Ashes 2011

JustinDee

NWPat wrote: »

You, I fear, are the one who is mixed up, perhaps it is the pain of the latest drubbing making you dizzy. Trott did indeed play in the Under-15 and Under-19 World Cups for South Africa but was a British passport holder and therefore not an overseas player, making his first team debut for Warwickshire in 2003.

Trott, a South African, moving to England aged 20, took out a British passport in order to qualify for England.
Khwaja, like the names you brought up, with the exception Wessels whom I mentioned already, was brought up in Australia and is an Australian. He is not a Pakistani who switched in order to play for Australia
There is no comparison.

NWPat

The ICC, MCC and the British authorities accept Trott as British and having the right to play for England. Obviously you know something the rest of the world doesn't, or is it just a case of sour grapes?

NWPat

JustinDee wrote: »

Trott, a South African, moving to England aged 20, took out a British passport in order to qualify for England.
Khwaja, like the names you brought up, with the exception Wessels whom I mentioned already, was brought up in Australia and is an Australian. He is not a Pakistani who switched in order to play for Australia
There is no comparison.

Oh yeah, how about Bransby Cooper who was a public-school educated product of the English establishment who played for Kent and Middlesex as a hard-hitting right-hand bat then went on to play for Australia. Given the day, double standards all round.

JustinDee

NWPat wrote: »

The ICC, MCC and the British authorities accept Trott as British and having the right to play for England. Obviously you know something the rest of the world doesn't, or is it just a case of sour grapes?

Nobody questioned his qualification to play for England.
You tried to allude to Australia being in the same boat (ie. looking overseas for players).
They don't.
England do.
Your argument against this, forgetting that guff about Aboriginal folk, amounts to nothing more than the equivalent of saying the IRFU lured Jamie Heaslip from Israel and Ronan O'Gara from the US.

JustinDee

NWPat wrote: »

Oh yeah, how about Bransby Cooper who was a public-school educated product of the English establishment who played for Kent and Middlesex as a hard-hitting right-hand bat then went on to play for Australia. Given the day, double standards all round.

This wiki-wagging is just making your posts look really silly.

NWPat

JustinDee wrote: »

Nobody questioned his qualification to play for England.
You tried to allude to Australia being in the same boat (ie. looking overseas for players).
They don't.
England do.
Your argument against this, forgetting that guff about Aboriginal folk, amounts to nothing more than the equivalent of saying the IRFU lured Jamie Heaslip from Israel and Ronan O'Gara from the US.

No I didn't, I said that foreign born players had played for Australia. Please give evidence of England(looking overseas for players).Rather than just looking for the best players available.

NWPat

JustinDee wrote: »

This wiki-wagging is just making your posts look really silly.

If you can't defend your argument with facts, please do not resort to insults. Tell me the difference between Cooper and Trott. I think ignorance of the subject makes you look very silly.

JustinDee

NWPat wrote: »

No I didn't, I said that foreign born players had played for Australia. Please give evidence of England(looking overseas for players).Rather than just looking for the best players available.

*sigh*
There is an huge difference between being "foreign-born" and being "foreign".
the Heaslip and O'Gara examples didn't seem to register so try think of it like this: England are Jack Charlton's Rep.Ireland side while Australia are...well...Australia.

JustinDee

NWPat wrote: »

If you can't defend your argument with facts, please do not resort to insults. Tell me the difference between Cooper and Trott. I think ignorance of the subject makes you look very silly.

You mean aside from the fact that Trott has played for his own country already at age level and the fact that Bransby Cooper, who played over a century ago apparently, wasn't even Indian or hadn't played for any other country at any other level?

Seriously, I thought that line about Aboriginal Australia was desperate but now this?!

You have now made it plainly clear that you know nothing of the difference being foreign-born and being foreign. According to your logic here, I'm not even Irish as I wasn't born here.

Happy New Year. Toujours en avant.

Nelson Muntz

NWPat wrote: »

No I didn't, I said that foreign born players had played for Australia. Please give evidence of England(looking overseas for players).Rather than just looking for the best players available.

