Cricket
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
The final Test of the 1st part of this Test Match Double Header, what will happen in this one. Well England have added Simon Kerrigan and Chris Woakes, to their squad, to replace the injured pair of Tim Bresnan and Graham Onions. Now I would of thought that neither will play with the out of form Chris Tremlett, taking Bresnans place, but if England play safe, then they will play Chris Woakes, the extra insurance of another bowler, who can bat. For Simon Kerrigan, it is a clear indication, that he will be replacing Monty Panasar, for the tour to Australia and that Woakes may go as well, especially if doing well here. I'm expecting yet another England victory, because Australia, must be at such a low ebb now, after getting into a clear winning position at Durham and being unable to win.
As I stated on the 4th Test thread, winning sides tend to win again and losing sides tend to lose again.
The weather forecast is great at the moment for the whole 5 day and with that another victory for a 4-0 series win is very likely.
As I stated on the 4th Test thread, winning sides tend to win again and losing sides tend to lose again.
The weather forecast is great at the moment for the whole 5 day and with that another victory for a 4-0 series win is very likely.
Show More
Chuck the bowlers a white ball and put up some black site screens if that is what it takes to finish a game like that off
If those were the rules do you really think Clarke would have declared so early?
FFS, get a brain people.
If those were the rules do you really think Clarke would have declared so early?
FFS, get a brain people.
Why is Grahame Swann carrying Joe Root around on his shoulder?
Only one team were going all out to try and win that match at the end.
nice to see Matt Prior with his kid.
Last time I seen his missus she was sitting on Allen Stanford's knee.
Last time I seen his missus she was sitting on Allen Stanford's knee.
does Shane realise Australia lost 3-0 and that England played average at best.
ffs we made the last test a handicap and only played with 9.5 men
Rease a lot of things need to happen for Australia to win
ffs we made the last test a handicap and only played with 9.5 men
Rease a lot of things need to happen for Australia to win
i dont think we will see kerrigan again at this level so dont worry
I think it depends on how the first couple of tests go, sewter.
It is possible Eng batsmen and bowlers could be more effective over there - Broad, Finn and Tremlett particularly.
Oz must have learnt a lot about their players during this series though - Faulkner looks a find, Khawaja a busted flush etc.
It is possible Eng batsmen and bowlers could be more effective over there - Broad, Finn and Tremlett particularly.
Oz must have learnt a lot about their players during this series though - Faulkner looks a find, Khawaja a busted flush etc.
but one thing i don't get why don't the match referee step in these situations when a match in finishing, and there is a light issue
the idea that conditions are suitable for play and they are not, irrespective of the match situation, seems fair. it also seems correct that no side should look to influence or have any input into the decision of what that level should be, such to gain a tactical advantage in a match situation.
so in order to ensure fairness throughout the match, that level is invariant for the remainder of the match.
perhaps the modification should be if consensus can be reached by the umpires and both sides, that play should continue despite the conditions being past the agreed benchmark, then it should.
so in order to ensure fairness throughout the match, that level is invariant for the remainder of the match.
perhaps the modification should be if consensus can be reached by the umpires and both sides, that play should continue despite the conditions being past the agreed benchmark, then it should.
I feel quite upbeat.Did not think we would be as competitive as we were. I think we played a few gutless sessions which cost us dear and I do think that we'll have to improve again to beat England down under.
pompous, arrogant comms such as gower, paid thousands. saying how dreadful the paying plebs are booing. pratt.
if a result is imminent the umpires should have discretion. they already do to extend play by half an hour on previous days, if the end of an innings is likely.
if a result is imminent the umpires should have discretion. they already do to extend play by half an hour on previous days, if the end of an innings is likely.
if people are booing at the umpires they are being a bit unfair. it's not their fault.
and the umpires should not have the discretion to same playing conditions are suitable in one match situation and unsuitable in another.
they either are, or they aren't. give the players and umpires the discretion to play on if they want to, once that line has been crossed.
and the umpires should not have the discretion to same playing conditions are suitable in one match situation and unsuitable in another.
they either are, or they aren't. give the players and umpires the discretion to play on if they want to, once that line has been crossed.
Sorry, haven't checked whole thread, but do we know what light readings were today compared to Durham>
One more question. My memory is poor so I may be wrong. However, I believe the umpires took them off mid-over for light at Durham one day. It seems somewhat co-incidental they needed to be prompted by a wicket (and Clarke) today. I happily admit it's my book talking.
according to Michael Clarke in his post match interview, 5.9 today versus 8.7 in Durham (lower = darker, beyond that I've no idea what it means).
don't forget that they take a benchmark reading when they go off for light the first time and then apply it for the rest of the match - so if they went off at 6 earlier in this match, they'd have to go off once it got below that.
I can see the point of the comparison between venues but would not want to use that as a stick to beat the umpires with.
I can see the point of the comparison between venues but would not want to use that as a stick to beat the umpires with.
Presumably there is a "limit" whereby the umpires have no choice regardless of any previous in the match. If lower is worse and they played until 5.9 today, why did they come off in Durham?
you'll have to ask them that - different umpires with different eyes at a different venue probably the answer.
How much of today's 5.9 was from Clarke's shadow?
Sets a snide declaration chasing some supposed moral victory, almost inexplicably somehow manages to lose the match, ends the day chasing after the umpires and their light meter.
Sets a snide declaration chasing some supposed moral victory, almost inexplicably somehow manages to lose the match, ends the day chasing after the umpires and their light meter.
Another pet hate. Why was there an inspection bang on 11am? What may have happened had they inspected at 10.50? Or 10.45, or 10.55, or 10.40. Maybe they did. But it seems as if they waited for official start time for that last inspection (having inspected earlier of course, but not sure when)
Yes, it's my book talking. Just posing a question.
Yes, it's my book talking. Just posing a question.
Another pet hate. Why was there an inspection bang on 11am? What may have happened had they inspected at 10.50? Or 10.45, or 10.55, or 10.40. Maybe they did. But it seems as if they waited for official start time for that last inspection (having inspected earlier of course, but not sure when)
Yes, it's my book talking. Just posing a question.
Yes, it's my book talking. Just posing a question.
they inspected at 10 (may have been 10.15) and agreed to look again at 11 (took advice from groundsmen)
Michael Holding commented on the improvement in conditions between 10.15 and 11 - ground staff worked very hard and I believe they did extremely well to start by 11.30 am.
Michael Holding commented on the improvement in conditions between 10.15 and 11 - ground staff worked very hard and I believe they did extremely well to start by 11.30 am.
That's good Rease. What I'm saying is the inspection was at 11am purely because that is the official start time. Much like there was only a light decision made at a wicket. Specific timings or events shouldn't dictate when decisions are made.
(book talking). But that's a long time between inspections.
