Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

The Don has Risen

now that is funny.
Hang on just tell johnson to bowl with the force.

he can do it.

Big Ramifications


That's my team.

The Don has Risen

we were aldershot to pieces

Professor Rosseforp

Good to see that Chappelli and Botham are still getting involved in punchups -- apparently there was a carpark altercation after the test. I think it's time for a cage fight between them as a warmup for the next test.


Pair of bloody big babies. I hope they punched each others' teeth out so that neither of them can commentate any more.

Professor Rosseforp

Soon they'll be ramming each other with their zimmer frames.

Big Ramifications

If Sir Beefy's version is true has anyone seen or read a journalist take him to task for his gutless sucker punch?

That's what gets me. A middle aged man is sitting on a bar stool havin' a beer. Can you think of a more defenceless position? And strapping 21 year old Beefy sends him flying? What a farking hero.

I'd be too embarrassed to even have that tale retold to me, let alone wearing it as a badge of honour.

/or have I misremembered something?
//paging Tony T


Dunno about middle aged. Chappell was 33 when the two first got it awn.


Gutless, weak, lazy, unworthy. They cannot bat past #5 (and that's being charitable). If Ponting, Nielson and Hilditch do not lose their positions over this then I'm no longer interested in supporting this team until such time as they do. There is serious talent in the ranks, yet these two incompetent, arrogant clowns are clearly unable to motivate or organise that talent. They are similarly unable to recognise a lack of talent - North, Doherty and themselves being glaring examples. To top it off, England are not really a great team. The batting is good but not world beating. The bowling is nowhere near as good as that of the 2005 team. The fielding is also pretty good but not great. They clearly have team spirit that even transcends Pietersen's Zeppelin like ego. So they are a good team but no great. Yet they just thrashed Australia more emphatically than Steve Waugh's Invincibles ever dealt out to the supposedly hapless England sides of ten years ago.


Are we not playing a Test after Sydney until Sep 2011???


If that isn't a way to cut half the team, most of the selection panel, and the coaching staff, when would you cut them?


Just in time for none of them to have to play Shield cricket. Again. For farking fark's sake.


According to the future tours program they've got a trip to Bangladesh, hosting Zimbabwe and a trip to Sri Lanka for tests before Sep 2011.

Who knows if any of them will actually be taking place......

Still, as you say Nick, pretty good time to get some new faces in there


The hatred that Pom and Pom pseudo-Ozzie commentators have for Boycott is inversely related to how much sense Boycott talks. Good nay, superior, assessment of the Adelaide Test, the series so far, Katich (I agree with Boycott) and Broad/Tremlet (agrees with Tones) in this interview.

More importantly he points out how poor Clarke and Hussey's approach to batting was given the circumstances.

And I agree with Boycott that the teams are evenly matched talent wise but the difference is in the attitude. We might lose in the talent and experience department by bringing in fresh faces but we will improve our attitude. That being said, a fish rots from the head so, unless Punter is demoted from the Captaincy, the current attitude within the Oz camp will probably prevail regardless of the selections.

Is Clarke a source of the slide in attitude, the lack of fight and belligerence? Where is all this happy happy, laughy laugh that we see when we are getting caned coming from? I've never seen Ozzies so happily accepting of fielding errors, getting tonked at will etc. It's the weirdest thing about the team and was exhibited in that disastrous 9th wicket stand by the Lankans to take the recent opening ODI. It's that attitude that strikes me as the problem, not necessarily the lack of talent.

As pointed out at AGB over and over, this is not a birlliant, great, fantastic, English team but one that is vastly superior, even given the seeming equality in talent from both teams. The core of our cricket is rotten in its attitude. That's what needs be fixed forthwith. If that can be achieved through new blood I think it will only occur if the right old blood gets flushed.

I'd think then that the Captain and Vice Captain must shoulder that responsibility and they are the two I'd be looking at replacing.


I would make it clear to Ponting, Clarke, North and Johnson, that they are playing got their careers. The NSG has put it's trust in these players and they need to deliver. If not, all of them are out, as well as Hilditch (never a good pick) and Cox (for this series and his woeful bungle in the last). Hauritz has also had too many chances.

