Australian Captain

[rcon]

what would you rather see - tait not play the game at all, at any level?

i have to congratulate tait on deciding to only play 20-20s. im sure he would like to play all forms of the game, but obviously with his action that just stuffs his body incredibly.

if i were him, i couldn't handle the constant injuries and surgery either. why would you put yourself through that if you dont have to

I heard that comment last night, that someone was sure Tait wanted to play all forms. I'm sure I recall a categorical statement from Tait a few years back saying "No, I only want to play short version of the game". IMHO that makes him SOFT

[David]

If your action/body doesn't allow you to play test or ODI cricket - well - you're not really a cricketer in my eyes anymore.

Sorry

[bennymacca]

what would you do if you could play half a season of longer forms of cricket before breaking down? would you keep doing that or would you try and still play a form of cricket that wouldn't be as taxing on your body and you could still play.

its at a much different level of course, because i never got paid for playing sport, but a knee reconstruction basically stopped me playing footy - could i play - sure, (if i got a lot fitter lol). but if i hurt my knee again i would hate myself and it would be really mentally hard to go through the whole surgery/rehab ordeal again.

so instead i play cricket and tennis which is less stressful on the knee.

does that make me soft? well probably. would i love to play footy again? sure i would, but it doesn't mean i ever will, even though my knee is probably strong enough - i just couldn't go through the injury again.


now this is for your average country footy b grade hack. imagine what it would be like for tait where it is his livelihood? coupled with the fact that a massive percentage of his overall wage would be from playing T20 - why would you jeopardise that by playing longer forms that you could get injured in?

it might be "soft" in some sense of the word, but i can certainly see where he is coming from and i would never knock him for his decision.

[666HARPS666]

I don't like his action, I know the icc cleared it but that was only done so a Sri Lankan bolwer could chuck.

[David]

I don't like his action, I know the icc cleared it but that was only done so a Sri Lankan bolwer could chuck.

Absolutely nothing to do with it.

[bennymacca]

I don't like his action, I know the icc cleared it but that was only done so a Sri Lankan bolwer could chuck.

ridiculous comment - go and have a look at lee, akhtar and many others, they are worse than tait - and all still legal.

[666HARPS666]

So the icc didn't change the rule for Murali... ?

[David]

You didn't even say that
You related Tait to Murali. I'm not sure it even made sense.
"clearing" Tait to bowl doesn't have anything to do with Murali.

[666HARPS666]

Just stirring you lot up

[muzzington]

Occupation: Troll