I don't think it was though, t_s - more likely a dialogue between the umpires and ground staff about how long they needed to make it playable then an agreement to check at 11 with a view to starting at 11.30 if all went well.
I've posted my thoughts on the light issue above - basically agree, it's ridiculous but don't think umpires had much choice given the rules.
I've posted my thoughts on the light issue above - basically agree, it's ridiculous but don't think umpires had much choice given the rules.
time between inspections just dictated by how long ground staff needed to make outfield playable, mind boggling amount of water coming out of the squeegie thing!
Yes, you're right Rease. Basically what I'm saying is that it is human nature to be influenced by when things SHOULD (are expected to) happen, but this shouldn't be the case. There is no logical reason except for the scheduled start time that any pitch inspection should take place at precisely 11.00. Likewise, the suggested start time of 11.30 was also related to the 11am start.
just watched the replay- wow!
how much was matched on this market?
how much was matched on this market?
sky should not renew contract until cricket sorts itself out. that would concentrate the minds of a few ties and blazers.
Cricket has got itself sorted out, its the umpires, that haven't
rules are rules mate
the rules are the problem
over rates also a problem, big stick needed.
the rules are the problem
over rates also a problem, big stick needed.
They should just go back to letting the batsmen have the final say on whether play continues or not, the current rule just encourages the bowling team to shamelessly time waste.
I don't blame Clarke at all. For starts he declared at a point when Cook would not and will never do. The thing I really respect about the Aussies is they recognize a point in the game where the risk reward is such that they will give it a go. For all I think we have been a better team its that rolling the dice which really sets them apart and allowed them to win so many tests back in the 90s / early 2000s. The ruling was very annoying though. I think the ICC need to look again at the rules to ensure that it can't happen like that again, especially as test cricket is still the pinnacle of the modern game. Without England vs Australia the test match is dead in the water
There's a widely held view that umpires aren't allowed to show discretion on the field. This is incorrect.
On various issues they tweak the regulations and show discretion.
1)Unscheduled drinks breaks. The regulations are broken.
2)Sub fielders for when a player is not injured. The regulations are broken.
3)Slow over rates - taking no action, but instead indulging the players.The regulations are broken.
On a match ticket it will say 90 overs to be bowled in the day, between 11am and 6pm. It's the duty of the umpires to ensure this happens.
The umpires rarely deliver on this promise. So the regulations are broken.
Umpires have little or no regard for the fans. Until the ICC tell them to act first and foremost in the interest of the paying public this will never change.
Dar (the senior umpire)could have speeded up Clarke's over rate (and Cook's).He could have told Clarke that although gloomy this was an exceptional circumstance and play will continue given only 4 overs were left.
He could have told Clarke 'I've indulged you and Cook with your sub fielders and slow over rates. NOW I'M GOING TO INDULGE THE CROWD AND THE GAME OF CRICKET'
On various issues they tweak the regulations and show discretion.
1)Unscheduled drinks breaks. The regulations are broken.
2)Sub fielders for when a player is not injured. The regulations are broken.
3)Slow over rates - taking no action, but instead indulging the players.The regulations are broken.
On a match ticket it will say 90 overs to be bowled in the day, between 11am and 6pm. It's the duty of the umpires to ensure this happens.
The umpires rarely deliver on this promise. So the regulations are broken.
Umpires have little or no regard for the fans. Until the ICC tell them to act first and foremost in the interest of the paying public this will never change.
Dar (the senior umpire)could have speeded up Clarke's over rate (and Cook's).He could have told Clarke that although gloomy this was an exceptional circumstance and play will continue given only 4 overs were left.
He could have told Clarke 'I've indulged you and Cook with your sub fielders and slow over rates. NOW I'M GOING TO INDULGE THE CROWD AND THE GAME OF CRICKET'
didnt some grounds have 5 lights on a pole years ago,they came on as it got dimmer.
We'll never know of course, but I wonder when they would have gone off had there been no floodlights.
The declaration was an indulgence, Clarke went very close to throwing away Australia's hard earned ascendancy, with no obvious upside the declaration all but gifted England the game. It's easy to be critical of Cook and Flowers dour leadership, but are Lehman and Clarke not guilty of being too gun-ho?
I think the return leg of this Ashes extravaganza promises to be quite a spicy affair, Clarke, Lehman and Warne seem to be turning this into a clash of cricketing cultures.
I think the return leg of this Ashes extravaganza promises to be quite a spicy affair, Clarke, Lehman and Warne seem to be turning this into a clash of cricketing cultures.
Aug 26, 2013 -- 1:22AM, Fallen Angel wrote:
I don't blame Clarke at all. For starts he declared at a point when Cook would not and will never do. The thing I really respect about the Aussies is they recognize a point in the game where the risk reward is such that they will give it a go. For all I think we have been a better team its that rolling the dice which really sets them apart and allowed them to win so many tests back in the 90s / early 2000s. The ruling was very annoying though. I think the ICC need to look again at the rules to ensure that it can't happen like that again, especially as test cricket is still the pinnacle of the modern game. Without England vs Australia the test match is dead in the water
It was an insane declaration. There was no way they were bowling ENG out in 44 overs and with KP around it was always chase able.
It was chaseable in 40 overs, and the light would have been irrelevant.
The sole reason England failed was the appalling Jonathan Trott. Wasted a third of the innings at a strike rate of 67. Cook and Root saw off the new ball at strike rates of 64, which is fair enough. But to come in at number 3 and smugly refuse to accelerate was gutting.
If England had allowed Bell, Woakes, Prior, Broad and Swann to share the 87 balls Trott wasted, they would have probably won comfortably. And if they had got into trouble, they would still have had Trott in the hutch to block when it's actually needed.
The sole reason England failed was the appalling Jonathan Trott. Wasted a third of the innings at a strike rate of 67. Cook and Root saw off the new ball at strike rates of 64, which is fair enough. But to come in at number 3 and smugly refuse to accelerate was gutting.
If England had allowed Bell, Woakes, Prior, Broad and Swann to share the 87 balls Trott wasted, they would have probably won comfortably. And if they had got into trouble, they would still have had Trott in the hutch to block when it's actually needed.
Rease Heath is correct in the assertion that the ONLY scenario where a Test Match ends in a TIE is where the team batting fourth finishes ALL OUT with the scores level , if the scores are level when the final delivery has been bowled and there are any wickets in hand the match ends in a DRAW, not a tie ...
so BJT probably didn't need to thai insure the 5.5K after all cos that scenario was 1000's plus ...However , I do agree with the general sentiment here ,that If the floodlights at the Oval are bright enough for a T20 evening match , why the hell aren't they bright enough for a Test Match ?
so BJT probably didn't need to thai insure the 5.5K after all cos that scenario was 1000's plus ...However , I do agree with the general sentiment here ,that If the floodlights at the Oval are bright enough for a T20 evening match , why the hell aren't they bright enough for a Test Match ?
he may not have been declaring to win the game. He might have been thinking they could take a few early wickets and get a physiological blow in before the upcoming test series in Australia. He must have been banking on England taking a caution first approach. I here all the time on sky that England are not there to entertain they are there to win. Who do they think pays the sodding bills. Of course they are there to entertain, even Watto recognized that in his MOM speech and the only time he got clapped is when he said it.