It is not as complicated as you seem to find it.

If you moved to Ireland when your were 1 or 2, then someone asks you when you are twenty-two are you Irish, you would say yes.

If you moved here when you were twenty & got asked the same question at twenty-two, you would probably say no.

NWPat

JustinDee wrote: »

*sigh*
There is an huge difference between being "foreign-born" and being "foreign".
the Heaslip and O'Gara examples didn't seem to register so try think of it like this: England are Jack Charlton's Rep.Ireland side while Australia are...well...Australia.

Without wishing to get to deeply philosophical, "foreign" is a social construct and has no absolute meaning and is ever changing. Therefore it is subjective and it is only in your mind where the difference exists. As for your last line, Australia are.... well.....beaten:D

JustinDee

NWPat wrote: »

Without wishing to get to deeply philosophical, "foreign" is a social construct and has no absolute meaning and is ever changing. Therefore it is subjective and it is only in your mind where the difference exists

I'm Irish yet born overseas. I've an Australian passport (am a dual Ireland/Australia passport holder) but I'm still Irish yet not born in either Ireland or Australia.
I can't move overseas and suddenly deem myself to be "from" the country I've moved to. I'd still be Irish.
If I played underage for Ireland, I'd be Irish. If I played for another country, I'd be an overseas player declaring to play for them just like Pietersen, Trott and Morgan. Not like Usman Khwaja at all.

Thats the point.

NWPat

Nelson Muntz wrote: »

It is not as complicated as you seem to find it.

If you moved to Ireland when your were 1 or 2, then someone asks you when you are twenty-two are you Irish, you would say yes.

If you moved here when you were twenty & got asked the same question at twenty-two, you would probably say no.

Not realy, and here's why.

EG 1 Born in Germany to Irish parents, move here at 20 at 22 may well say Irish and would be legally entitled to do so.

EG 2 Born in Ireland to Nigerian parents, lived here for 22 years, may well say Irish but since the referendum on Twenty-seventh Amendment of the Constitution would not have the automatic legal right to irish citizenship.

All nations are social constructs and are subject to change.

NWPat

JustinDee wrote: »

I'm Irish yet born overseas. I've an Australian passport (am a dual Ireland/Australia passport holder) but I'm still Irish yet not born in either Ireland or Australia.
I can't move overseas and suddenly deem myself to be "from" the country I've moved to. I'd still be Irish.
If I played underage for Ireland, I'd be Irish. If I played for another country, I'd be an overseas player declaring to play for them just like Pietersen, Trott and Morgan. Not like Usman Khwaja at all.

Thats the point.

That is not the point at all, Trott is not an overseas player he is British, it says so in his passport. The rest is in your mind.

JustinDee

NWPat wrote: »

That is not the point at all, Trott is not an overseas player he is British, it says so in his passport. The rest is in your mind.

It is the point. You're just missing it whether deliberately or otherwise, I don't care.
He was an overseas player signed up by England and took out a British passport in order to qualify.
He is a South African who has declared for England and become a British citizen. Nobody said he didn't qualify.
You seem to think that where you're from just switches off at the flick of a switch.
All this started with your fuzzy post about Khwaja being in the same situation. He and Trott couldn't be more different in circumstance.

Oh whats the point. You'll never twig this and conveniently so.

NWPat

JustinDee wrote: »

It is the point. You're just missing it whether deliberately or otherwise, I don't care.
He was an overseas player signed up by England and took out a British passport in order to qualify.
He is a South African who has declared for England and become a British citizen. Nobody said he didn't qualify.
You seem to think that where you're from just switches off at the flick of a switch.
All this started with your fuzzy post about Khwaja being in the same situation. He and Trott couldn't be more different in circumstance.

Oh whats the point. You'll never twig this and conveniently so.

This is simply not true, he is British because he qualifies for a British passport in his own right, he has a British father(Ian Trott, who coaches cricket at an English school), not by residency qualification. This makes him as British as any other British subject. You are the one who cannot accept this as fact. His family have British roots dating back centuries, how far back do Khwaja's Ozzy roots go. I never claimed that the situation was the same just that Australia also had foreign born players, and they do and they have.

