|
|
Post by aussie on Jul 13, 2009 16:16:55 GMT
Bring on the next game and may the better team win the series!
|
|
midlandstufc
TFF member
Posts: 945
Favourite Player: Dawkins lol
|
Post by midlandstufc on Jul 13, 2009 18:40:12 GMT
Must admit to watching the last ten overs through my fingers. For me it gives a good feeling going to Lords (last time we beat the Aussies there anyone!!) and gives a good kick up the backside of the nominated batsmen. Yes, the sight of the trainer coming on was gamesmanship too far for me. At the time I thought it could well distract Anderson from the great concentration he had. As it was. it didn't matter as the Aussies called it wrong bringing on their part-time spinner. There's a good deal of clamour to replace Monty with Harmy. Not sure that, on the show they put on, that we could separate Monty from Swann but I think that Swann just had a bad few days at the office and Monty needs some time to get back to form at County. Would not dispense with Broad yet, he will come good and will be around for many years to come. If me, I would probably err to Onions over Harmy for Monty. But having said that, who would the Aussies fear more? Can't blame Pieterson too much, unlike the press, in comparison with the thrown wickets of Strauss and Cook etc. Anyway, can't stand Ponting and never have. My joy of joys was his run out in 2005 (cracking day and a lot cheaper than they wanted this year!) and his bleating (baa!) now makes me smile so much (even if he does have a point! - just not cricket old bean, bit of a poor show to have a baggy cap point it out!). So, think we'll lose at Lords, come together, wollup the next, draw then lose. Little Urn retained in the country we'd all secretly like to live in! No class system there, no middle classes keeping out the oiks (see Merse on the Tennis issue) and a meritocracy with a bugger them all attitude that we'd love our Govt to have. Still, can't call us whinging poms now can you Rickaay?  |
|
|
|
Post by aussie on Jul 13, 2009 18:57:33 GMT
I sh1t you not mate, you haven`t beaten us at Lords since 1934!
|
|
|
|
Post by chrish on Jul 13, 2009 20:13:54 GMT
I sh1t you not mate, you haven`t beaten us at Lords since 1934! Well, its about time we stopped feeling guilty about the Empire and put these uncoof and foul mouthed upstarts well and truly in their rightful place. Following on by day three anybody?  |
|
|
|
Post by stuartB on Jul 13, 2009 20:19:30 GMT
I sh1t you not mate, you haven`t beaten us at Lords since 1934! Well, its about time we stopped feeling guilty about the Empire and put these uncoof and foul mouthed upstarts well and truly in their rightful place. Following on by day three anybody? I've always found aussie very polite, well spoken and knows which fork to use with his soup  |
|
|
|
Post by aussie on Jul 14, 2009 16:47:11 GMT
Yeah but I`ve never been able to work out which knife you use to cut the stuff!
|
|
merse
TFF member
Posts: 2,684
|
Post by merse on Jul 17, 2009 17:31:04 GMT
 How in the name of God can anyone in this day and age come off like they just have done for "Bad light"? What are those four bloody great things rising 120 foot into the air if they're not floodlights? What are floodlights for? Eighty quid a day for a ticket minimum to be treated like some sort of idiot by un professional buffoons and cynical unprofessional "players" No wonder test cricket is dying, no wonder the kids round here are all out playing (in the same light except for the floodlights) and taking no interest at all in their stupid game. Cricket will die and deserve to with this attitude, and bigger the fools who pay to go and watch such nonsense before it does!
|
|
Rob
TFF member
Posts: 3,602
Favourite Player: Asa Hall
|
Post by Rob on Jul 17, 2009 18:11:09 GMT
Aussie gamesmanship, merse. The rotters.