I am an England fan through and through but our batting on Friday was depressing in the extreme.
I am an England fan through and through but our batting on Friday was depressing in the extreme.
It baffles me why people (mostly aussies) have gone on about Clarke's captaincy and 'what a brave dec', 'he did it for entertainment,' 'he should be congratulated for being brave' and Warne's best of the lot 'be prepared to lose to win' - ffs are they all born that thick? He dec because it was a dead rubber and he was so desperate for a win and to end positively that he dec when he did. Obv he wouldn't have dec in pretty much any other circumstance.
I'd imagine the aussies didn't think for 1 sec that Eng would have a go for anything like as long as they did and bad light wouldn't have entered their purdy little heads. In the end it was disastrous from Clarke (his and Aussie actions at the end show that) as any momentum Aus had has now gone, they bowled as well as they could do but would never have bowled Eng out and the Eng batsmen now know they can bat at a decent rate against this aussie attack - the main problem this series.
The aussies ashes was always going to be the better spectacle imo and Clarke has done his best to help Eng with his poor decision making. I can't wait to see if the aus thrash us in the odi's and start bleating on about how they now have momentum etc - clueless absolutely clueless!
I'd imagine the aussies didn't think for 1 sec that Eng would have a go for anything like as long as they did and bad light wouldn't have entered their purdy little heads. In the end it was disastrous from Clarke (his and Aussie actions at the end show that) as any momentum Aus had has now gone, they bowled as well as they could do but would never have bowled Eng out and the Eng batsmen now know they can bat at a decent rate against this aussie attack - the main problem this series.
The aussies ashes was always going to be the better spectacle imo and Clarke has done his best to help Eng with his poor decision making. I can't wait to see if the aus thrash us in the odi's and start bleating on about how they now have momentum etc - clueless absolutely clueless!
It baffles me...........
Sphyncter, we all know that EVERTHING baffles you.
You poor fool.
Sphyncter, we all know that EVERTHING baffles you.
You poor fool.
I know nothing about cricket but knowing the Australian psyche of winning is everything I wonder about the mentality of the people who put £2 million on the draw at odds of 1.01, before the last day commenced.
This is my question .......was it so unlikely that the Aussies, who take winnining at everything so seriously, would take an aggresive stance and go for the match at all cost? For people who reportedly follow the game all the time was that such an unpredictable event?
This is my question .......was it so unlikely that the Aussies, who take winnining at everything so seriously, would take an aggresive stance and go for the match at all cost? For people who reportedly follow the game all the time was that such an unpredictable event?
Green Teeth is correct in the assertion.........
Hoorah, finally correct about SOMETHING!!
Test Centurion, Coco The Clown sends his regards, Dickhead.
Hoorah, finally correct about SOMETHING!!
Test Centurion, Coco The Clown sends his regards, Dickhead.
Oh good my 5yo stalker is back - please do carry on with your insightful comments, the whole forum is waiting in anticipation for whatever gems you come out with - well they would do if it wasn't the same bullocks you write on every single post you've ever written. No opinion, no debate just plain juvenile insults - i really do pity your existence you excuse for a 'man'.
You are clueless, absolutely clueless. Carry on, gibberer.
I may be clueless but i have the guts to say what my opinion is (not that it's that brave but still too brave for you) - you have no opinion as you are too scared/thick/insecure to dare express it ever, which is why your entire life seems to revolve around waiting on this forum to spout the same pathetic posts time after time after time. Please do carry on - i think i can guess what your next post will be......
I reckon you can too. Guessing IS your specialty
I'd imagine the aussies didn't think for 1 sec that Eng would have a go for anything like as long as they did
and "imagining"
and "imagining"
There has been much praise for Clarke for 'setting up' a game on the last day, but the reality is that he was basically forced into it by England's tactics in the morning session. They could have attempted to bat for four hours at 2.00 per over and everyone could then shake hands and go home; instead, England lost quick wickets in order to put on 144 runs in 28 overs to get within 115 of Australia's 1st innings total.
At that point, there was no way that Clarke could fail to set a target for England. No captain on earth, being 3-0 down in a dead rubber, would have failed to do what Clarke did. It was completely inevitable.
I do believe however, that he didn't expect England to chase the target with such enthusiasm. I think in his mind, he pictured Lyon finishing the match with six round the bat against a 'boring' England, enabling him to enjoy the kudos of such a faux-victory. The drained look on his face in the last hour-or-so of yesterday's match implied that he had received a bit of a shock when this never occurred.
At that point, there was no way that Clarke could fail to set a target for England. No captain on earth, being 3-0 down in a dead rubber, would have failed to do what Clarke did. It was completely inevitable.
I do believe however, that he didn't expect England to chase the target with such enthusiasm. I think in his mind, he pictured Lyon finishing the match with six round the bat against a 'boring' England, enabling him to enjoy the kudos of such a faux-victory. The drained look on his face in the last hour-or-so of yesterday's match implied that he had received a bit of a shock when this never occurred.
Aleem Dar is not fit to umpire a international cricket match again the guys has not even played 1st class cricket so he don't know the game situation, it was clear by the footage he wanted to go off and Dharmensena the ex sri lanka spinner wanted the match to finish.
Betlarge has said exactly the same as me - now please insult him spoon...........
Aug 26, 2013 -- 11:55AM, slip5 wrote:
Aleem Dar is not fit to umpire a international cricket match again the guys has not even played 1st class cricket so he don't know the game situation, it was clear by the footage he wanted to go off and Dharmensena the ex sri lanka spinner wanted the match to finish.
Unfortunately, following a rule change in 2010, the umpires no longer have the authority to ask the batsmen if they wish to continue.
If the players have been removed from the pitch earlier in a Test (as they had here) then a light-meter reading is taken at that point and that is then the 'standard' for the rest of the match.
As soon as the meter reading drops below that reading at any other stage, the umpires are forced to take the players off. Neither umpires or players have any say in the matter.
the regulations are a joke now all you have is teams bowling there overs at 11 per hour when they are losing and waiting for bad light, how is that fair.
I agree I think Clarke expected us to bat out the draw at our usual 3 runs an over and he could go back to Australia making us look like negative team happy to take a draw and time waste etc, we didn't do that and it's rather ironic that by the end of the day Clarke and Australia were the ones doing exactly the things the Australian media has criticized us for.
