Chat Forum
It is currently Sat Nov 23, 2019 2:59 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 372 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 10  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Jul 19, 2014 10:41 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15796
jabberwocky wrote:
rusted wrote:
jabberwocky wrote:
My opinion is that if a spell of reverse swing has turned the course of a match, and a team has admitted to ball-tampering to induce the reverse swing, the punishment should be a hell of a lot more than a bit of one player's match fee. Likewise chucking, there's no disincentive to stop players cheating at the moment as any ban for chucking/tampering only comes in after the match/series has been won.

If my team were done for it I'd probably wind my neck in when complaining about the over appealing of others for a while.


The "admitting" to ball-tampering is almost automatic nowadays when accused, as the penalties get ramped up enormously if you contest the decision. All of us who have played cricket have cleaned the seam. Faf was done a few months ago for shining the ball near his pocket zip ffs. Whether these last two acts were deliberate attempts to change the condition of the ball only the two players in question will know. The fact that the pitch in Galle is a dust bowl means no additional work would be required on the dry side of the ball to produce reverse swing - trying to claim that Philander's action suddenly allowed for a devastating spell of reverse swing is nonsense.

I am sure you were equally strident when Atherton, your captain at the time, was rubbing dirt on the ball - dirt he had put in his pocket specifically to alter the condition of the ball.


I think you're taking this a bit too seriously. I was pointing out the almost unbelievable one-eyedness of rinkals having a go at the Sri Lankans for over appealing the day after Philander had been done for ball tampering.

Nowhere in this did I preface my remarks with 'as an Englishman and renowned spiritual guardian of cricket'. And I probably didn't react with too much umbridge to Atherton as I was six years old at the time. Good topical example though.


*I* was over the top?

I made the point repeatedly that I had my back to the TV.

Surely that acknowledges that I have no idea whether the appeals would be justified or not? Every ball could be a valid LBW or caught-behind appeal for all I knew.

You may have a point when I suggested that Billy may have been worn down by all the appealing, but surely you have to accept that I wasn't being serious, in view of my acknowledgement that my back was turned?

As for Atherton, I was at Lords for all 3 days of that test match, and I certainly didn't regard it as a match-changing tactic. Nor did I regard it as likely to have been particularly effective.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 19, 2014 10:44 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15796
Tharanga falls victim to ball tampering. :lol:

Gone!

SL 14 for 1.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 19, 2014 10:48 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15796
Anyway, back to the cricket.

Brave declaration by Amla.

Even with a deteriorating pitch, I wouldn't think that anything under 400 would be outside the capabilities of a side containing Sangakarra and Jayawardene. Especially over 4 sessions.

Suggestions from the commentators, too that the pitch has eased up a bit.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 19, 2014 11:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15796
:(

That looked out to me.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 19, 2014 11:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Posts: 33151
Location: Planet Rock
Rinkals wrote:
:(

That looked out to me.

Close but not out


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 19, 2014 11:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 8713
Location: The Fountain of Running Rugby
Rinkals wrote:
:(

That looked out to me.

Nah, that magnified view looked not out in the end.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 19, 2014 11:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Posts: 33151
Location: Planet Rock
rusted wrote:
Quote:
In January 2010, England bowlers Stuart Broad and James Anderson were accused of ball tampering by rubbing the ball on the ground with their spikes in the third Test Match against South Africa.[19] Broad maintained that was just being lazy, because it was 40 degrees Celsius in Cape Town that day.[19] Andrew Flower said in his defense that "the scoreline suggested that there was obviously no ball tampering."[20] Nasser Hussain who had captained Anderson said: "Stuart Broad and James Anderson were wrong to behave in the manner they did and I've no doubt that if a player from another country did the same we'd have said they were cheating."[21] No charges were formally placed by South Africa even though they made the accusations at a press conference.[22]

f**king disgrace. Making accusations in the press that you are not prepared to formalise so the accused get a chance to clear their name. Spineless


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 19, 2014 11:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15796
Is Mike Haysman suggesting that Morkel is deliberately running on the pitch "to give the spinners a bit more to work with"?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 19, 2014 11:34 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 8713
Location: The Fountain of Running Rugby
Rinkals wrote:
Is Mike Haysman suggesting that Morkel is deliberately running on the pitch "to give the spinners a bit more to work with"?

Yes, just as the Sri Lankan commentator suggested that Kausal deliberately guided that Morkel ball through gully and 3rd slip


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 19, 2014 11:37 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15796
Big Nipper wrote:
Rinkals wrote:
Is Mike Haysman suggesting that Morkel is deliberately running on the pitch "to give the spinners a bit more to work with"?