I'd have White as captain, Haddin or Hussey as batting vice captains, Paine in ASAP, Khawaja, Ferguson, Copeland, Smith, Marsh and Cameron in against the might of Bang and Zim.

Also, if the boys fail in the Ashes, fuck getting picked for the 5050 World Cup.

Ps : Kat, you've played your last Test. Maybe your third act can be as a selector - teaching others how to grind every little ounce out of their talent.

Professor Rosseforp

Patard, I have always admired Geoff Boycott's cricketing brain.
He is one of the few openers in recent times who walked out to bat with the mental attitude, "I have got 5 days to bat here in this innings". It's an eminently suitable thought for an opener, if not always the most flexible option. He is correct on the talent vs attitude analysis.
The questions around Clarke's attitude were summarised neatly some time back in this column (possibly by Tony?) where the terms "Clarke" and "simpleton" were conjoined. Each time I see hime giggling away, that harsh assessment has a ring of verisimilitude.
BTW I notice the entries in this blog are now in the low 700s and I'm wondering if they might hit 903.


Boycott is absolutely right re: his comments on Clarke and Hussey. What's the point of celebrating the flourishing slogs and pull shots of their innings when runs were irrelevant and the only thing they had to do was not get out? The commentators, if they were interested in actually applauding good cricket rather than the false belief that all the viewers want to see is a boundary-fest, would have been applauding Clarke and Hussey every time they let one go through to the keeper, rather than getting excited about pull shots.

Big Ramifications

The questions around Clarke's attitude were summarised neatly some time back in this column (possibly by Tony?) where the terms "Clarke" and "simpleton" were conjoined.

Hey that was me! [takes bow]

Er, that's if you're referring to the Michael Clarke / Forrest Gump analogy.

Big Rammer's mum

That was a very awesome analogy.

Professor Rosseforp

Thanks Big Rammer, I don't remember the Gump part, but that works too.
I wonder if Ian Redpath is available to have a chat to the Aussie batsmen? My main memory of him was his phenomenonal ability to break a bowler's heart with his incredible judgement when leaving the ball outside the off stump. If he didn't need to play, and the ball was an inch outside off stump, he would leave it. It happened so regularly that it could not have been fummble luck. The bowlers would have conniptions, because once the ball was just on the stump, he would play a dead straight bat and drop the ball at his feet.

Big Ramifications

No, my apologies. I did just refer to him as a simpleton.


I know I've called him Forrest Gump somewhere.


Compare and contrast Boycott's precise analysis with the usual rubbish and tut tutting from Spanky.

It seems, amongst all the gratuitous indulgence of Spanky's assertion of self-superiority, that the guts of our problem is an unwillingness to prostrate ourselves at the feet of the English:

"The hosts will not get stronger by begrudging its opponent. Australia cannot rise again until it accepts that its position as the fifth best team and still falling."

The eternal theme of Spankster: Australian inherent ugly pride and parochialism is the core of our diseased heart. Just waiting now for the "diversity" article soon coming, no doubt, to square his circle. Only a Khawaja can save us I'll bet. Not because he's the most promising bat we have but because he represents the disappearance of all Spanky despises, i.e. us.


Spanky seems to have a knack for ignoring the obvious. Namely that our selection policy has been awful, treating cricketers as tenured professors that only lose their spot when they become too physically old to play. It's got very little to do with any kind of mental deficiency in the players, and everything to do with the fact that we simply aren't very good, especially in the bowling department. A rational side would give someone else a try when the guys they had repeatedly fail. And they wouldn't bring in guys who average 45 with the ball in first class cricket just because they spin it in a certain direction.

Big Ramifications

Great pick up, Patard. What a farking load of Dr Phil-inspired tosh.

"until it accepts..."


Spanky seems to have a knack for ignoring the obvious. Yes, he is ultimately a contrarian, thinking that such a disposition indicates superior thinking. Whatever is most obvious and the majority can see Spanky will adamantly refuse to see it, seeking some other explanation that goes to our always rotten soul.

