"Foreign" English Players. So What?

[high_on_linseed]

Exactly, the Aussie top six are so good, Law cant even get a look in. But there is no doubt in my mind, and I think probably in their minds too, Law is better than all of our top six.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Linseed_on_willow

No, but Id swap any of the English top six for any of the Aussie top six, sad to say.
Thats why Law is even being considered.

Keep Vaugan and Freddy swap the other four if you wish,But the last five stays,its better than theirs.

[Whips_off_the_bails]

I cannot believe some of you seriously consider that picking Law would be a good thing. You might as well just tell English youngsters to give up if you're going to pick a 37-yr-old Australian serial reject-cum-carpetbagger ahead of them.

The fact that Graveney hasn't ruled Law out means nothing. He doesn't have to. He just won't ever pick him.

[Richie Benauds Love Child]

I'd definatly swap freddie as well for lehman, and keep vaughan the rest of the CURRENT aussie top five I'd take but he isnt, nore has been in the top 5. So law by definition isnt as good as the current lot.

[high_on_linseed]

My point was, that to enthusiasts like us, there are more things to cricket than winning the Ashes. But to the casual observer, with a passing interest in cricket, winning the Ashes is the ONLY thing (apart from maybe the World Cup) that is relevant. And is, therefore, the only thing that could revive the popularity of the game....if it needs reviving.

[Richie Benauds Love Child]

Does it need reviving ? This is a genuine question. i know clubs are in jepardy but is this due to rising wages, insurance etc, and not down to lower crowds. Are the crowds lower ?

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Richie Benauds Love Child

I'd definatly swap freddie as well for lehman, and keep vaughan the rest of the CURRENT aussie top five I'd take but he isnt, nore has been in the top 5. So law by definition isnt as good as the current lot.

Well if you swapped Freddy for lehman,when we next played them,the chickens would surely come home to roost.

Australia are not the team they was,they are no longer invincible,your right about Law.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by high_on_linseed

My point was, that to enthusiasts like us, there are more things to cricket than winning the Ashes. But to the casual observer, with a passing interest in cricket, winning the Ashes is the ONLY thing (apart from maybe the World Cup) that is relevant. And is, therefore, the only thing that could revive the popularity of the game....if it needs reviving.

The Ashes are only so important because of their history,I dont think the ashes has anything do do with it ,playing Australia is the real attraction,the ashes are just the iceing on the cake....

[Nikhil]

Originally Posted by ernest

The Ashes are only so important because of their history,I dont think the ashes has anything do do with it ,playing Australia is the real attraction,the ashes are just the iceing on the cake....

Yes. Playing and beating Oz has a lot of pros. One of them being you get a lot of ICC points and secondly no one can tell you haven't beaten the best team in the world.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Nikhil

Yes. Playing and beating Oz has a lot of pros. One of them being you get a lot of ICC points and secondly no one can tell you haven't beaten the best team in the world.

I agree,as long as they are the best team in the world,we have that to do yet,and then it will be visa versa