Yes, just as the Sri Lankan commentator suggested that Kausal deliberately guided that Morkel ball through gully and 3rd slip


I heard that one, but was a little reluctant to mention it in case Jabberwocky flies off the handle again.

Disappointed in Haysman, though; he should know better.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 19, 2014 11:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15796
Sanga smashes 10 off that Tahir over!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 19, 2014 11:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15796
Rinkals wrote:
Anyway, back to the cricket.

Brave declaration by Amla.

Even with a deteriorating pitch, I wouldn't think that anything under 400 would be outside the capabilities of a side containing Sangakarra and Jayawardene. Especially over 4 sessions.

Suggestions from the commentators, too that the pitch has eased up a bit.


290 to get to win. 102 overs to get them in. 9 wickets left.

As I say, brave declaration.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 19, 2014 12:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 8713
Location: The Fountain of Running Rugby
Rinkals wrote:
Rinkals wrote:
Anyway, back to the cricket.

Brave declaration by Amla.

Even with a deteriorating pitch, I wouldn't think that anything under 400 would be outside the capabilities of a side containing Sangakarra and Jayawardene. Especially over 4 sessions.

Suggestions from the commentators, too that the pitch has eased up a bit.


290 to get to win. 102 overs to get them in. 9 wickets left.

As I say, brave declaration.

Fantastic declaration. One more wicket tonight, and it is all advantage SA.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 19, 2014 12:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15796
Big Nipper wrote:
Rinkals wrote:
Rinkals wrote:
Anyway, back to the cricket.

Brave declaration by Amla.

Even with a deteriorating pitch, I wouldn't think that anything under 400 would be outside the capabilities of a side containing Sangakarra and Jayawardene. Especially over 4 sessions.

Suggestions from the commentators, too that the pitch has eased up a bit.


290 to get to win. 102 overs to get them in. 9 wickets left.

As I say, brave declaration.

Fantastic declaration. One more wicket tonight, and it is all advantage SA.


Well, we need to get Sankakkara.

Him and Jayawardene could take it away from us very quickly.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 19, 2014 12:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 7564
Rinkals wrote:

Well, we need to get Sankakkara.

Him and Jayawardene could take it away from us very quickly.


And don't count out Silva and Matthews ... and Tahir :?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 19, 2014 12:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 8713
Location: The Fountain of Running Rugby
Duminy is bowling an absolute pile of horse shit.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 19, 2014 12:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15796
Big Nipper wrote:
Duminy is bowling an absolute pile of horse shit.



They're taking both him and Tahir on. With some success.

Amla can't afford for them to leak runs.

I don't want to state the obvious, but unless we pick up a couple of wickets before the close, the Sri Lankans will be in a very good position to win it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 19, 2014 12:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 8713
Location: The Fountain of Running Rugby
Rinkals wrote:
Big Nipper wrote:
Duminy is bowling an absolute pile of horse shit.



They're taking both him and Tahir on. With some success.

Amla can't afford for them to leak runs.

I don't want to state the obvious, but unless we pick up a couple of wickets before the close, the Sri Lankans will be in a very good position to win it.

Nah, still do not think so. Sri Lanka very much underdogs to take it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 19, 2014 12:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 3446
jabberwocky wrote:
rusted wrote:
jabberwocky wrote:
rusted wrote:
jabberwocky wrote:
My opinion is that if a spell of reverse swing has turned the course of a match, and a team has admitted to ball-tampering to induce the reverse swing, the punishment should be a hell of a lot more than a bit of one player's match fee. Likewise chucking, there's no disincentive to stop players cheating at the moment as any ban for chucking/tampering only comes in after the match/series has been won.

If my team were done for it I'd probably wind my neck in when complaining about the over appealing of others for a while.


The "admitting" to ball-tampering is almost automatic nowadays when accused, as the penalties get ramped up enormously if you contest the decision. All of us who have played cricket have cleaned the seam. Faf was done a few months ago for shining the ball near his pocket zip ffs. Whether these last two acts were deliberate attempts to change the condition of the ball only the two players in question will know. The fact that the pitch in Galle is a dust bowl means no additional work would be required on the dry side of the ball to produce reverse swing - trying to claim that Philander's action suddenly allowed for a devastating spell of reverse swing is nonsense.

I am sure you were equally strident when Atherton, your captain at the time, was rubbing dirt on the ball - dirt he had put in his pocket specifically to alter the condition of the ball.


