equatorImagine you were using a glass to transport water, I don’t know why you are transporting water, maybe your dog is on fire.
The problem with the glass is that you can’t get much water in it, if you drop the glass it will break, and your hands are slippery from all the water. This is your 5th glass already, having smashed the others.
You decide there must be a better way, so you go looking for a bucket.
There are no adequate buckets, but there is one that has no handle, a crack in the side, and a hole in the bottom.
Comparing the shitty bucket to the debris of broken glasses you decide this is a better option than the glass.
Running back and forth with this bucket soon proves fruitless, the crack gets bigger because it has no handle and the hole leaks plenty of water so that you have virtually none upon arrival.
Your dog is now burnt to death.
So why would you even think about using Nathan Hauritz in the first test?
He might be a container, but he isn’t containing shit.
Stuart Clark, Andrew McDonald or Ben Hilfenhaus might not be completely suited to the conditions, but they will do a better job than Hauritz.
At the moment it is hard to see what Hauritz is actually doing.
He never looks like he is trying to get wickets, yet he never really bowls to keep the scoreboard tight.
Ponting puts the field out and then brings them back in; a never-ending cyclical game plan that no one understands.
If there was a burning dog in front of Ponting surely he would be better to piss on it than use this useless bucket.
Australia, you must say no to Hauritz.
Loading ...
Wonderfully true analogy, and in the same light Montybot is a plastic bag. Most would laugh at you carrying water in the bag, but you don’t see such a big problem. You take a quick check to see if there are any holes in the bag before you move the water, you see none, you think everything will be fine. Some passers by are sniggering, but there are no holes, do it. The first run is fine, you manage to carry a huge load of water and douse the dog’s tail. Second load the bag starts to leak piss-heavy through one of the corners. By the time you’ve reacjed the burning dog, its ears have melted onto its head and the smell of burning hair is too overpowering. The third trip you abandon the bag, get Adil in, at least he can get some experience.
You didn’t realise that Mushty had poked several holes through the Tesco logo beforehand though, did you Mr Giles?
They’ll play Stuart Clark instead and use him as a containing bowler backed up by Kattich and Clarke
Why oh why…
There’s a guy called Bryce sitting in Melbourne watching all this. yes, the yarpies moosed him, but he’s got to be a better bet than hauritz.
Surely they can send McGain over as ‘back up’ for Watson?
Heard either Willis or Lloyd (the Statler & Waldorf of cricket commentary) talking about the Lions playing Hauritz.
They suggested it was a England tactical ploy to constantly attack Hauritz.
That’s pretty stupid.
The smart move would have been to play Haurie like he was bowling a combination of hand grenades, spitting cobras and used needles from a Kings Cross back alley.
That would get him selected, then they could make hay from his nude rubbish at Cardiff.
Outstanding analogy Jrod. One of your best posts.
David Lloyd describing Hauritz bowling. “he has got a pretty action but he cannot buy wickets”. Very apt. The action is classical but the bowling just so very predictable.
Elementary question – Why is he in this squad?
Rhetorical question – Is this chump the best the Aussie selectors could find to replace Warne?