Oh whats the point. You'll never twig this and conveniently so

d'Oracle

I'm gonna say this.

There is no way that NWPat can lose this, because his point of view changes with the arguement.

Put simply, it appears that he is just interested in not being seen to be wrong on the internet.

Dozen Wicked Words

Lets just say the players who choose to represent England beat those who represent Australia in two tests so far, and have retained the Ashes.

Regardless of where they were born, they have made their choices and met the criteria set by the ICC, just the same as in any sport, players can be born in one country and choose to play for another.

Happy New Year to one and all, heres to a vibrant Cricket forum in 2011.

NWPat

d'Oracle wrote: »

I'm gonna say this.

There is no way that NWPat can lose this, because his point of view changes with the arguement.

Put simply, it appears that he is just interested in not being seen to be wrong on the internet.

Happy new year:) and the Oracle has spoken. Yes I am very worried about being wrong on the internet, I'm sure I would be the first:rolleyes:. However, on this occasion my point is that both England and Australia have both fielded teams containing foreign born players. Please explain where my view on this has changed or how this is not true, I look forward to learning from someone who is right.

booth70

Happy New Year to one and all....a great way to kick off the year with the top 4 teams in action in the coming days....hoping for top class test cricket from Cape Town and Sydney:)

Any reason why the Sydney test this time is being played from the 3rd and not from the 2nd of January?.....always used to remember it being played from the 2nd - 6th...

SD7792

It is from the 2nd onwards. Possibly starts on the 3rd in Australian time?

Beasty

It starts on the 3rd (Aussie time) - I think the issue is there is now a minimum of 3 rest days between matches laid down by the ICC (which is why they now start on different days in England, rather than the traditional Thursday every time)

crackit

Michael Beer walked into the SCG for the first time today and while he liked what he saw, he thought "it looked different on TV". Everything is new to Beer, the left-arm spinner, who only played his maiden first-class game for Western Australia at the start of the summer.

:rolleyes:

kryogen

great post ^^

crackit

My sarcasm detector is on the blink so I'm assuming you're taking the piss.

The point of the post is Australia are all over the shop and they turn to a player who has never even been to the SCG nevermind played there.

It looked different on TV??? :rolleyes: ffs that says it all for me.

dfx-

dooferoaks wrote: »

Happy New Year to one and all, heres to a vibrant Cricket forum in 2011.

Seconded, happy new year one and all

Hopefully starting with one home win and one away win in the opening tests...

NWPat

crackit wrote: »

My sarcasm detector is on the blink so I'm assuming you're taking the piss.

The point of the post is Australia are all over the shop and they turn to a player who has never even been to the SCG nevermind played there.

It looked different on TV??? :rolleyes: ffs that says it all for me.

It does seem to smack of desperation but i'm not sure Australia are as bad as it might appear. To me the difference between the two sides is not that great with Englands more consistent bowling department being the major factor. Both batting line ups can be fragile under pressure and maybe Beer is the man for the job. After all Shane Warne's first visit to Old Trafford in 1993 didn't go so bad.

crackit

I've no problem with players making a first visit to a ground. However, there is a huge difference between playing your first game at Old Trafford, Centurion or Eden Gardens if you're an Australian than there is making your first appearance at a place like the SCG in your test match debut/

IMO any Australia player, unless he's a prodigious 17 year old, getting picked for the test side should have an ample first class career and good experience of the grounds if he's picked for a home test. What we're talking about here is a 27 year old with no experience who hasn't played first class until this year.

Hauritz is obviously on the outs so forget about him.

If you wanted to throw someone in at the deep end O'Keefe would have been the pick. Not so long ago it was horses for course when Beer got called up. Surely O'Keefe, with limited experience as well mind, knows his home deck better than a man who has never even set foot in the place.

Beer needs to take a couple of 5fors in my book. If he 2 in the first innings and 3 in the second it will just leave me wondering what might of been if they'd actually picked a spinner with a bit of experience.