I think you're taking this a bit too seriously. I was pointing out the almost unbelievable one-eyedness of rinkals having a go at the Sri Lankans for over appealing the day after Philander had been done for ball tampering.

Nowhere in this did I preface my remarks with 'as an Englishman and renowned spiritual guardian of cricket'. And I probably didn't react with too much umbridge to Atherton as I was six years old at the time. Good topical example though.


Furry muff ....

Maybe the Anderson and Broad incident in 2010 is a little more recent, although you were only just out of school then (I assume you went to school), and probably don't remember it either ;)


You mean the one where AB made unfounded accusations in a press conference which were never acted upon by the umpires? And that's the same as being found guilty by the match referee twice in nine months?

Anyway, enough of this. I'll leave your cricket thread if you promise to keep oom and rinkals off all England ones.


Well done champ, I’ve not looked at the other cricket thread but I’m sure you’ve managed to at least equal their combined twatshiness all by yourself :thumbup:

Maybe the soft penalties for ball tampering reflect the fact that it’s rather commonplace and all teams engage in it? There’s certainly a fine line between legally and illegally altering the condition.


Hmm, I’m starting to worry about this Sri Lankan chase.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 19, 2014 12:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15796
Big Nipper wrote:
Rinkals wrote:
Big Nipper wrote:
Duminy is bowling an absolute pile of horse shit.



They're taking both him and Tahir on. With some success.

Amla can't afford for them to leak runs.

I don't want to state the obvious, but unless we pick up a couple of wickets before the close, the Sri Lankans will be in a very good position to win it.

Nah, still do not think so. Sri Lanka very much underdogs to take it.


They're 105 for one with another 4 overs to play.

If they start the day on 115 for one, they should be quids in to get the remaining 250 runs in 90 overs, deteriorating track or no.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 19, 2014 12:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 8713
Location: The Fountain of Running Rugby
Rinkals wrote:
Big Nipper wrote:
Rinkals wrote:
Big Nipper wrote:
Duminy is bowling an absolute pile of horse shit.



They're taking both him and Tahir on. With some success.

Amla can't afford for them to leak runs.

I don't want to state the obvious, but unless we pick up a couple of wickets before the close, the Sri Lankans will be in a very good position to win it.

Nah, still do not think so. Sri Lanka very much underdogs to take it.


They're 105 for one with another 4 overs to play.

If they start the day on 115 for one, they should be quids in to get the remaining 250 runs in 90 overs, deteriorating track or no.

Will not stoop low, but, do you watch test cricket often?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 19, 2014 12:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 12462
Anonymous. wrote:
rusted wrote:
Quote:
In January 2010, England bowlers Stuart Broad and James Anderson were accused of ball tampering by rubbing the ball on the ground with their spikes in the third Test Match against South Africa.[19] Broad maintained that was just being lazy, because it was 40 degrees Celsius in Cape Town that day.[19] Andrew Flower said in his defense that "the scoreline suggested that there was obviously no ball tampering."[20] Nasser Hussain who had captained Anderson said: "Stuart Broad and James Anderson were wrong to behave in the manner they did and I've no doubt that if a player from another country did the same we'd have said they were cheating."[21] No charges were formally placed by South Africa even though they made the accusations at a press conference.[22]

f**king disgrace. Making accusations in the press that you are not prepared to formalise so the accused get a chance to clear their name. Spineless

Are you talking about Nasser Hussain?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 19, 2014 3:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 35229
Just read about Philander's cheating. Wow! Haven't read the thread so I assume that Rinkals, who's always dead keen to point out any deviation from fair play, has been right on his case. Good on yer, son :thumbup:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 19, 2014 4:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15796
JM2K6 wrote:
Just read about Philander's cheating. Wow! Haven't read the thread so I assume that Rinkals, who's always dead keen to point out any deviation from fair play, has been right on his case. Good on yer, son :thumbup:

:roll:

You might want to read back one page.

In any event, we don't have any of the details apart from the fact that Philander didn't contest it, the ball wasn't changed (so therefore it's condition wasn't regarded as significantly altered) and the only sanction was a fine.

But, don't let me stop you (or others of your ilk) from proclaiming his guilt without knowing the facts.

