Is there anyone on earth who, having seen either of the first two games, would agree that it is indeed 'crucial'?
Let's have a worldwide vote. Entries from employees of the ECB and BSkyB will not be counted.
Other adjectives we may find more suitable: Interminable; Endless; Apathetic; Obligatory; Agreed Between Boards; Post-Coital; Moneymaking; Airtime filling; 'Let's face it the Australian Captain and coach both went home before they started'.
Posts
4 comments:
Post-coital is right. It's like we've had the rumpy-pumpy first, and now we're being dragged out for dinner and a crap movie.
England team talk: "Now lads, let's just keep wickets in hand for 49 overs and then see what we can do in the last 6 balls."
Aussie team talk: "Aw look mates, if we can just nip Strauss out we're into the tail."
Did you see them bat today...? Jesus christ...
Not much of it, but I got the gist. I watched the football rather than the run 'chase'. 50-over cricket is so dead; the counties were right about that for once.
There's only one thing for it... bring back the Shermanator! Seriously, they may as well pick the Oval Test team with Wright for Flintoff and Rashid for Harmison. Can't see how Cook, Bell and Trott could be worse than this lot. And of course, that would be a kind of
CONSISTENCY!
Do you think a (shortened) version of the erstwhile Natwest series might have been a better solution? Three teams playing each other twice, plus the final make it seven games, so no major loss in gate receipts. Additionally, England and Australia would only play each other a maximum of three times, so no overkill.
The above could really have been scheduled between the West Indies tests and the Ashes, with the Windies being the third team.
Post a Comment