Chat Forum
It is currently Sat Aug 24, 2019 11:02 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 372 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 10  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Jul 18, 2014 11:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 7185
Shit review except that they're only 3 wickets away.
They don't take enough into consideration "umpire's call" when it comes to reviews imo


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 18, 2014 11:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 19122
Location: Stellenbosch
Big Nipper wrote:
OomPB wrote:
3 wickets, new ball should do the trick here. How many do they need to avoid the follow on?

255

They wont enforce it, dont think we are too keen on batting on day 5 on this dustbowl

Agree. :thumbup:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 18, 2014 12:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 7185
fudge yeah, Tahir gets Matthews
Steyn new ball now please :)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 18, 2014 12:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 19122
Location: Stellenbosch
Cartman wrote:
fudge yeah, Tahir gets Matthews
Steyn new ball now please :)

Look like they want to save money. Vokkit.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 18, 2014 2:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 12462
SL 283/9 at stumps


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 18, 2014 2:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 295
Can't watch. How many would be a winning second innings for the Proteas, do you think, gents?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 18, 2014 2:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 8438
Location: The Fountain of Running Rugby
Tighthead wrote:
Can't watch. How many would be a winning second innings for the Proteas, do you think, gents?

Lead by 450, then bowl them out


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 18, 2014 2:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 19122
Location: Stellenbosch
Big Nipper wrote:
Tighthead wrote:
Can't watch. How many would be a winning second innings for the Proteas, do you think, gents?

Lead by 450, then bowl them out

So we need to get close to 300 in our 2nd innings on a pitch that crumbled on day2? Massive ask.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 18, 2014 3:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 8438
Location: The Fountain of Running Rugby
OomPB wrote:
Big Nipper wrote:
Tighthead wrote:
Can't watch. How many would be a winning second innings for the Proteas, do you think, gents?

Lead by 450, then bowl them out

So we need to get close to 300 in our 2nd innings on a pitch that crumbled on day2? Massive ask.

They are short a bowler, that should help.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 18, 2014 4:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 7185
OomPB wrote:
Big Nipper wrote:
Tighthead wrote:
Can't watch. How many would be a winning second innings for the Proteas, do you think, gents?

Lead by 450, then bowl them out

So we need to get close to 300 in our 2nd innings on a pitch that crumbled on day2? Massive ask.


In less than 3 sessions too I guess :?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 18, 2014 4:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 8438
Location: The Fountain of Running Rugby
Cartman wrote:
OomPB wrote:
Big Nipper wrote:
Tighthead wrote:
Can't watch. How many would be a winning second innings for the Proteas, do you think, gents?

Lead by 450, then bowl them out

So we need to get close to 300 in our 2nd innings on a pitch that crumbled on day2? Massive ask.


In less than 3 sessions too I guess :?

Ok Ok!!! Make it 400 then.

Send them in after tea, or hour after tea, to have 110 overs to rattle them out.

Any news on Steyn's hand?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 19, 2014 7:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15042
Peterson got a bit of a rough one there, methinks.

No hotspot, no snicko and no Hawkeye for these tests as neither the hosts nor the visitors can afford the them.

I am working with my back to the TV and I can hear the Lankans appealing after every second ball. Must've worn Billy down, because he's finally got sick of it and raised his finger on zero evidence.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 19, 2014 7:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 8438
Location: The Fountain of Running Rugby
Rinkals wrote:
Peterson got a bit of a rough one there, methinks.

No hotspot, no snicko and no Hawkeye for these tests as neither the hosts nor the visitors can afford the them.

I am working with my back to the TV and I can hear the Lankans appealing after every second ball. Must've worn Billy down, because he's finally got sick of it and raised his finger on zero evidence.

Yeah, but the evidence on the referral was in the batsmen's favour, no noise, no evidence at all, but still got stuck..Woeful stuff


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 19, 2014 7:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 801
Rinkals wrote:
Peterson got a bit of a rough one there, methinks.

No hotspot, no snicko and no Hawkeye for these tests as neither the hosts nor the visitors can afford the them.

I am working with my back to the TV and I can hear the Lankans appealing after every second ball. Must've worn Billy down, because he's finally got sick of it and raised his finger on zero evidence.


Shocking gamesmanship from the Sri Lankans.

If only they could be more like the god-bothering, ball-tampering hypocrites.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 19, 2014 7:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15042
jabberwocky wrote:
Rinkals wrote:
Peterson got a bit of a rough one there, methinks.

No hotspot, no snicko and no Hawkeye for these tests as neither the hosts nor the visitors can afford the them.

I am working with my back to the TV and I can hear the Lankans appealing after every second ball. Must've worn Billy down, because he's finally got sick of it and raised his finger on zero evidence.


Shocking gamesmanship from the Sri Lankans.

If only they could be more like the god-bothering, ball-tampering hypocrites.