Aug 26, 2013 -- 1:11PM, slip5 wrote:
the regulations are a joke now all you have is teams bowling there overs at 11 per hour when they are losing and waiting for bad light, how is that fair.
That is a very good point. Over rates around the world are uniformly poor and the ICC must get a grip on it. This is the reason why so many matches are finishing late in the first place. But we cannot blame the umpires.
Aug 26, 2013 -- 1:13PM, Mcik wrote:
I agree I think Clarke expected us to bat out the draw at our usual 3 runs an over and he could go back to Australia making us look like negative team happy to take a draw and time waste etc, we didn't do that and it's rather ironic that by the end of the day Clarke and Australia were the ones doing exactly the things the Australian media has criticized us for.
Precisely. But there is an awful lot of hypocrisy bandied around by players from every country. They all become terribly upset when the opposition bends the rules then do exactly the same themselves!
No captain in the world would have acted any differently to Clarke as play came to an end yesterday. Criticising England for gamesmanship was silly, criticising Australia for the same is also silly.
but the question that begs asking is.... Why do the floodlights at the Oval provide sufficient light to play an evening T20 game, but not sufficient light for a test match ???
and don't say because of the difference in the colour of the ball in the different formats red ball /white ball 
and don't say because of the difference in the colour of the ball in the different formats red ball /white ball
Criticising England for gamesmanship was silly, criticising Australia for the same is also silly.
No but criticising (certain) aussies for hypocrisy is fair game imo.
No but criticising (certain) aussies for hypocrisy is fair game imo.
Michael Clarke isn't an attacking captain based on 2013. He is captain of a side winless in 9 matches, and who have gone behind immediately in their last two major series. As captain you have no decision to make at 2-0 and 3-0 down in India or The Ashes, the series situation makes all your decisions for you. The upside for an England win yesterday was far less than for a dog desperate Australia looking to get that streak off their back, gain some momentum before the return series, and retain 4th in the rankings. It's easy to attack when there is absolutely nothing to lose and more to gain than the opposition. The only credit Clarke deserves is for somehow getting this bogus philosophical spin job to deflect from the 9 test winless streak and the fragility of his side in every crunch situation during the last two series. I'm surprised the sharper Australians on here are being fobbed off so easily by the PR job.
indeed. until the bad light fiasco clarke was set to look a total idiot for setting a target which his side virtually no chance of winning presumably trying to look clever for the benefit of the tv and radio boys. as others have said easy to look an imaginative skipper when in charge of a hopelessly outmatched side
give me a skipper who just interested in winning matches and series in time honoured fashion any day of the week
give me a skipper who just interested in winning matches and series in time honoured fashion any day of the week
Did Clarke not set pretty much the perfect target to maximise Australia's admittedly very slim chances of winning? Why is that idiotic?
The umpires could easily have used discretion and then face any backlash later.
The game of cricket must always come first.
The slow over rates by both sides contributed to a late finish but ultimately the umpires should act in the interests of the sport as a whole and not on the basis that a player has a 1 in a thousand chance of being injured cos they can't see.
How many of us clubbies have played in bad light? I'd say all of us. I know noone who has ever been injured despite poorer pitches, outfields, less good or no sightscreens, slower reactions etc.
Test Cricket is up it's own arse.
The game of cricket must always come first.
The slow over rates by both sides contributed to a late finish but ultimately the umpires should act in the interests of the sport as a whole and not on the basis that a player has a 1 in a thousand chance of being injured cos they can't see.
How many of us clubbies have played in bad light? I'd say all of us. I know noone who has ever been injured despite poorer pitches, outfields, less good or no sightscreens, slower reactions etc.
Test Cricket is up it's own arse.
It stillgave england a better chance, significantly, than theirs. England set it up by scoring quickly early doors. We couldnt be sure that sat would be rained off, we played superbly on friday taking the aussie win out of the equation.
Clarke should have declared later at OT, that was his biggest crime.
Clarke should have declared later at OT, that was his biggest crime.
Hello Ladies,
I was at the match on Sunday and didn't look at the prices all day...probably just as well!
It was a great day out. People should remember they were entertained royally. Clarke made what I thought was a sporting declaration on a pretty playable pitch. I never saw the light thing coming till Clarke was whinging at the Umpires. I felt that he blotted his copy book in that he made a generous declaration but in my view should have walked the walk and lived with it. I also thought at the time he would have been appreciated for what he did and not criticised for the declaration.
In hindsight It was clear my judgement was affected by drinking Guinness from 9.30am and also copious amounts of red wine.
It was dark, there are rules in place. At the end of the day the Captain has to do what he can to stave off defeat but I just felt a spirit of cricket was being applied and it was glorious. In sobriety I can see he would have been nailed to the cross for losing. I think Clarke had a shot at glory and he missed it.
I was one of the boo boys but only in jest at Clarke for claiming the light and not taking his beating like a man. No blame to the Umpires for me and I was disappointed they got the bird but that may also be for their general poor standard ( I was still disappointed by the booing of them ).
It really was a great day and you all must have enjoyed it on tv. The ending is a different and difficult question. The rules are wrong. I have to tell you though it was dark ( my eyes may have been closing a bit?
It was a great day out. Go to cricket guys!
I was at the match on Sunday and didn't look at the prices all day...probably just as well!
It was a great day out. People should remember they were entertained royally. Clarke made what I thought was a sporting declaration on a pretty playable pitch. I never saw the light thing coming till Clarke was whinging at the Umpires. I felt that he blotted his copy book in that he made a generous declaration but in my view should have walked the walk and lived with it. I also thought at the time he would have been appreciated for what he did and not criticised for the declaration.
In hindsight It was clear my judgement was affected by drinking Guinness from 9.30am and also copious amounts of red wine.
It was dark, there are rules in place. At the end of the day the Captain has to do what he can to stave off defeat but I just felt a spirit of cricket was being applied and it was glorious. In sobriety I can see he would have been nailed to the cross for losing. I think Clarke had a shot at glory and he missed it.
I was one of the boo boys but only in jest at Clarke for claiming the light and not taking his beating like a man. No blame to the Umpires for me and I was disappointed they got the bird but that may also be for their general poor standard ( I was still disappointed by the booing of them ).
It really was a great day and you all must have enjoyed it on tv. The ending is a different and difficult question. The rules are wrong. I have to tell you though it was dark ( my eyes may have been closing a bit
?It was a great day out. Go to cricket guys!
Glad you had a great day WD!!
From my lounge I thought the conclusion totally sucked. I've gone to 2 days of Tests a year for 20 years and have been battling the bad light issue for decades.
