Rolling World Cup squad thread

[LukeParkerno1]

You aren't actually in a position to decide which of the teams that didn't make it are 'terrible'.

Let me remind you that Scotland beat England in an ODI last year.

They aren't going to do that again very often. The less teams the better we don't need a 3 month tournament where half the pool matches mean nothing like last time.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

The crowd atmosphere in England is generally awesome. The only negative is their weather.

Also, generally the English fans have always been pretty ambivalent about ODI cricket but this is the first time, they're really excited for it since they're going in as the favourites to win in a world cup happening at home. Also probably one of the rare times when they have a much stronger one day team than a test team. Reckon there's going to be plenty of slogans to the equivalent of "it's coming home" lol. The scenes are going to be dramatic if they win their first ever world cup on home soil or crash out in the semifinals, eitherway it's going to be entertaining lol.

I'd rather the mugs lose every game so in true England fashion they can have one almighty sook and blame everyone.

 

[Agent93]

I'd like to see CA pick a squad of complete debutants. No ODI experience whatsoever. Make them all put numbers in the 80s and 90s on the back of their shirts. Open the bowling with Matt Renshaw.

Actually this is pretty hard to do... here's a shot:

Matt Renshaw
Sam Heazlett
Jake Weatherald
Sam Whiteman (wk)
Ashton Turner (c)
Jake Lehmann
Simon Milenko
Daniel Sams
Chris Green
Mark Steketee
Will Sutherland

Squad:
Will Pucovski/Josh Phillipe/Jack Edwards
Cameron Green
Jack Wildermuth
Clive Rose

Bowlers are the hardest part as CA has given 1 or 2 games to plenty of the reserve quicks and spinners.

 

[Park cricketer]

Actually this is pretty hard to do... here's a shot:

Matt Renshaw
Sam Heazlett
Jake Weatherald
Sam Whiteman (wk)
Ashton Turner (c)
Jake Lehmann
Simon Milenko
Daniel Sams
Chris Green
Mark Steketee
Will Sutherland

Squad:
Will Pucovski/Josh Phillipe/Jack Edwards
Cameron Green
Jack Wildermuth
Clive Rose

Bowlers are the hardest part as CA has given 1 or 2 games to plenty of the reserve quicks and spinners.

Warne's going to burst an artery seeing that Riley Meredith doesn't even make this team.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Warne's going to burst an artery seeing that Riley Meredith doesn't even make this team.

No Stones, no Meredith what will Plastic Man complain about this time?

 

[Agent93]

Warne's going to burst an artery seeing that Riley Meredith doesn't even make this team.

Almost guaranteed given Stoinis doesn't make the cut either.

 

[The Speaker]

They aren't going to do that again very often. The less teams the better we don't need a 3 month tournament where half the pool matches mean nothing like last time.

Have you even seen what the fixturing is like for this WC? That's exactly what we're getting.

And as I've pointed out before, statistically matches between two full members at WCs are just as likely to be blow-outs as matches between FMs and Associates.

 

[JackOutback]

I much prefer to see the Associates and see how they have developed. They always tend to offer up occasional upsets as well, which creates more drama.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Have you even seen what the fixturing is like for this WC? That's exactly what we're getting.

And as I've pointed out before, statistically matches between two full members at WCs are just as likely to be blow-outs as matches between FMs and Associates.

The closer the WC is to a Champions Trophy the better. We need matches meaning something. Associates can play as warmups. They can qualify for the WC’s last two spots too.

 

[The Speaker]

The closer the WC is to a Champions Trophy the better. We need matches meaning something. Associates can play as warmups. They can qualify for the WC’s last two spots too.

As always, you ignore the rebuttal and just repeat what you already believe.

The most meaningful tournament would be one with more teams in smaller groups. The bigger the group, the less meaning each game has.