Actually, not really worth responding to, so I'll can my original reply.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 19, 2014 8:02 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 801
Rinkals wrote:
jabberwocky wrote:
Rinkals wrote:
Peterson got a bit of a rough one there, methinks.

No hotspot, no snicko and no Hawkeye for these tests as neither the hosts nor the visitors can afford the them.

I am working with my back to the TV and I can hear the Lankans appealing after every second ball. Must've worn Billy down, because he's finally got sick of it and raised his finger on zero evidence.


Shocking gamesmanship from the Sri Lankans.

If only they could be more like the god-bothering, ball-tampering hypocrites.


Actually, not really worth responding to, so I'll can my original reply.


Probably best. Whining about the opposition's gamesmanship when your team's been done for ball-tampering on the day of a match winning spell of reverse swing already looks pretty f**king mental.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 19, 2014 8:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 8438
Location: The Fountain of Running Rugby
:lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 19, 2014 8:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15042
Big Nipper wrote:
Rinkals wrote:
Peterson got a bit of a rough one there, methinks.

No hotspot, no snicko and no Hawkeye for these tests as neither the hosts nor the visitors can afford the them.

I am working with my back to the TV and I can hear the Lankans appealing after every second ball. Must've worn Billy down, because he's finally got sick of it and raised his finger on zero evidence.

Yeah, but the evidence on the referral was in the batsmen's favour, no noise, no evidence at all, but still got stuck..Woeful stuff



The (SL) commentator is saying that Peterson MUST have touched it because he didn't go to referral straight away. That may have swayed the third umpire, too. However, the fact that there's no technology to overturn an onfield decision, I can see why he was less than resolute in seeking the referral.

In fact, in spite of the commentator's contention that Peterson wasn't sure, replays show Peterson continually shaking his head as he goes to confer with Faf.

However, as Jabberwocky has proved, it's easier to assume that the South Africans are cheating than to accuse the Sri Lankans.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 19, 2014 8:17 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 801
Yes. I forgot. Appealing is cheating. Ball-tampering isn't.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 19, 2014 8:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15042
jabberwocky wrote:
Yes. I forgot. Appealing is cheating. Ball-tampering isn't.


And where did I say that?

I merely suggested that I was hearing a lot of appealing. I also said that I had my back to the TV, which would surely make it clear that any judgement being made is hardly to be taken seriously.

I might've suggested that Billy was being worn down by repeated appeals, but I don't think that's an unreasonable suggestion. And one which shouldn't be taken seriously, either, in view of my earlier admission.

What's made you so sensitive, Duck?

Is it because your Jimmy has been overhauled by Dale Steyn?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 19, 2014 8:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15042
Amla goes for 22.

Lead of 251.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 19, 2014 9:10 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 12462
What team do you support, jabberwabber?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 19, 2014 9:11 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 7185
We'll struggle to get a lead of 400 I reckon


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 19, 2014 9:12 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15042
Faf goes.

Ball pitches outside leg and turns across the face of the bat to take off stump.

292 ahead.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 19, 2014 9:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 8438
Location: The Fountain of Running Rugby
Cartman wrote:
We'll struggle to get a lead of 400 I reckon

370 should suffice, given the pitch


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 19, 2014 9:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Posts: 32221
Location: Planet Rock
Big Nipper wrote:
Rinkals wrote:
Peterson got a bit of a rough one there, methinks.

No hotspot, no snicko and no Hawkeye for these tests as neither the hosts nor the visitors can afford the them.

I am working with my back to the TV and I can hear the Lankans appealing after every second ball. Must've worn Billy down, because he's finally got sick of it and raised his finger on zero evidence.

Yeah, but the evidence on the referral was in the batsmen's favour, no noise, no evidence at all, but still got stuck..Woeful stuff

Thought it was out on first look which is all the ump gets


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 19, 2014 9:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 7185
Big Nipper wrote:
Cartman wrote:
We'll struggle to get a lead of 400 I reckon

370 should suffice, given the pitch


Ja they can fudge off if they think they can chase 300 plus


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 19, 2014 9:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 7185
AB 46 from 48. Just such an incredible player


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 19, 2014 9:42 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 801
Rinkals wrote:
jabberwocky wrote:
Yes. I forgot. Appealing is cheating. Ball-tampering isn't.


And where did I say that?

I merely suggested that I was hearing a lot of appealing. I also said that I had my back to the TV, which would surely make it clear that any judgement being made is hardly to be taken seriously.

I might've suggested that Billy was being worn down by repeated appeals, but I don't think that's an unreasonable suggestion. And one which shouldn't be taken seriously, either, in view of my earlier admission.

What's made you so sensitive, Duck?

Is it because your Jimmy has been overhauled by Dale Steyn?


Steyn is, and always has been, a much better bowler than Anderson. What the fudge has that got to do with anything?