NWPat

You could well be right, a more experienced player may have been a better choice, but at this stage there is little for Australia to lose so why not take a punt. The real problem is trying to find a spinner who can cope with the expectation of filling Warne's boots.

crackit

I think Australia need to be a little more considered in their approach than 'taking a punt'. A poor selection policy has played it's part in getting them where they are now. Time to man up and accept the mistakes of the selection committee. I actually think they need a shake up at that level too.

Anyway proof that there can be harm in 'taking a punt' - Xavier Doherty - Ashes 2010-11 - 3-306 - econ 4.03 - avg 102 - s/r 151.6

NWPat

Looking at the stats its clear that O'keefe has a superior record and added to home ground advantage its hard to argue a case for Beer. The only reason to pick him that i can see is the five wkts he got against England in the warm up game for West. Aus. Including Trott and Pietersen(twice).

SD7792

Morgan not singing british anthem. Good man :P

mike65

Too late, he's taken the soup.

harpsman

was that the most boring australian batting session inhistory?

kryogen

Good batting imo, testing conditions out there and they did well, right up to the lunch in fact when Hughes should have left that alone

Test cricket isnt all about extravagent shots and boundaries galore

harpsman

well anythings better than 2 for 3.its slow scoring even by boycott standards.long way down from hayden and slats.
suppose if watson puts on big score will be vindicated.if not..

kryogen

There is such a thing as just occupying the crease you know, which is something Aussie batsmen have failed to do in this series so i have absolutely no problem seeing a Trott like innings from any Aussie batsman here today, as I said its Test cricket, its a 5 day game and cant be won in the first couple of hours

The conditions are very good for bowling also so I dunno why you would expect plenty of early runs

kryogen

Great start by Khawaja

kryogen

no nerves at all on display, really hope he can have a good debut today, feel he has a big future in the test team

kryogen

Im actually getting worried now that he is scoring so easily that he may get out with a lapse in concentration! talk about making an explosive start to your test career though!

15 from 8 balls

kryogen

2 down now and Watson is (and should be) disgusted with himself, played very well for his 45, very well, left some great balls alone, then goes giving an edge to a ball about a mile wide of his off stump

same old story with Watson i guess

shame

EDIT: you could actually hear Watson shout Oh No! as he edged the ball, caught it on the replay, kinda funny

NWPat

England edge day one I think. lack of application from Aus batmen making good starts and getting out when seemingly well set. Couple of questions if anyone can shed some light; Is Hughes' technique better suited to a slot lower down the order and why is Hussey not captain?

JustinDee

Its quite astounding that the England commentators have been referring to Tremlett as a 'find'. Shane Warne knew more about him (from his days in Hampshire obviously) than any of the pundits bar David Lloyd.
He's been around a while and I've always rated him. Unlucky with injuries for sure but it took a new physio at Hampshire to spot where his problem in conditioning was. He was an 'almost' for at least two big tours under two different coaches that I can remember but their selectors weirdly chickened out.
Bowled too short last night. In those conditions when he pitched it up he was deadly.

England would have the edge from the first day. Those two wickets one pre-lunch and one pre-stumps ball hurt big-time.
Whatever Aussie make in the first, England have to be out for similar as you don't want to be chasing big leads especially on last six sessions at the SCG.
Time is of the essence however in these first three days given the weather forecast currently remaining unchanged for that time.

Moist Bread

Awww no!

Poor Shane.

kryogen

Real shame about the last ball before the rain finished the day

Beasty

With the new ball due some time during the morning session and similar weather to Monday forecast, there's every possibilty that the Aussies could be all-out by lunchtime. I think England go into the second day with a significant advantage.

booth70

160 odd of 80 overs.......this match is crying out for a Gilchrist type innings to move things forward:(

kryogen

230-8 now

Johnson giving some resistance

dfx-

Johnson more 50s than Clarke in this series now I think...:pac:

kryogen

Mitch just gone for an excellent 53 from 66 balls, he and hilf have dragged Australia out of a hole with a 70 odd run stand

I expect the last wicket to fall pretty quickly though now