, we have about 25 or more since the war. women? i do know that virginia wade won one in the early 70's. margaret court won ten or eleven herself (really puts the question of whether federer or sampras or laver etc etc is best into perspective) and evonne goolagong won another three.

i mean really, what possesed you to mention tennis?

olympics? again england hides beneath the 'great brit' mantle but even with that, the most recent olympics was the first time in many years you've collected more medals than australia, even with a massively disproportionate population.

football? are you kidding? that is like me saying that we are better at aussie rules. it is a minor sport here realistically. but, i would point out that the last time the two sides played, and i believe england were not only at full strength but at home, you got flogged three blot. must have had an off day for english sport.

any other sports you'd like to toss up? darts?

perhaps we have different definitions for spanking, though from my time in the UK, the amount of enjoyment the very curious english pollies seemed to get from copping a good spanking, perhaps we don't.

Spectacular. I'm gonna bookmark that and refer to it every time one of the Poms in the office opens his mouth

[bunburyist]

all taken in good humour of course and i do understand how the english value their very rare sporting successes. you are welcome to respond as vehmently as you wish and no offence will ever be taken.

tha said, the cricket really is a bit rich. we may not win a test but you won one on the back of some good batting in an innings by your blokes, poor bowling by us and some seriously dodgy decisions but that is all part and parcel. and don't forget, for a little while, it looked like we might even run you down with that.

the first one you were utterly and comletely outplayed at every turn and we just didn't get the last wicket - we are but a shadow of our better teams of the past few years but i would uggest it is two very ordinay teams playing each other. if you'll recall, for most of the first test, all the english and their media ravaged thier side as hopeless. sneak one win and it is time for a parade. no doubt flintoff bowled well but when you read how it has been declared as one of the great spells in ashes history, for god's sake, time for a grip. he knocked over a few tailenders in the fourth innings of a test. his third, i think, 5 wicket haul in 77 tests. that is a disgrace. rather than carrying on about what a great bowler he is - and no argument that he can on occasion bowl well - the question should be why is his record so appalling. bloke called lillee got something like 23 five-fors in less tests and tossed in another 7, i think, ten-fors as well.

i do not understand your thoughts re rugby. last time we played, we thumped your, embarassed your scrum and woin the cook cup.

i would also say that never in my wildest, most drunken fantasies have i ever expected england to be top at everything (anything actually).

fully understand the history attitude but it is nicer to have a history of wins than not.

atheltics i'll concede. we have rarely perfomed well but then that is because most aussies grow up playing real sport.

and as a final comment, which i can't resist, as you mentioned spurs - been a gunners fan for nearly three decades.

Quoting the British ragtops in any sporting discussiong loses points, come on. They destroy teams / players when they're down, and talk them up as the next golden generation after the smallest of wins.

Utterly and completely outplayed.....but you still didn't get the win. That classic Aussie bottler mentality comes to the fore again.

Flintoff is a great player, end of. His stats aren't the best out there, but sport is so much more than staring at %s after a game. This is the problem with internet armchair supporting you see - some players lift a team, give them that extra fire, and at the same time put fear and doubt into the other side. You would rather have him in your team, than against you.

England have, and always will be, up there and challenging for world titles in most major sports. Outside of union and cricket, what exactly do Australia do? And even those two you must get this feeling of staring into the wilderness when you think of the next few years.

I like your clutching at straws inclusion of Flatley's kick hitting the post when we dominated you in your own back yard in 2003. Yes, but it didn't go over did it. Australia would also have won if they had score more tries, just that they didn't. Especially entertaining when you consider the final passages of play in '91 when Underwood was clear with a big overlap and easy run in, only for Campese to deliberately knock the ball on and magically (must have been a French ref) not concede a penalty try.

Therein lies the difference between the two nations. You lost in '03 because you weren't good enough, but can't admit it. We lost in '91 because you cheated, but we can admit it.

Even now, Strauss graciously allowed you to call in an extra keeper, even though the rules dictated that we should have put you on the rack. Wonder what would have happened had it been Ponting's call...

Regardless - we'll take the Ashes, we'll likely do better in NZ at the next world cup, we'll certainly do better in SA at the footy, and the Lions will most likely do a job on the Wallabies next tour. Good luck in London 2012 as well. Apart from that, looks good for you guys eh?! Perhaps we should throw together a scratch Aussie Rules team and see if we can't beat you at that pillow-biting game you call sport.

And as for:

''Spectacular. I'm gonna bookmark that and refer to it every time one of the Poms in the office opens his mouth'' Kangaroo495

Feel free - I'm sure he'll be gutted. He might need to pop out and get a cup of tea as you drone on half way through those stats, but he'll be in tears for sure.

There's only ever one

when you try chat like that.

[Colt45]

Like two sisters fighting......

The younger sister (Oz) always trying to step out of the shadow of the elder (England).

The two eternally linked by the mother (queen).

With some of the fiercest battles being which lipstick color (cricket) is better.

[ARRV]

Like two sisters fighting......

The younger sister (Oz) always trying to step out of the shadow of the elder (England).

The two eternally linked by the mother (queen).

With some of the fiercest battles being which lipstick color (cricket) is better.

I guess that makes the US the red headed step-child in the corner eating the lipstick?

[bunburyist]

I guess that makes the US the red headed step-child in the corner eating the lipstick?

...

...

[Bill Hayes]

Hmmmmmm....the chubby bloodnut flintoff couldn't even dismiss a makeshift opener before 50 in each innings even while rubbing mints into ball to extract reverse swing. Australia will retain the Ashes once again.

[Ken Gargett]

Quoting the British ragtops in any sporting discussiong loses points, come on. They destroy teams / players when they're down, and talk them up as the next golden generation after the smallest of wins.