No opinion on the ball tampering then?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 19, 2014 9:46 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 7185
AB just changed the whole game. 50 up :thumbup:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 19, 2014 9:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 12462
jabberwocky wrote:
Rinkals wrote:
jabberwocky wrote:
Yes. I forgot. Appealing is cheating. Ball-tampering isn't.


And where did I say that?

I merely suggested that I was hearing a lot of appealing. I also said that I had my back to the TV, which would surely make it clear that any judgement being made is hardly to be taken seriously.

I might've suggested that Billy was being worn down by repeated appeals, but I don't think that's an unreasonable suggestion. And one which shouldn't be taken seriously, either, in view of my earlier admission.

What's made you so sensitive, Duck?

Is it because your Jimmy has been overhauled by Dale Steyn?


Steyn is, and always has been, a much better bowler than Anderson. What the fudge has that got to do with anything?

No opinion on the ball tampering then?


What is your opinion on your ball tamperers, or does your hypocrisy-meter not work when aimed at yourself?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 19, 2014 9:57 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 801
rusted wrote:
jabberwocky wrote:
Rinkals wrote:
jabberwocky wrote:
Yes. I forgot. Appealing is cheating. Ball-tampering isn't.


And where did I say that?

I merely suggested that I was hearing a lot of appealing. I also said that I had my back to the TV, which would surely make it clear that any judgement being made is hardly to be taken seriously.

I might've suggested that Billy was being worn down by repeated appeals, but I don't think that's an unreasonable suggestion. And one which shouldn't be taken seriously, either, in view of my earlier admission.

What's made you so sensitive, Duck?

Is it because your Jimmy has been overhauled by Dale Steyn?


Steyn is, and always has been, a much better bowler than Anderson. What the fudge has that got to do with anything?

No opinion on the ball tampering then?


What is your opinion on your ball tamperers, or does your hypocrisy-meter not work when aimed at yourself?


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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 19, 2014 10:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 12462
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 19, 2014 10:13 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 801
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 19, 2014 10:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 12462
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 ;)


Last edited by rusted on Sat Jul 19, 2014 10:24 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 19, 2014 10:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15042
jabberwocky wrote:
Rinkals wrote:
jabberwocky wrote:
Yes. I forgot. Appealing is cheating. Ball-tampering isn't.


And where did I say that?

I merely suggested that I was hearing a lot of appealing. I also said that I had my back to the TV, which would surely make it clear that any judgement being made is hardly to be taken seriously.

I might've suggested that Billy was being worn down by repeated appeals, but I don't think that's an unreasonable suggestion. And one which shouldn't be taken seriously, either, in view of my earlier admission.

What's made you so sensitive, Duck?

Is it because your Jimmy has been overhauled by Dale Steyn?


Steyn is, and always has been, a much better bowler than Anderson. What the fudge has that got to do with anything?

No opinion on the ball tampering then?


I was just wondering what had made you so sensitive.

You made the point that ball tampering is why South Africa are in the current position ("your team's been done for ball-tampering on the day of a match winning spell of reverse swing"). I just wondered if you resented Steyn's bowling. Particularly since Steyn has just gone past Jimmy's test wicket haul in this match.

On ball tampering, I certainly don't agree with it. And it's especially stupid when the side is already on top, because it gives tits like you ammunition when you maintain that the side is only winning because it's cheating.

I would like any team I support to be winning through fair means. In rugby, I would rather see my team lose playing flowing rugby, than win playing safe, unimaginative percentage rugby and if the cricket team I support cannot win fairly, then I would rather they lose playing honestly.

On this particular issue, we don't know too much about it yet, so, unlike you, I don't want to offer an opinion without knowing the facts.

We know that Philander was disciplined and fined 75% of his match fee for altering the condition of the ball with his thumb and forefinger. That could mean anything. We know it happened in the afternoon which may have affected the game, but we certainly don't know that it led to the South Africans dishonestly getting into a "match winning" position.

Unless our name is Jabberwocky, of course.

The umpires check the condition of the ball all the time. If Philander's tampering had altered the condition of the ball materially, it would have been changed and the team docked runs. That didn't happen.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 19, 2014 10:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Posts: 32221
Location: Planet Rock
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.

Rinky must be cumming in his pants. A chance to have a pop at the English and Sri Lanka at the same time.
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 19, 2014 10:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 7185
Quite ballsy to declare so early. SL only need to go at about 3 per over. We lost most of our wickets by being aggressive which they don't need to be


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 19, 2014 10:33 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 801
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 19, 2014 10:37 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 12462
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]


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 ... 10  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 45jumper, A5D5E5, Achahoish, alliswell, Banana Man, beafheart, Bert, Bing [Bot], diarm, EverReady, Jeff the Bear, mdaclarke, MrDominator, polyallstar, RichieRich89, rugga., Still Not Playing, tc27, True Blue, Tuivasa, Ulsters Red Hand, wamberal99, ZappaMan 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