|
|
merse
TFF member
Posts: 2,684
|
Post by merse on Jul 17, 2009 18:27:40 GMT
But it's not gamesmanship is it Rob? Under the current laws of the game they are perfectly entitled to ask for the light. What is wrong is taking the public's money and wilfully failing to provide full value for money. It is the laws that need changing to encompass modern day facilities. It's no good Botham waffling on about old records meaning nothing. If I have to pay eighty quid for just one fifth of the match, I don't do it to think about past records I do it to watch some bloody cricket! The people who run the game and those who play it at the top level are too self indulgent. If they could run it and play it without the financial input from the public, fair enough; but they can't...................they need the income but they don't want to give value for money and that's what gets my goat. Shadows on the pitch? Oh dear, oh dear; whatever next complaints about insects disturbing blades of grass?
|
|
Rob
TFF member
Posts: 3,602
Favourite Player: Asa Hall
|
Post by Rob on Jul 17, 2009 18:33:15 GMT
Indeed. But Ponting not walking after his obvious dismissal earlier was shocking gamesmanship. ;D ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by chrish on Jul 17, 2009 19:41:45 GMT
But it's not gamesmanship is it Rob? Under the current laws of the game they are perfectly entitled to ask for the light. What is wrong is taking the public's money and wilfully failing to provide full value for money. It is the laws that need changing to encompass modern day facilities. It's no good Botham waffling on about old records meaning nothing. If I have to pay eighty quid for just one fifth of the match, I don't do it to think about past records I do it to watch some bloody cricket! The people who run the game and those who play it at the top level are too self indulgent. If they could run it and play it without the financial input from the public, fair enough; but they can't...................they need the income but they don't want to give value for money and that's what gets my goat. Shadows on the pitch? Oh dear, oh dear; whatever next complaints about insects disturbing blades of grass? I'm not sure that they were entitled to ask about the light. Both teams had agreed before the game that floodlights could help prolong the play in case of lost overs to the weather. I was under the impression when listening to Test Match Live on LW that the umpires decided to offer the light, which the batsmen accepted. As for the floodlight debate. It's a tough one to call. There should be sufficient light to play on but lets not forget that the colour of the ball for day/night games is white and not cherry red! But you're right. £80 to get in and the ECCB selling the television rights is a bloody and absolute disgrace, but I blame Australia for the eradication of any standards of cricket. They are fully responsible for making cricket competitive and Kerry Packer sowed the first seeds of commercialism. As I said before. Uncoof ruffians directly descended from criminals. ;D |
|
merse
TFF member
Posts: 2,684
|
Post by merse on Jul 17, 2009 20:19:30 GMT
I'm not sure that they were entitled to ask about the light. Both teams had agreed before the game that floodlights could help prolong the play in case of lost overs to the weather. I was under the impression when listening to Test Match Live on LW that the umpires decided to offer the light, which the batsmen accepted. As for the floodlight debate. It's a tough one to call. There should be sufficient light to play on but lets not forget that the colour of the ball for day/night games is white and not cherry red! I stand corrected Chris, yes they were offered the light...................but they shouldn't have that in the laws for "floodlit" cricket. They can change to a white ball once the lights come on. Don't give me that crap about the "state of the ball". There is a collection of various balls to use as substitutes should a ball be lost or damaged and so there should in the alternative colour for such instances. In effect what they are saying is "yes, we'll use the floodlights but once we do there will be a problem with four shadows of the ball so we'll go off"..........................pathetic, ignorant and scandalous. It's all a case of applying one's mind for a practical solution and a genuine will to provide value for money. The old buffers who run the game only want to see negativity, to cling on to the past and to maintain this artificial barrier between "them" and "us". We don't want to hear why they can't do something, we want to hear they can and more importantly that they even want to! If Torquay United could overcome a problem with floodlights by wearing a more visible kit fifty years ago, then these idiots can overcome this nonsense today. |
|
|
|
Post by capitalgull on Jul 17, 2009 21:14:59 GMT