Utterly and completely outplayed.....but you still didn't get the win. That classic Aussie bottler mentality comes to the fore again.

Flintoff is a great player, end of. His stats aren't the best out there, but sport is so much more than staring at %s after a game. This is the problem with internet armchair supporting you see - some players lift a team, give them that extra fire, and at the same time put fear and doubt into the other side. You would rather have him in your team, than against you.

England have, and always will be, up there and challenging for world titles in most major sports. Outside of union and cricket, what exactly do Australia do? And even those two you must get this feeling of staring into the wilderness when you think of the next few years.

I like your clutching at straws inclusion of Flatley's kick hitting the post when we dominated you in your own back yard in 2003. Yes, but it didn't go over did it. Australia would also have won if they had score more tries, just that they didn't. Especially entertaining when you consider the final passages of play in '91 when Underwood was clear with a big overlap and easy run in, only for Campese to deliberately knock the ball on and magically (must have been a French ref) not concede a penalty try.

Therein lies the difference between the two nations. You lost in '03 because you weren't good enough, but can't admit it. We lost in '91 because you cheated, but we can admit it.

Even now, Strauss graciously allowed you to call in an extra keeper, even though the rules dictated that we should have put you on the rack. Wonder what would have happened had it been Ponting's call...

Regardless - we'll take the Ashes, we'll likely do better in NZ at the next world cup, we'll certainly do better in SA at the footy, and the Lions will most likely do a job on the Wallabies next tour. Good luck in London 2012 as well. Apart from that, looks good for you guys eh?! Perhaps we should throw together a scratch Aussie Rules team and see if we can't beat you at that pillow-biting game you call sport.

And as for:

''Spectacular. I'm gonna bookmark that and refer to it every time one of the Poms in the office opens his mouth'' Kangaroo495

Feel free - I'm sure he'll be gutted. He might need to pop out and get a cup of tea as you drone on half way through those stats, but he'll be in tears for sure.

There's only ever one

when you try chat like that.

just found this load of crap. we won because we cheated. it never ends, does it? a pom is never happy till they are whinging. granted we've given you much to whinge about over the years.

and it looks like the same old pommy wishlist you set out at the finish, and no doubt will be followed with the same old tired line of excuses.

life is way too short to really waste time bothering responding to this nonsense always but happy to if anything of sense.

that said, can't resist a couple of points.

i think you'll find, if you can overcome the paranoia for a moment that the ref in 91 was derek bevan from wales. hardly a bloke with a history of favouring the wallabies. and you have a very different recollection of the game from most. not one of my pommy mates genuinely believes that england deserved to win in 91. most aussies, including myself, have no problem conceding we were not the best team in 03. but if you read what i wrote before frothing at the mouth, the simple fact was that had flatley's kick not hit the post, you would have lost. you may not have deserved to but that is sport (as a gunners' fan, i know we didn't deserve to win the last FA cup we did - i hate saying it but man u were ten times better than us that day - but it happens in sport).

no one has ever questioned that flintoff is a good cricketer on his day and he certainly played wonderfully well against us last time. but the difference is that australians and poms tend to have different definitions, or perhaps standards, when it comes great. freddie has a higher bowling average than a batting average, never a good sign for an all rounder. no one doubts there is more to sport than stats but that tends to be the cry when defending those with poor stats. and for such a great cricketer, his stats are rather average at best. bowling average in the 30s? batting? if he is so great, curious he averages about ten runs an innings less than another all rounder no one would suggest was great - greg matthews. when you play the very large number of tests that he has - 78 - stats do become revealing. 3 lots of five-for. no tens. sorry but anyone who thinks that is great has no idea. even in first calss cricket - 4 sets of five-for from 180 plus matches. that isn't great, that is bog average. i'll happily concede he is a cricketer with plenty of talent and one i love watching but he is also perhaps the 'greatest' underperformer in test history. do you think he would have played 78 tests if he was born in aust? lucky to have played a handful. great players win tests. freddie has at best won a couple. he may be a great english cricketer but he is not a great cricketer. and with his talent, he should have been.

as for the slur against ponting for something that didn't happen, it is offensive and ignorant. i can think of no capt in world cricket who would not have done exactly the same re the keeper. the rules don't actually 'dictate you should have put us on the rack', as such. strauss did the right thing, as he should have and as every captain surely would have. this is the same strauss who has now conceded that the ball for the catch he claimed may not have carried - a concession only made after evidence clearly showed that he had cheated. the same strauss who deliberately flaunted the spirit of the game with what was rather disgraceful conduct in the first with time wasting. about time he got on board. i might add that the man you are so quick defame is the one captain who has for years called for more sportsmanship in the game, who has tried and tried to get other captains to agree to take the word of players on catches (though given strauss's actions, perhaps that was unwise). no other captain has been prepared to do it, inclusing strauss. but it just doesn't suit the english mentality to accept that an australian might be the bloke exhibiting sportsmanship rather than the pom, so better to demonise him with what might happen. still check under your bed at night for what might be there?

and finally, seriously, without offence, go and have a serious look at the english sporting record and come back to earth.

[El Presidente]

Therein lies the difference between the two nations. You lost in '03 because you weren't good enough, but can't admit it. We lost in '91 because you cheated, but we can admit it.

Who would have thought that this forum could have found Ken's British twin brother

[Ken Gargett]

Who would have thought that this forum could have found Ken's British twin brother

i'm hard to offend but you may just have crossed the line.

[dicko]

clark in, england to ****. bout time too!

[Ken Gargett]

clark in, england to ****. bout time too!

agreed. our selectors have a lot to answer for! they should all be sacked. braindead not to have a bowler just made for the conditions sitting out. does beg the qustion of lee's chancs for furthering his career. was disappointed we didn't trun the screws a little more. like to have seen us 2 down max.