Pity your lot didn't riot. The umpires love to go off at any opportunity. They're a disgrace.
I won't go next year or ever again. That's it for me.
It's not an issue of who wins or who loses, just the integrity of the great game, which sadly is dying. The officials on and off the field are so far up their own arses it's untrue.
A very sad state of affairs. Gower said 'it's ok, 3-nil, no blame to the umpires' etc. What he and the other idiots like him don't realise is that if it was 1-1 they would STILL HAVE walked off.
Staggering stuff. The ICC are giving FIFA a run for their money at being the most idiotic sporting body... That's it for me.
From my lounge I thought the conclusion totally sucked. I've gone to 2 days of Tests a year for 20 years and have been battling the bad light issue for decades.
Pity your lot didn't riot. The umpires love to go off at any opportunity. They're a disgrace.
I won't go next year or ever again. That's it for me.
It's not an issue of who wins or who loses, just the integrity of the great game, which sadly is dying. The officials on and off the field are so far up their own arses it's untrue.A very sad state of affairs. Gower said 'it's ok, 3-nil, no blame to the umpires' etc. What he and the other idiots like him don't realise is that if it was 1-1 they would STILL HAVE walked off.
Staggering stuff. The ICC are giving FIFA a run for their money at being the most idiotic sporting body... That's it for me.
It would be simple enough to add a rule that if the umpires believe either team are deliberately slowing the game down in order to force teams off for bad light, then after a couple of warnings the umpires have the discretion to continue the game should the opposite team agree.
There are so many separate questions that need to be asked!
The light one is the least interesting and important as we have no say.
I don't think Clarke is a great captain. More innovative than Cook for sure but I am not sure he is better! Cook is dull and boring but a good Captain, make no mistake.
The declaration should have been a nothing to lose ploy but nearly costs Aussie dear.
Clarke interaction with the Umpire's was a disgrace and graceless.
Should we castigate Clarke for pushing the light issue? we certainly should for his declaration calculation, poor!
Guys it was such a great day at the cricket. I didn't want to go after England going slowing ( disgraceful and embarrassing ). I was hoping maybe we'd get an afternoon session and I could go home but what a day!
Why was the pitch not ready?
The 2007 World Cup Final was a bigger disgrace. Sri Lanka could have won but graciously tried to complete the match in one day for TV in almost darkness ( I was there but not drunk! ).
Injera, India are coming next year. If you will not go I am prepared to take your boy and introduce him to gambling, booze and women! ( that is a serious offer! )
It really was a great day, better than gambling and talking about the match! Would be nice to see some of you losers next year. Please come along even BJ
The light one is the least interesting and important as we have no say.
I don't think Clarke is a great captain. More innovative than Cook for sure but I am not sure he is better! Cook is dull and boring but a good Captain, make no mistake.
The declaration should have been a nothing to lose ploy but nearly costs Aussie dear.
Clarke interaction with the Umpire's was a disgrace and graceless.
Should we castigate Clarke for pushing the light issue? we certainly should for his declaration calculation, poor!
Guys it was such a great day at the cricket. I didn't want to go after England going slowing ( disgraceful and embarrassing ). I was hoping maybe we'd get an afternoon session and I could go home but what a day!
Why was the pitch not ready?
The 2007 World Cup Final was a bigger disgrace. Sri Lanka could have won but graciously tried to complete the match in one day for TV in almost darkness ( I was there but not drunk! ).
Injera, India are coming next year. If you will not go I am prepared to take your boy and introduce him to gambling, booze and women! ( that is a serious offer! )
It really was a great day, better than gambling and talking about the match! Would be nice to see some of you losers next year. Please come along
even BJ
There was no point setting a "nothing to lose" target as it would almost certainly mean England's approach to it would mean Australia had nothing to win. I thought he got it spot on.
Yep he had to give us a chance to win it otherwise we would have batted for the draw and the chance of Australia getting 10 wickets in 40 overs when we aren't chasing 6 runs an over is slim to zero.
They need to change the rules though because that was an absolute farcical ending, if Australia hadn't been time wasting the match would have finished 30mins earlier with the light still good.
They need to change the rules though because that was an absolute farcical ending, if Australia hadn't been time wasting the match would have finished 30mins earlier with the light still good.
but having said that like I said earlier I think Clarke expect us not to chase the win at all and so the Ausssie media would be having a go at us for not trying to win it etc.
Aug 26, 2013 -- 8:45PM, the silverback wrote:
There was no point setting a "nothing to lose" target as it would almost certainly mean England's approach to it would mean Australia had nothing to win. I thought he got it spot on.
How did he get it spot on??
Aussies had very little chance of winning.
ENG lose a couple of early wickets = draw
ENG hit some boundaries and set it up = go for it.
So, what was the best thing he could have done then?
He probably just did it so he could at least go back to Australia saying that he played positively and that Australia were the only team trying to win etc, it backfired in the end though because everyone saw the negative side of Australia.
Yes Mcik,
That's exactly what I think he was trying to do. At first I just thought he was being generous then it dawned on me he made a massive **** up!
A nothing to lose declaration and then taking 4-5 England wickets would have given Aussie massive momentum going forward and the moral high ground. The English fans would be questioning the England performance and thinking. Aussie had no chance of winning the game as ironically enough bad light would have saved England if they needed it
As it is in the clear light of day we see Aussie have batted well twice on very good batting pitches. Their batting personnel was wrong, better men at home or at least batting in England. A key batsman was not allowed to play while Aussie lost the Ashes again
All in all this tour was a poor one for Australia on nearly all fronts. Their much heralded Captain made the biggest mistake at OT by not getting enough runs on the board before declaring giving England the chance to avoid the follow on and enough time was taken out of the game before the weather forced a conclusion.
The Aussie management has not covered itself in glory and Boof's personal attack on the Broad may still have repercussions.
Why was Harris not picked first up? Aussie forming a good pace attack I think Harris, Starc and Pattison are good enough to cause England problems, Cummins as well. They are a top quality spinner light but Lyon is not bad.
England to continue their ground and pound in Australia as far as I can see particularly if their batsmen start to bat.
That's exactly what I think he was trying to do. At first I just thought he was being generous then it dawned on me he made a massive **** up!
A nothing to lose declaration and then taking 4-5 England wickets would have given Aussie massive momentum going forward and the moral high ground. The English fans would be questioning the England performance and thinking. Aussie had no chance of winning the game as ironically enough bad light would have saved England if they needed it
As it is in the clear light of day we see Aussie have batted well twice on very good batting pitches. Their batting personnel was wrong, better men at home or at least batting in England
. A key batsman was not allowed to play while Aussie lost the Ashes again All in all this tour was a poor one for Australia on nearly all fronts. Their much heralded Captain made the biggest mistake at OT by not getting enough runs on the board before declaring giving England the chance to avoid the follow on and enough time was taken out of the game before the weather forced a conclusion.
