View Full Version : Aus A 2nd best team in world??
PrideofSA
19 Dec 2002, 16:42
Would Australia A be the 2nd best team in the world? I can't remember them losing too many games other than to Australia.
I say we let them play in the world cup, and it may be an interetsing battle with Australia
GoEagles
19 Dec 2002, 17:25
Interesting if Bangladesh and Zimbabwe ever compete in the VB series together, if the ACB brings back the Australia-A side to the competition.
Although there may be an ICC rule that doesn't allow 2nd XI teams to compete in International series.
Originally posted by GoEagles
Interesting if Bangladesh and Zimbabwe ever compete in the VB series together, if the ACB brings back the Australia-A side to the competition.
Although there may be an ICC rule that doesn't allow 2nd XI teams to compete in International series.
All that would prove is that Australia A are stronger than Bangladesh and Zimbabwe. Which we know they are. :)
I don't know that the ICC do have such a rule. They could compete in the series but they wouldn't be bona fide one-day internationals. Australia A competed in the 1994/95 series even though the matches involving them were not considered one-day internationals.
larrikin
19 Dec 2002, 19:28
Originally posted by PrideofSA
Would Australia A be the 2nd best team in the world? I can't remember them losing too many games other than to Australia.
I say we let them play in the world cup, and it may be an interetsing battle with Australia
Maybe South Africa or Pakistan when they are actually playing well with their full sides, but that doesn't look likely at the minute........
The Australian A side would be better than all but South Africa, India, Pakistan and possibly New Zealand. The 'A' side is not as strong as it was a few years ago.
Jim Boy
20 Dec 2002, 01:35
Originally posted by Zombie
The Australian A side would be better than all but South Africa, India, Pakistan and possibly New Zealand. The 'A' side is not as strong as it was a few years ago.
Depends on how you qualify it. For example are you saying Australia 'A' are better than the England team that last took to the field, or better than an England team with everyone available and fit?
I think it's also rather pointless comparing the 'A' team to cricket's minnows. Australia are so ahead in development it would be a scandal if they weren't. I think it's a poor suggestion that Australia 'A' take the place of the smaller nations. I don't think our players should play with themselves (both figuratively and literally). IMO, cricket doesn't need a world series, a la baseball.
Originally posted by Jim Boy
Depends on how you qualify it. For example are you saying Australia 'A' are better than the England team that last took to the field, or better than an England team with everyone available and fit?
I think it's also rather pointless comparing the 'A' team to cricket's minnows. Australia are so ahead in development it would be a scandal if they weren't. I think it's a poor suggestion that Australia 'A' take the place of the smaller nations. I don't think our players should play with themselves (both figuratively and literally). IMO, cricket doesn't need a world series, a la baseball.
Both, England are a cricketing minnow.