As it happens, I was fairly unequivocal about Faf's stupidity when this happened in the UAE (particularly as the game was largely won at the time without Faf's interference). On that occasion the ball WAS changed.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 19, 2014 4:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 35229
That's bizarre - he's been charged, found guilty, and fined for scratching the ball, and he didn't contest it. And you're trying to make out we don't know if he's guilty? This isn't the same as Warner running his mouth off; due process and all that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 19, 2014 5:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Posts: 33151
Location: Planet Rock
rusted wrote:
Anonymous. wrote:
rusted wrote:
Quote:
In January 2010, England bowlers Stuart Broad and James Anderson were accused of ball tampering by rubbing the ball on the ground with their spikes in the third Test Match against South Africa.[19] Broad maintained that was just being lazy, because it was 40 degrees Celsius in Cape Town that day.[19] Andrew Flower said in his defense that "the scoreline suggested that there was obviously no ball tampering."[20] Nasser Hussain who had captained Anderson said: "Stuart Broad and James Anderson were wrong to behave in the manner they did and I've no doubt that if a player from another country did the same we'd have said they were cheating."[21] No charges were formally placed by South Africa even though they made the accusations at a press conference.[22]

f**king disgrace. Making accusations in the press that you are not prepared to formalise so the accused get a chance to clear their name. Spineless

Are you talking about Nasser Hussain?

Nasser Hussain is a journalist :?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 19, 2014 5:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15796
JM2K6 wrote:
That's bizarre - he's been charged, found guilty, and fined for scratching the ball, and he didn't contest it. And you're trying to make out we don't know if he's guilty? This isn't the same as Warner running his mouth off; due process and all that.


Well, if you read back a page or two you'll see that another poster suggests that it isn't worth contesting.

Certainly I'm aware that Iain Chappel is of the opinion that Philander should be suspended from the game.

This is what the South African camp has said:

Quote:
Although the on-field umpires had not noticed anything amiss with the ball during the day, the evidence was considered "compelling" enough for a CSA source to reveal that it prompted Philander not to contest the charge. Domingo confirmed that the threat of a greater sanction and the existence of video evidence was what prompted Philander to admit guilt.

"If didn't plead and was found guilty, he'd miss a Test match," Domingo said. "Admitting guilt is almost as though we're saying 'lets just move on and focus on what we are going to do here,' and put it behind us. If they've got footage, nine out of ten times the footage will find you guilty so I suppose so it's difficult to argue if they can see something that they think you shouldn't be doing. So it's probably just an easier route to admit guilt and move on."

...

Vernon claims to have cleaned the ball and he has been seen on television scratching the ball. The umpires said the ball's state hadn't been changed at all and that says it all. We haven't the seen the footage but it's done. I don't think a big distraction at all. It's unfortunate. We've got to move on and focus on the nine wickets we've got to get tomorrow."



Make of that what you will; you might as well go and get your pitchforks ready.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 19, 2014 5:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 35229
You probably ought to focus more on the fact that he was found guilty.

Every cricket thread you post in has you focusing on the alleged lack of sportsmanship or making accusations of cheating. It's strange that you're trying to handwave this away.

Today, for example, it looked very much like a member of the Lord's groundstaff deliberately dragged his foot on a dangerous line on the pitch when dusting it. It looks dodgy, so I said so. It doesn't reflect on me should he have been trying to cheat, so I wonder what drives your intense desire to accuse the opposition so regularly and turn a blind eye to your own team.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 19, 2014 6:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15796
JM2K6 wrote:
You probably ought to focus more on the fact that he was found guilty.

Every cricket thread you post in has you focusing on the alleged lack of sportsmanship or making accusations of cheating. It's strange that you're trying to handwave this away.

Today, for example, it looked very much like a member of the Lord's groundstaff deliberately dragged his foot on a dangerous line on the pitch when dusting it. It looks dodgy, so I said so. It doesn't reflect on me should he have been trying to cheat, so I wonder what drives your intense desire to accuse the opposition so regularly and turn a blind eye to your own team.



I think you're being a little oversensitive.

I didn't notice any such action by the Lords groundstaff and I find it a little odd that you should require my input on it.

Believe me, I am pretty hard on my own team if they behave dishonourably. I have questioned Johan Botha's action on these pages before and I was very critical of Faf's own ball-tampering allegations when the silly idiot was supposedly shining the ball on his pants zipper.

If you tell me that you have seen footage of Philander's transgressions, then I suppose I would have to believe you.

However, Cricinfo assure us that the footage in question was not broadcast and that it wasn't shown to the CSA camp so I cannot claim a similar insight.

Until I can see it for myself, I remain unconvinced. Therefore, I reserve the right not to "focus more on the fact that he was found guilty".


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 19, 2014 6:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11078
Location: Leafy Surrey, UK
So philander was spotted, charged and found guilty all within 24 hours, why is Jimmy Anderson's hearing going to take 2+ weeks?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 19, 2014 8:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 35229
Rinkals wrote:
JM2K6 wrote:
You probably ought to focus more on the fact that he was found guilty.