The Aussie management has not covered itself in glory and Boof's personal attack on the Broad may still have repercussions.
Why was Harris not picked first up? Aussie forming a good pace attack I think Harris, Starc and Pattison are good enough to cause England problems, Cummins as well. They are a top quality spinner light but Lyon is not bad.
England to continue their ground and pound in Australia as far as I can see particularly if their batsmen start to bat.
excellent piece by martin samuel today. don't usually agree with much he says but he's spot on about the series and sunday's goings on
basically says australia have talked a much better game than they've actually played and the declaration was all about false bravado probably egged on by his mate shane warne. when he realised he'd got it horribly wrong clarke ran off the field like a frightened rabbit
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/cricket/article-2402367/Ashes-2013-England-par-beat-Australia-3-0-Martin-Samuel.html
basically says australia have talked a much better game than they've actually played and the declaration was all about false bravado probably egged on by his mate shane warne. when he realised he'd got it horribly wrong clarke ran off the field like a frightened rabbit
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/cricket/article-2402367/Ashes-2013-England-par-beat-Australia-3-0-Martin-Samuel.html
Aug 26, 2013 -- 11:01PM, the silverback wrote:
So, what was the best thing he could have done then?
Batted sensibly and put ENG in for 30 overs at the end.
Did what he could to give them a chance of victory - however unlikely it was - and then did what he could to avoid defeat after, in case you've forgotten, the fastest ever 50 from an England player in the Ashes (i think, is that right)got England in position to win.
I'm really struggling to see anything wrong with his tactics throughout Sunday.
Although of course he could have batted sensibly and put England in for 30 overs.
I'm really struggling to see anything wrong with his tactics throughout Sunday.
Although of course he could have batted sensibly and put England in for 30 overs.
Funny end to the thread. How many times have we seen players go off for bad light due to the England batsmen in a blink off with the umpires. "Stare" down the umpire blinking as if bad light, then when no reaction trying it on to the square leg captain.
The reality is, the light meter had a reading of 3 less than when England forced players off the ground through their constant appealing for bad light at Durham. The reason there was a reading for this match, was again for England appealing hard for bad light earlier in the game. Aus have been copping this all series.
The umpires should only be criticised for taking too much notice of the England players with their tactics. They sit there bowling 11 overs an hour, discussing field changes every ball, tying up shoelaces every over, sending players on and off the field. With the bat they walk around delaying more, and beg for bad light. The umpires for one, should never fall for it, and for two, should both fine Cook, and suspend him, as they did with Dhoni. They made a mockery of the umpires this series.
Clarke was put in a position where he had to make a game of it to chance winning. For every person here that thinks he made a suicide declaration, I will show you somebody (with the same forum name in most cases) that said in no way ever, would England attempt to win the game so it did not matter when he declared. He set a good total, allowing enough overs to bowl them out if everything went their way, and knowing that the 44 overs was at very long odds to be completed considering the precedent had been set as to the time that play could no longer continue. I guarantee that they were very lucky to get so many overs in in the first place.
Clarke begging to go off? Clarke reminding the umpires what a rort it would be if they weren't consistant more like it. With so much damage already done this series to the umpiring fraternity, how would it then look if Australia gets sent off when in control every time for bad light at Englands request, and then England given a chance denied of Australia to play in such light.
In regards to people suggesting double standards, I think you need to realise that when a team uses such tactics against you and it is said to be ok by those in charge of the game, that precedents are set and new rules are effectively made.
Either way, even if all the overs were miraculously bowled out, England were unlikely to win the game. And they should have gone off probably half an hour earlier.
How was it even so that the umpires didn't even have the light meter with them? They are required to go off when that light meter hit a certain level, and they didn't even take it with them relying on their eyes that are proven to be so ineffective?
The reality is, the light meter had a reading of 3 less than when England forced players off the ground through their constant appealing for bad light at Durham. The reason there was a reading for this match, was again for England appealing hard for bad light earlier in the game. Aus have been copping this all series.
The umpires should only be criticised for taking too much notice of the England players with their tactics. They sit there bowling 11 overs an hour, discussing field changes every ball, tying up shoelaces every over, sending players on and off the field. With the bat they walk around delaying more, and beg for bad light. The umpires for one, should never fall for it, and for two, should both fine Cook, and suspend him, as they did with Dhoni. They made a mockery of the umpires this series.
Clarke was put in a position where he had to make a game of it to chance winning. For every person here that thinks he made a suicide declaration, I will show you somebody (with the same forum name in most cases) that said in no way ever, would England attempt to win the game so it did not matter when he declared. He set a good total, allowing enough overs to bowl them out if everything went their way, and knowing that the 44 overs was at very long odds to be completed considering the precedent had been set as to the time that play could no longer continue. I guarantee that they were very lucky to get so many overs in in the first place.
Clarke begging to go off? Clarke reminding the umpires what a rort it would be if they weren't consistant more like it. With so much damage already done this series to the umpiring fraternity, how would it then look if Australia gets sent off when in control every time for bad light at Englands request, and then England given a chance denied of Australia to play in such light.
In regards to people suggesting double standards, I think you need to realise that when a team uses such tactics against you and it is said to be ok by those in charge of the game, that precedents are set and new rules are effectively made.
Either way, even if all the overs were miraculously bowled out, England were unlikely to win the game. And they should have gone off probably half an hour earlier.
How was it even so that the umpires didn't even have the light meter with them? They are required to go off when that light meter hit a certain level, and they didn't even take it with them relying on their eyes that are proven to be so ineffective?
In regards to the people suggesting tie insurance was a waste, that is their opinion. I knew the likelihood of it, and BF dictates how these markets work.
It was really bought up by a guy that sits on these threads trying to find fault with people. Somebody that has an opinion on everything, and then claims to have made 76k pounds on the market, whilst on another thread claiming he never bets on cricket because there is every chance he would lose the lot. So take it for what it is, and that is really nobodies business what bets I did or didn't make. It doesn't affect anybody else, so there is no reason to care one way or the other. If you have nothing better to do with your time than to try to pick fault with others while providing nothing of your own, then that really is your own issue.
Hope it goes well for you all blindly backing England every test next series.
It was really bought up by a guy that sits on these threads trying to find fault with people. Somebody that has an opinion on everything, and then claims to have made 76k pounds on the market, whilst on another thread claiming he never bets on cricket because there is every chance he would lose the lot. So take it for what it is, and that is really nobodies business what bets I did or didn't make. It doesn't affect anybody else, so there is no reason to care one way or the other. If you have nothing better to do with your time than to try to pick fault with others while providing nothing of your own, then that really is your own issue.
