Dear Usual Suspect,

Not in real cricket?

Then I suppose the revolutionary sleeveless
new uniform that was specifically designed
to turn heads for the ICC World Twenty/20
Tournament in South Africa doesn't count.

Even Rick Ponting praised the contemporary design,
"The ICC World Twenty/20 Tournament will involve
fast games with short recovery periods. This new
uniform has been specifically designed with the
players comfort and performance in mind."

The game of Twenty 20 cricket is powerful, fast
and exciting according to the experts. I don't think
your classification of "pyjama cricket," fits
in with their description of the game.

I'm agnostic on the topic of flags.

And I agree with Foxy that if we want a republic, a republic is what we will have. If we have to overthrow the Constitution in order to have one, then that's what we'll do.

Politely, of course.

But when it comes to cricket...

>>I suppose the revolutionary sleeveless new uniform that was specifically designed to turn heads for the ICC World Twenty/20 Tournament in South Africa doesn't count.<<

Foxy, the place to check out cricket "uniforms" is not Cape Town or Mumbai, but your local oval on a Saturday afternoon. There is where you find the backbone of the sport, and while folk continue to turn out there every summer weekend, cricket will stay alive.

These cricketers - women as well as men - wear whites.

Note the plural.

>>The game of Twenty 20 cricket is powerful, fast and exciting according to the experts.<<

Yes indeed, the pajama crowd will continue to experiment with increasingly dumbed-down versions of the game, whose popularity will wax and wane, requiring continuous "renewal" to keep the crowds coming through the turnstiles.

It is cricket.

Of course it is cricket.

In much the same way as "Pride and Prejudice" is a book, and "Where's Wally" is a book.

Foxy you'll find genuine cricket lovers think only of Test Cricket as genuine cricket, the pinacle of the game. The rest is as I say, comparable to fast food.

Ricky Ponting would praise the design when he's getting paid $450k for a months work. But the players are pretty close to unanimous in their opinion of Test Cricket as the premier form of the game.

http://www.mg.co.za/article/2008-06-26-players-in-favour-of-maintaining-status-test-cricket

'Eighty-six percent rated traditional Test cricket as the most important form, significantly ahead of the World Cup (ODI), while 98% wanted Test cricket to maintain its premier status.
'

Hell will freeze over before Test Cricket involves coloured uniforms. Much of it has to do with the Ball. The optimum lasting cricket ball uses a red dye, and is easiest to see where it hits a batsman wearing white clothes, and a bowler wearing white clothes provides the most adequate backdrop for the batsman to see the ball.

That and the fact that cricket is a sport for traditionalists, and the reason for ODI's and Twenty20 existing is because changing Test Cricket itself would be sacrilege. They exist for woman and kids to watch because they cant concerntrate for 5 days. Cricket for non-cricket lovers as it were.

Talk to Gideon Haigh or Peter Roebuck, Ian Chappell or Richie Benaud about what is real cricket.

Dear Pericles and Usual Suspect,

Ok, Guys, I stand corrected on cricket.

Now, let's talk about tennis...

Just kidding.

I'm obviously out of my depth on the
subject of cricket.

But books, well that's a different story.
"Pride and Prejudice," compared with
"Where's Wally?" Good analogy.
Point well made. And just the mention
of Benaud made me realize - what was I
thinking?

Mea culpa...

I'd like to Thank everyone for their
inputs into this discussion.

It's been interesting.

However, I do feel that it's probably
run its course.

For those of you who'd be interested in
getting a range of responses
google:

Do We Need a New Australian Flag?

There's quite a few websites to choose from,
including various flag designs.

Cheers.

Foxy,

You obviously do not comprehend how important a constitution is. A constitution is to keep politicians within certain limits as to protect the general public, and is for the good of the people.

Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates;
Mr. WISE.-If the Federal Parliament chose to legislate upon, say, the education question-and the Constitution gives it no power to legislate in regard to that question-the Ministers for the time being in each state might say-"We are favorable to this law, because we shall get £100,000 a year, or so much a year, from the Federal Government as a subsidy for our schools," and thus they might wink at a violation of the Constitution, while no one could complain. If this is to be allowed, why should we have these elaborate provisions for the amendment of the Constitution? Why should we not say that the Constitution may be amended in any way that the Ministries of the
several colonies may unanimously agree? Why have this provision for a
referendum? Why consult the people at all? Why not leave this matter to the Ministers of the day? But the proposal has a more serious aspect, and for that reason only I will ask permission to occupy a few minutes in discussing it.

The Queen has no powers to override the constitution and as such it is not material what she stated as to a flag and anthem.
Neither is it relevant if the people want a republic because they are conned to vote for something they do not have a clue what they actually validly can vote for.

In my published books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series I have actually canvassed how one can validly get to a republic, but forget about ignoring the constitution as the moment you do so for your reasons politicians will be quick to use it to ignore your constitutional rights when it suits them.
WE EITHER HAVE A CONSTITUTION OR WE DON’T.

A republic without a constitution is a DICTATORSHIP!

As such be careful as to what you ask for because it may turn into a disaster!.