This is the first World Cup that has two full members missing out. There is no other sport in the world that thinks a World Cup should be its smallest tournament.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

As always, you ignore the rebuttal and just repeat what you already believe.

The most meaningful tournament would be one with more teams in smaller groups. The bigger the group, the less meaning each game has.

This is the first World Cup that has two full members missing out. There is no other sport in the world that thinks a World Cup should be its smallest tournament.

All the major countries are there. I’m not missing seeing a bunch of games between Zimbabwe or Zambia or some other pretty average side. Site it’s great they are playing the game but it’s nit critical for them to be in a WC. This format should be seen before we bag it. Last time there were too many associate teams in my view.

 

[The Speaker]

All the major countries are there. I’m not missing seeing a bunch of games between Zimbabwe or Zambia or some other pretty average side. Site it’s great they are playing the game but it’s nit critical for them to be in a WC. This format should be seen before we bag it. Last time there were too many associate teams in my view.

Ignoring your cluelessness that you seem happy to revel in, there were four Associates last time (two of whom are now full members), all of whom are better now than they were then and who provided some of the best matches in the whole tournament.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Ignoring your cluelessness that you seem happy to revel in, there were four Associates last time (two of whom are now full members), all of whom are better now than they were then and who provided some of the best matches in the whole tournament.

Exactly 4 was way too many. 1-2 is plenty and frankly is more than enough.

We will never agree, you love your associates I’m in the “meh” basket. If it isn’t Afghanistan then don’t really care to put them in a WC. I’d rather them play a tournament between themselves

 

[Tigerssaints]

it didnt take long we now have the NSW media telling everyone ( selectors ) SMITHY must captain the 0ne day team

even with crook arm ,and the suspensions let alone he is NOT a good captain

 

[Wedge McManus]

You aren't actually in a position to decide which of the teams that didn't make it are 'terrible'.

Let me remind you that Scotland beat England in an ODI last year.

Scotland are absolutely atrocious. One win doesn't change that

 

[The Speaker]

Scotland are absolutely atrocious. One win doesn't change that

Provide evidence that they are "atrocious".

 

[Wedge McManus]

Provide evidence that they are "atrocious".

According to Cricinfo Scotland have played 106 Odis for 38 wins.

 

[The Speaker]

According to Cricinfo Scotland have played 106 Odis for 38 wins.

Wow you must have worked really hard to find that stat.

Unlike you, I have watched Scotland in the past few years. I have seen their form, their strengths, their weaknesses. I know who their best players are (how many can you name without searching?), and how much depth they have.

Scotland are a seriously good team. They were the best team in the World Cup Qualifiers, and got absolutely robbed of a spot by bad umpiring two games in a row with no DRS. They have excellent depth, and are probably next in line for full membership. They barely get any games, but have been building something special with the limited resources that they have available to them. They even tore Rashid Khan apart - wouldn't it be nice if Australian batsmen could be trusted to do likewise?

So no, they're not "absolutely atrocious", and you would be well advised to do some research before running your mouth.

Exactly 4 was way too many. 1-2 is plenty and frankly is more than enough.

We will never agree, you love your associates I’m in the “meh” basket. If it isn’t Afghanistan then don’t really care to put them in a WC. I’d rather them play a tournament between themselves

the logical leaps you make are extraordinary

There are NO ASSOICATES in the tournament. If it wasn't for putting Associates in the World Cup, we wouldn't have five of the twelve Test playing nations that currently exist.

 

[Aussie_boy]

Actually this is pretty hard to do... here's a shot:

Matt Renshaw
Sam Heazlett
Jake Weatherald
Sam Whiteman (wk)
Ashton Turner (c)
Jake Lehmann
Simon Milenko
Daniel Sams
Chris Green
Mark Steketee
Will Sutherland

Squad:
Will Pucovski/Josh Phillipe/Jack Edwards
Cameron Green
Jack Wildermuth
Clive Rose

Bowlers are the hardest part as CA has given 1 or 2 games to plenty of the reserve quicks and spinners.