The umpires cannot change to a white ball after the start of a game, in fact even the type of red ball cannot be changed once the game (or in some cases the series has been started. It would considered changing the conditions of the game and could favour one side or the other too much - in this case it would have favoured England to continue playing, although it should also be noted that within five minutes of the players coming off for bad light, they would have been coming off for heavy rain anyway. England prefer to use a Duke ball with a more pronounced seam, the Aussies use the Kookaburra. Stick to footy Merse and leave the cricket to us Tarquins |
|
tufc01
TFF member
Posts: 1,179
|
Post by tufc01 on Jul 17, 2009 21:27:59 GMT
The umpires cannot change to a white ball after the start of a game, in fact even the type of red ball cannot be changed once the game (or in some cases the series has been started. It would considered changing the conditions of the game and could favour one side or the other too much - in this case it would have favoured England to continue playing, although it should also be noted that within five minutes of the players [glow=yellow,2,300]coming off for bad light[/glow], they would have been coming off for heavy rain anyway. England prefer to use a Duke ball with a more pronounced seam, the Aussies use the Kookaburra. Stick to footy Merse and leave the cricket to us Tarquins 2 serious questions, that i didn't hear addressed on TV this afternoon; With the floodlights on is there a different light level reading at which 'bad light' stops play? If the floodlights are good enough for play to continue (as they are for a day/night game) and like today there were still another 34 overs to play, would play continue until all 34 overs were bowled, which in todays case could have been, say 9pm? or is there a cut off time when play stops regardless of how many overs are left? |
|
|
|
Post by chrish on Jul 17, 2009 21:32:22 GMT
I'm not sure that they were entitled to ask about the light. Both teams had agreed before the game that floodlights could help prolong the play in case of lost overs to the weather. I was under the impression when listening to Test Match Live on LW that the umpires decided to offer the light, which the batsmen accepted. As for the floodlight debate. It's a tough one to call. There should be sufficient light to play on but lets not forget that the colour of the ball for day/night games is white and not cherry red! I stand corrected Chris, yes they were offered the light...................but they shouldn't have that in the laws for "floodlit" cricket. They can change to a white ball once the lights come on. Don't give me that crap about the "state of the ball". There is a collection of various balls to use as substitutes should a ball be lost or damaged and so there should in the alternative colour for such instances. In effect what they are saying is "yes, we'll use the floodlights but once we do there will be a problem with four shadows of the ball so we'll go off"..........................pathetic, ignorant and scandalous. It's all a case of applying one's mind for a practical solution and a genuine will to provide value for money. The old buffers who run the game only want to see negativity, to cling on to the past and to maintain this artificial barrier between "them" and "us". We don't want to hear why they can't do something, we want to hear they can and more importantly that they even want to! If Torquay United could overcome a problem with floodlights by wearing a more visible kit fifty years ago, then these idiots can overcome this nonsense today. To be fair to the batsmen, the Australian top order were finding it difficult to fend off Flintoff's hostile bowling earlier when the light was good. I have a bit of sympathy with Hauritz and Siddle facing that sort of bowling under such circumstances. Its worth noting that Stuart Broad was much more effective bowling short stuff later on in the day in the floodlit conditions than he was in better light. If it was me facing a 94 mph Flintoff bouncer i'd want to see it as clear as day. As for the ECB again. It's just basic economics isn't it? Demand for tickets far outweighs the supply of tickets. There's only a finite number of seats available in our much smaller grounds. Lord's only holds 29,000, The Oval holds about 23,500, Edgbaston holds 21,000, Headingley 14,000 and Cardiff 16,000. The capacity is limited when your compare them to test venues in India and Australia. The MCG in Melbourne alone holds 100,000 people, which incidently is only 3,500 less than the combined capacities of this years Ashes venues. In theory if the ACB charged £80 a pop they'd be almost able to generate as much revenue from one test match as the ECB would do from hosting 5 test matches. I find the MCG a bit souless and I much prefer the atmosphere that Adelaide (capacity 34,000) and Perth's WACA (capacity 24,000) create. I know £80 is shockingly expensive but if they sold them for 40 quid they'd be on Ebay for 100 quid a few hours later. Is the extra revenue better off in the ECB's pockets than online ticket touts? |
|