Hope it goes well for you all blindly backing England every test next series.
Clarke did what any captain would have done. But when he declared the second innings, he never believed he would win that match. What he wanted to continue was the effective Australian press/PR narrative - Australia exciting risk-takers, England dull and negative - which was the thing that backfired as England set about the total with gusto. The sight of the Australians timewasting and 'encouraging' the umpires to take the players off sank that particular myth in quick time.
Would England have timewasted in the same way? Yep. Would any other country? Yep. There's no moral high-ground with all this timewasting, slow over-rates, not walking etc etc. EVERY professional side does it when it's advantageous to them. Every single one.
But I say again, given the state of the match and the state of the series, Clarke's declaration was simply what any other captain in the same situation would have done. To portray him as some sort of swashbuckling, ultra-positive skipper is absurd; to imply that he made some sort of mistake is equally wrong.
Would England have timewasted in the same way? Yep. Would any other country? Yep. There's no moral high-ground with all this timewasting, slow over-rates, not walking etc etc. EVERY professional side does it when it's advantageous to them. Every single one.
But I say again, given the state of the match and the state of the series, Clarke's declaration was simply what any other captain in the same situation would have done. To portray him as some sort of swashbuckling, ultra-positive skipper is absurd; to imply that he made some sort of mistake is equally wrong.
BJT
28 Aug 13 05:16
Joined:
30 Oct 04
| Topic/replies: 9,125 | Blogger: BJT's blog
In regards to the people suggesting tie insurance was a waste, that is their opinion. I knew the likelihood of it, and BF dictates how these markets work.
It was really bought up by a guy that sits on these threads trying to find fault with people. Somebody that has an opinion on everything, and then claims to have made 76k pounds on the market, whilst on another thread claiming he never bets on cricket because there is every chance he would lose the lot. So take it for what it is, and that is really nobodies business what bets I did or didn't make. It doesn't affect anybody else, so there is no reason to care one way or the other. If you have nothing better to do with your time than to try to pick fault with others while providing nothing of your own, then that really is your own issue.
Hope it goes well for you all blindly backing England every test next series.
I don't try and find fault with people - it's just you I have a problem with.
Rich of you to suggest I have an opinion on everything - that describes you to a tee - most of them one eyed opinions with limited basis in fact.
You're right, your bets are nobodies business but your own - until you start giving it the big 'un and posting your fantasy numbers on here, it's OK for you to decry others as 'penny traders' though - so you're quite prepared to make their bets your business without knowing anything about them. What a hypocrite you are.
It was 79k by the way but you clearly struggle with numbers so I'll let you off for that one.
You're great at dishing it out but can't take it when somebody has a go back.
28 Aug 13 05:16
Joined:
30 Oct 04
| Topic/replies: 9,125 | Blogger: BJT's blog
In regards to the people suggesting tie insurance was a waste, that is their opinion. I knew the likelihood of it, and BF dictates how these markets work.
It was really bought up by a guy that sits on these threads trying to find fault with people. Somebody that has an opinion on everything, and then claims to have made 76k pounds on the market, whilst on another thread claiming he never bets on cricket because there is every chance he would lose the lot. So take it for what it is, and that is really nobodies business what bets I did or didn't make. It doesn't affect anybody else, so there is no reason to care one way or the other. If you have nothing better to do with your time than to try to pick fault with others while providing nothing of your own, then that really is your own issue.
Hope it goes well for you all blindly backing England every test next series.
I don't try and find fault with people - it's just you I have a problem with.
Rich of you to suggest I have an opinion on everything - that describes you to a tee - most of them one eyed opinions with limited basis in fact.
You're right, your bets are nobodies business but your own - until you start giving it the big 'un and posting your fantasy numbers on here, it's OK for you to decry others as 'penny traders' though - so you're quite prepared to make their bets your business without knowing anything about them. What a hypocrite you are.
It was 79k by the way but you clearly struggle with numbers so I'll let you off for that one.
You're great at dishing it out but can't take it when somebody has a go back.
Was Monty Panesar involved in the post match celebrations ? You know the old saying " IN ONE END , AND OUT THE OTHER " .
Aug 27, 2013 -- 5:24PM, the silverback wrote:
Did what he could to give them a chance of victory - however unlikely it was - and then did what he could to avoid defeat after, in case you've forgotten, the fastest ever 50 from an England player in the Ashes (i think, is that right)got England in position to win.I'm really struggling to see anything wrong with his tactics throughout Sunday.Although of course he could have batted sensibly and put England in for 30 overs.
Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree but 10 mins of better light and AUS would have lost.
Can't take what? I find you amusing. Self proclaimed man of fiction, yet you feel the need to pick apart anything possible with no thought of how ridiculous it makes you look. 79,000? Makes no difference really, somebody that makes any decent money wouldn't have spent so much time trying to find something I said that wasn't 100% fact. Maybe spend a little more time next time, you might come up with something.
At least the others will risk 20 bucks on their opinion. You? Nah, you don't even bet because you are a degenerate gambler that knows he will lose the lot (can quote you if need be) yet feel compelled to spend a game of cricket on a forum discussing gambling.
You are a dime a dozen, and there are at least that many of you on this thread alone.
Have a nice day.
At least the others will risk 20 bucks on their opinion. You? Nah, you don't even bet because you are a degenerate gambler that knows he will lose the lot (can quote you if need be) yet feel compelled to spend a game of cricket on a forum discussing gambling.
You are a dime a dozen, and there are at least that many of you on this thread alone.
Have a nice day.
^ Bitter Jealous Twisted, a sad little insecure man with such a debilitating inferiority complex that it leads him to draw conclusions about the lives of people he knows nothing about.
Where did I say I did n't bet? I don't bet on cricket - I like discussing/debating it though - there's me thinking this is a cricket forum.
The bit about losing it was a piece of self deprecation - I would n't expect that to register with somebody who is such a stranger to humility though.
I ain't the one with the characteristics of the degenerate gambler, mate - I doubt you win, I'm sure you convince yourself you do - just like you convince yourself you're always right. Successful gamblers are those who avoid confirmation bias - you spend all your time using lies,damned lies and statistics to bolster your own self esteem.
Good luck with that project.
Not betting on everything that moves is a sign of discipline by the way.
Where did I say I did n't bet? I don't bet on cricket - I like discussing/debating it though - there's me thinking this is a cricket forum.
The bit about losing it was a piece of self deprecation - I would n't expect that to register with somebody who is such a stranger to humility though.
I ain't the one with the characteristics of the degenerate gambler, mate - I doubt you win, I'm sure you convince yourself you do - just like you convince yourself you're always right. Successful gamblers are those who avoid confirmation bias - you spend all your time using lies,damned lies and statistics to bolster your own self esteem.
