Australia in England

[squiz]

Drop Law from what exactly?

 

[sachin]

The conversation,you over educated fool!Bit of a contradiction,isn't it?lol

 

[Sureshot]

I guess the only good thing that happened for England in this match was Pietersen. Maybe just a little more time and the team will prolly be consistent winners, both with bat and ball.

Harmison bowled very well.

Jones bowled well in spells.

 

[angryangy]

England Colonist's XI

Andrew Strauss (RSA)
Michael Vaughan (c)
Stuart Law (AUS)
Kevin Pietersen (RSA)
Ed Joyce (IRE)
Andrew Flintoff
Geraint Jones (PNG)
Dougie Brown (SCO)
Min Patel (IND)
Steve Harmison
Simon Jones (WAL)

That's about as much as I could mess it up

 

[Sureshot]

Well Australia used to be a British Colony so at one point you would all have been British

 

[Sureshot]

Collingwood has beenin great form lately for Durham. 190 last week and on his way to another century today.Bring him in imo, he plays spinners well, plus his fielding gives us another 15 runs per innings effectively.

 

[The_gas]

Law left because he'd married an English woman and wanted to spend his time with her in England.

Damm AUstralian's why cant they get their own women.

 

[andrew_nixon]

Damm AUstralian's why cant they get their own women.

Because English women are better of course

 

[Ashish_Nehra]

aussies love english women

 

[ZexyZahid]

Personally I think they should have selected Thorpe if they wanted to make something of the first Test. And it's too bad that he retired now, because I surely think English selectors would have chosen him now.

Another obvious choice is Collingwood, who is good with bat and ball. He could come in for a bowler, like Hoggard or Giles, to strengthen the batting order.

For Australia they really should consider giving Symonds or Hussey a chance.

 

[angryangy]

I'd probably back Collingwood in for Giles. To me Giles is a real nothing all-rounder. If his bowling was more impressive, his batting skill would be very useful, or if he was much more proficient with the bat, his bowling would be great, but as is, he's the sort of player who just buys time for the team, either with bat or ball.

Well Australia used to be a British Colony so at one point you would all have been British

That's the idea of the England colonist's XI, except you can't have our citizens, jerks. Maybe it should be the Imperial XI or Her Majesty's XI or something. Funny thing is, I can't find a New Zealander who'd rather play for England, though.

 

[andrew_nixon]

Funny thing is, I can't find a New Zealander who'd rather play for England, though.

Andy Caddick.

 

[Sureshot]

Spearman who is eligible to play for us now iirc. i agree with Collingwood btw. Although Giles won't be left out of Edgbaston nor Trent Bridge. but i would bring in Collingwood for giles/Bell.

 

[themuel1]

I'd probably back Collingwood in for Giles. To me Giles is a real nothing all-rounder. If his bowling was more impressive, his batting skill would be very useful, or if he was much more proficient with the bat, his bowling would be great, but as is, he's the sort of player who just buys time for the team, either with bat or ball.



That's the idea of the England colonist's XI, except you can't have our citizens, jerks. Maybe it should be the Imperial XI or Her Majesty's XI or something. Funny thing is, I can't find a New Zealander who'd rather play for England, though.

Giles is a good bowler. He has had one bad game in the last year. I would drop Bell, Collingwood has more expierience and is in better form.

Also, no Enlgishman with sense would play for New Zealand now.

 

[Briggsey]

Or how about just bring in Collingwood for Tremlett who was named in the 12 but wasnt picked and was allowed to go off and play for Hampshire. Our bowling attack is fine so why not bring in Collingwood for him and then let him fight it out with Bell for number 4. And if they stick with Bell, well Collingwood would be a brilliant 12th man on the field!