Every cricket thread you post in has you focusing on the alleged lack of sportsmanship or making accusations of cheating. It's strange that you're trying to handwave this away.

Today, for example, it looked very much like a member of the Lord's groundstaff deliberately dragged his foot on a dangerous line on the pitch when dusting it. It looks dodgy, so I said so. It doesn't reflect on me should he have been trying to cheat, so I wonder what drives your intense desire to accuse the opposition so regularly and turn a blind eye to your own team.



I think you're being a little oversensitive.

I didn't notice any such action by the Lords groundstaff and I find it a little odd that you should require my input on it.


Where did I ask for your input? I don't expect you to have seen it. I was pointing out the differences in approach.

Quote:
Believe me, I am pretty hard on my own team if they behave dishonourably. I have questioned Johan Botha's action on these pages before and I was very critical of Faf's own ball-tampering allegations when the silly idiot was supposedly shining the ball on his pants zipper.

If you tell me that you have seen footage of Philander's transgressions, then I suppose I would have to believe you.

However, Cricinfo assure us that the footage in question was not broadcast and that it wasn't shown to the CSA camp so I cannot claim a similar insight.

Until I can see it for myself, I remain unconvinced. Therefore, I reserve the right not to "focus more on the fact that he was found guilty".


So the fact that he was found guilty isn't enough for posters to say he's guilty? The fact that he's been found guilty means I can't "proclaim his guilt" because I "don't know the facts"?

He's guilty. The only people who count have looked at the evidence and come to that conclusion. Your wriggling doesn't change that fact.


Insane_Homer wrote:
So philander was spotted, charged and found guilty all within 24 hours, why is Jimmy Anderson's hearing going to take 2+ weeks?


Because Philander was spotted by the 3rd umpire during the match, whereas Jimmy was accused by the Indians (not the officials) days after the match finished, and England accused Jadeja in response. Anderson's hearing will necessitate the presence of multiple players and is clearly not as straightforward a situation as looking at footage of a player scratching the ball.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 19, 2014 11:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15796
JM2K6 wrote:
So the fact that he was found guilty isn't enough for posters to say he's guilty? The fact that he's been found guilty means I can't "proclaim his guilt" because I "don't know the facts"?

He's guilty. The only people who count have looked at the evidence and come to that conclusion. Your wriggling doesn't change that fact.


His options were to acknowledge guilt or face being banned.

Now I accept that we aren't a top tier Nation where someone like Jimmy Anderson has full protection to continue to play until the facts are actually presented to the court, so I realise that you may think that, from your own privileged perspective, if you opt not to contest the charge then you must be guilty. However, for Nations that don't belong in the top tiers this isn't necessarily the case.

There is no wriggling.

The fact of the matter is that the umpires were unable to come to the conclusion that the condition of the ball had been changed.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 20, 2014 8:15 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 7564
So 60 runs for 5 wickets in the morning session. Ill take that!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 20, 2014 8:21 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 7564
Steyn is going full Jihad, Amla approves. 9 wickets for him. 161 for 7


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 20, 2014 8:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11078
Location: Leafy Surrey, UK
Image

not guilty :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 20, 2014 8:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 8713
Location: The Fountain of Running Rugby
:lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 20, 2014 8:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11078
Location: Leafy Surrey, UK
190/8


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 20, 2014 9:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15796
Cartman wrote:
So 60 runs for 5 wickets in the morning session. Ill take that!


190 for eight.

I'm feeling a lot happier now.

Nipper, I'm aware that, historically, anything over 350 should put the chasing side under a lot of pressure, but I feel that the rise of the shorter game has started to put chases of anything under 400 within reach. The game is definitely evolving and I feel that evolution is being driven by the fifty-over game and the twenty-over game.

I'm not naive enough to equate a four-run-an-over chase over a full day's play in the longer format with a similar RRR over fifty overs.

But I do think that the rise of the shorter formats will have inevitably influenced the longer game.

Moreover, any side that has Sangakkara and Jayawardene in it cannot be written off until both those players are back in the hutch.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 20, 2014 9:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 3446
By the power of Allah, the proteas have beaten their bogey team!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 20, 2014 9:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 12462
Good win for Proteas.

Bit concerning that Tahir only took 1 wicket in 45 overs on a Bunsen burner.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 372 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 10  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot], Lacrobat, Pat the Ex Mat, paynie, Short Man Syndrome, UncleFB, unionfan and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group