Good luck with that project.
Not betting on everything that moves is a sign of discipline by the way.
In terms of Clarke not believing Australia could win, this seems to be a trendy statement everyone is trotting out to try and mock him. But it's a nonsensical statement. Of course he believed there was some sort of chance Australia could win. And of course he knew it was a slim one. He wouldn't be backing them odds on but he certainly believed it wasn't impossible for them to win.
He also probably knew it was more likely England would win but you'd have to ask him that.
He also probably knew it was more likely England would win but you'd have to ask him that.
England have been criticised plenty by their own fans for below par performance and time wasting. I haven't heard too many Aussies saying we are crap and we know we are! I have hardly heard any criticism by Aussies of their own team although there are some who have stood up.
Warner misses the early games, Katich isn't even in the team, Hussey doesn't want to be. Clarke doesn't look a great captain to me. Cook has been crictised by his own for being dull, boring and unimaginative yet leads with assurance a team who whilst playing badly win 3-zip at a canter AND they all stay together for a drink on the outfield till midnight and nobody goes off to meet their girlfriend for dinner!
n.b I am not saying none of you Aussies have degrees in the art of the bleedin obvious just you are drowned out by those who don't!
Warner misses the early games, Katich isn't even in the team, Hussey doesn't want to be. Clarke doesn't look a great captain to me. Cook has been crictised by his own for being dull, boring and unimaginative yet leads with assurance a team who whilst playing badly win 3-zip at a canter AND they all stay together for a drink on the outfield till midnight and nobody goes off to meet their girlfriend for dinner!
n.b I am not saying none of you Aussies have degrees in the art of the bleedin obvious just you are drowned out by those who don't!
Aug 28, 2013 -- 3:24PM, ReaseHeath wrote:
^ Bitter Jealous Twisted, a sad little insecure man with such a debilitating inferiority complex that it leads him to draw conclusions about the lives of people he knows nothing about.Where did I say I did n't bet? I don't bet on cricket - I like discussing/debating it though - there's me thinking this is a cricket forum.The bit about losing it was a piece of self deprecation - I would n't expect that to register with somebody who is such a stranger to humility though.I ain't the one with the characteristics of the degenerate gambler, mate - I doubt you win, I'm sure you convince yourself you do - just like you convince yourself you're always right. Successful gamblers are those who avoid confirmation bias - you spend all your time using lies,damned lies and statistics to bolster your own self esteem.Good luck with that project.Not betting on everything that moves is a sign of discipline by the way.
^ Bitter Jealous Twisted, a sad little insecure man with such a debilitating inferiority complex that it leads him to draw conclusions about the lives of people he knows nothing about.
I ain't the one with the characteristics of the degenerate gambler, mate - I doubt you win, I'm sure you convince yourself you do - just like you convince yourself you're always right. Successful gamblers are those who avoid confirmation bias - you spend all your time using lies,damned lies and statistics to bolster your own self esteem.
Hmmmmmmmm... Think you left out the words "I am" a sad little .................
Not betting on everything that moves is a sign of discipline by the way.
The bet you don't put on is the bet you can't win....
The bet you don't put on is the bet you can't win....
Thanks for posting that Martin Samuel article, maf.
Less talk about improvement and winning situations, too, if since February 10 the only games won in any form of cricket had been a four-day tour match against Somerset and an ICC Champions Trophy warm-up one-dayer against the West Indies.
After Dockrell clean-bowled Hughes and Clarke on the final afternoon with 60 still needed and 6 wickets in hand, I was disappointed we didn't go on to win that match. But I got it completely wrong and assumed that Lehmann had moulded a confident side who got the job done.
Absolutely gutted now we've seen what a spineless shambles they really are when you apply any pressure.
Less talk about improvement and winning situations, too, if since February 10 the only games won in any form of cricket had been a four-day tour match against Somerset and an ICC Champions Trophy warm-up one-dayer against the West Indies.
After Dockrell clean-bowled Hughes and Clarke on the final afternoon with 60 still needed and 6 wickets in hand, I was disappointed we didn't go on to win that match. But I got it completely wrong and assumed that Lehmann had moulded a confident side who got the job done.
Absolutely gutted now we've seen what a spineless shambles they really are when you apply any pressure.
screaming, and in other news some sort of mracle seems to be taking place at lords over the last 2 days - a virtual rereun of the lords test as it happens
had virtually accepted we were going down. seems there some life in the patient yet
had virtually accepted we were going down. seems there some life in the patient yet
I know it's after-timing, and we're nowhere near out of the woods, but I can't say I've ever expected us to get relegated from a division containing two teams as bad as Surrey and Derbyshire.
I've seen most of Zum's home games in the Ch'ship this year and they've never looked hopeless. I've argued right from the start that it's just been a case of all the bad passages of play a side inevitably suffers over a period of a few years all falling together at once. Sometimes the reverse happens and fundamentally limited teams get all their good results falling together and they end up flattered. Middx up until last month were a case in point. And it's how Lancs managed to fluke the title in 2011.
Mind you, Lanky still wouldn't have won it if Gemaal Hussain hadn't lazily, stupidly and pointlessly run himself out on the last day of that season. And that was one big difference in the game just finished. Despite losing Kirby and Trego through injury, Zum finally at long last didn't turn to Gemaal Hussain. Instead they gave Gregory the chance his 2nd XI form deserved and reaped the reward.
I've seen most of Zum's home games in the Ch'ship this year and they've never looked hopeless. I've argued right from the start that it's just been a case of all the bad passages of play a side inevitably suffers over a period of a few years all falling together at once. Sometimes the reverse happens and fundamentally limited teams get all their good results falling together and they end up flattered. Middx up until last month were a case in point. And it's how Lancs managed to fluke the title in 2011.
Mind you, Lanky still wouldn't have won it if Gemaal Hussain hadn't lazily, stupidly and pointlessly run himself out on the last day of that season. And that was one big difference in the game just finished. Despite losing Kirby and Trego through injury, Zum finally at long last didn't turn to Gemaal Hussain. Instead they gave Gregory the chance his 2nd XI form deserved and reaped the reward.
Somerset: The Australia of the County Championship
the batting bonus points are the tell tale sign. usually we'd have the most but before this game we had the least. so many times we've been shot out for a low score often in embarrassing fashion
still the remaining fixtures could hardly be more friendly. a win and a draw from the last 3 should be enough
was wondering if tres might jack in it if we went down. seems his ankle is still not properly right and not sure he'd fancy 2nd division cricket at his age as much as he loves the club
still the remaining fixtures could hardly be more friendly. a win and a draw from the last 3 should be enough
was wondering if tres might jack in it if we went down. seems his ankle is still not properly right and not sure he'd fancy 2nd division cricket at his age as much as he loves the club
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539