He's like a priest always in search of the hidden masturbator within the young male penitent, regardless of the sins already confessed.

Thanks Rammer!


Spanky doesn't ignore the obvious by accident. He makes a provocative point, then leaves it open ended to...

Professor Rosseforp

Steve Waugh has been quoted as saying "We shouldn't make changes just for the sake of making changes" -- I think people may be advocating changes because the team has some rubbish components, and the selectors are rubbish too.


I stumbled across an article in the Age and half way through with a growing sense of annoyance as it was garbage, looked at the writer under the headline. It was the Spankmeister.

I should have known from how much emotive trash was in the article by the third paragraph. And I'd sworn never to read him again. All reading his stuff does is convince me that he is an idiot. Why does the Age publish him?


Why does the Age publish him?

Because he hates everything that the Age does.

You Lou.

You, me and every White person here.


Crouching Spanky, Hidden Masturbator.


But he doesn't make sense. I can read almost anything if it is well-written and fairly well argued.

The article was claiming that Australia is investing too much in youth - based on him watching one NSW innings by the sounds of it - while our national cricket team trundles around the outfield like the old fellas in the Last of the Summer Wine.

He writes emotional, adjective-laden, disorganized nonsense. I think he's off his rocker.

Anyway, I've just learnt to read the byline first so I don't plunge into the miasma of that idiot's thoughts on cricket.


And I've just waded in with a few adjectives of my own. That is what he does to you.

Big Ramifications

I think he's off his rocker.

You and me, baby. "Off his rocker" is certainly right up there in my list of possibilities for the answer to "what makes Spanky Roebuck tick?"



Nice heading, needs subby work.

And in breaking news the Bailleu government has upped fines for speeding 10+kms in Victoria to around 6 weeks jail give or take a few days. Or extradition back to South Africa for the offender AND mates of a similar extraction.

Big Ramifications


aka Spanky Roebuck


As predicted Spanky puts English success to "the influence of the immigrant populations [which] has been crucial..." and "As a result English cricket became ever more diverse." Immigrants and diversity, Spanky's perpetual idols. Yet for all that they have two White South Africans and one Irishman to reflect this magnificent diversity of an immigrant population.

Spanky finds Australians are "delusional". Yet somehow being ranked one spot higher than Oz, 4th, in world Test rankings and achieving one solitary victory so far on Oz soil equates to some magnificent surge of English cricket.

Spanky is an Ozzie though right? He says: "Long ago Australians stopped using England as their yardstick. It's time for the Poms to repay the compliment. Doubtless, trouncing Australia is satisfying but it cannot be enough."

But from this visceral hatred of all things White Australian Spanky goes into full religious mode, preaching from his bully pulpit:

Of all games cricket is the most diverse, and ought to shout it from the roof tops. In a few nations it embraces white, black and brown, Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist and Christian, colonial, post-colonial and anti-colonial, first and third world. All the more reason to excite the local Caribbean community so that their contribution is not wasted and English cricket becomes not merely an example of excellence but also a means of unification.

The man is deranged.


We stopped using England as our yardstick because other countries became better than them. It wasn't any kind of post-colonial rebelling.

Professor Rosseforp

"Of all games cricket is the most diverse" -- much more so than rugby league or Aussie rules -- you'd never find any Aboriginals or migrants plaaying them games would you? Not in the numbers they play cricket. Same with soccer right throughout the world, I think.


You are making me jolly batey again with your crummy little words on Sir. It was only the other day after tea and some super acones that he said " “You know boys, an Australian spanking by the Mother country is not going to do damage. People may not agree with spanking, particularly in public, ... but you can only do so much, legally.”


In actual fact cricket is quite notable among international sports in that it has hardly any players of East Asian, South East Asian, Central or South American ancestry at all.

So it's actually one of the *least* culturally and racially diverse international sports, contrary to what Spanky is trying to argue.


When Spanky sets out to construct a theory, he doesn't let facts and figures and proof get in his way.

The comments to this entry are closed.