You're forgetting Heazlett's infamous NZ tour a couple of years back.

 

[Wedge McManus]

Wow you must have worked really hard to find that stat.

Unlike you, I have watched Scotland in the past few years. I have seen their form, their strengths, their weaknesses. I know who their best players are (how many can you name without searching?), and how much depth they have.

Scotland are a seriously good team. They were the best team in the World Cup Qualifiers, and got absolutely robbed of a spot by bad umpiring two games in a row with no DRS. They have excellent depth, and are probably next in line for full membership. They barely get any games, but have been building something special with the limited resources that they have available to them. They even tore Rashid Khan apart - wouldn't it be nice if Australian batsmen could be trusted to do likewise?

So no, they're not "absolutely atrocious", and you would be well advised to do some research before running your mouth.

I just knew an essay was coming and there it is. Absolutely no rebuttal to my stat based fact just a lot of hot air bullshit

 

[The Speaker]

I just knew an essay was coming and there it is. Absolutely no rebuttal to my stat based fact just a lot of hot air bullshit. Says alot of a person when they passive aggressively get triggered by a difference of opinion

Nothing passive about it. You said something that was wrong and the sole piece of evidence you used to back it up was an all-time ODI stat, despite Scotland having played ODIs for 20 years. Should I use stats from 20 years ago to say that Australia is as good now as they were then? If you had seen any of them in action, you would've said so - and yet only silence.

I have no problem with people having different opinions, and am happy to debate them. But if they have different opinions with nothing to back it up, that's when we're going to have a problem.

 

[Aussie_boy]

I’d like to see Stoinis move up to open with Warner and let Finch bat in the middle without the threat of a new ball swinging into his stumps. Stoinis has looked good opening for the Stars.

Warner
Stoinis
SMarsh
Smith
Finch (c)
Maxwell
Carey
Cummins
Starc
Richardson
Zampa

Reserves
Handscomb
Hazelwood
Short

Good call, I'm definitely in the opening with Stoinis camp as well. Chews up too many balls if he's coming in around the 40 over mark, seems to rarely get out early as well so can anchor the innings and explode towards the end.

 

[Wedge McManus]

Nothing passive about it. You said something that was wrong and the sole piece of evidence you used to back it up was an all-time ODI stat, despite Scotland having played ODIs for 20 years. Should I use stats from 20 years ago to say that Australia is as good now as they were then? If you had seen any of them in action, you would've said so - and yet only silence.

I have no problem with people having different opinions, and am happy to debate them. But if they have different opinions with nothing to back it up, that's when we're going to have a problem.

I gave you the evidence FFS. A shitty win rate. What more do I need to give you? You came back with some Nelson Mandela bullshit without addressing the evidence for my statement. Pull your head out and stop attacking everyone with a difference of opinion about your precious associates. You don't own this place

 

[Kram]

Format I would have went with is 14 teams, 2 groups of 7.

Top of each group straight through to semis, 2 v 3 for the right to play the winner.

Gives the associates a good look in without lowering the standard of the comp too much. Also decent length of round robin stage so no big drawcards get knocked out really early.

Getting top spot earns a decent reward so teams will fight right all the way through the group stage to get it.

 

[The Speaker]

I gave you the evidence FFS. A shitty win rate. What more do I need to give you? You came back with some Nelson Mandela bullshit without addressing the evidence for my statement. Pull your head out and stop attacking everyone with a difference of opinion about your precious associates. You don't own this place

Your 'evidence' would presumably mean that New Zealand is one of the worst Test nations right now, given their abysmal win rate of 95 out 431 - worse than Scotland's ODI record.

And when the West Indies were number one, presumably they weren't really number one because they had such a terrible win rate before that.

And look at this graph, taken prior to the Aus/Ind ODI series:

From this, we can only conclude that Australia is the worst ODI nation. Right?