God is an Englishman wrote:Your media, most of your countrymen.Bomber wrote:Who's claiming to be the best? I still think Saffers deserve to be no 1 ranked.Derek wrote:And the Australian cricket world can't claim to be the best all of a sudden, just because of 1 series win. Also love the fuss over Mitchell Johnson, don't get me wrong he's been bowling really well, but has everyone conveniently forgotten the pile of shite he chucked down for the years before. The blokes only been good for 1 and a bit series
Saffers v Oz
Moderators: Randoman, Ernie Cooksey, Forum Admins
Re: Saffers v Oz
- Red-4-Life
- Assistant Coach
- Posts: 12562
- Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 12:24 pm
- Nishioka Sumiko
- Ball Boy
- Posts: 28
- Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2013 6:44 am
- Nishioka Sumiko
- Ball Boy
- Posts: 28
- Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2013 6:44 am
Re: Saffers v Oz
Capitulation is alive and wellNishioka Sumiko wrote:Bloody hell! It was 136/1 when I went to bed. Woke up and it was all over.


Southern Knights SC - 2024 - Celebrating 30 Years of SAASL Football
SAASL facebook : Southern Knights SC facebook
swannsong Facebook : Elizabeth Downs SC facebook
- God is an Englishman
- Board Member
- Posts: 51452
- Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 5:31 pm
- Has thanked: 24 times
- Been thanked: 85 times
Re: Saffers v Oz
I knew australia must have lost because watched the news this morning, sport came on and they didn't even mention the cricket 

Re: Saffers v Oz
The media was focussing on Australia's Winter Olympics successesGod is an Englishman wrote:I knew australia must have lost because watched the news this morning, sport came on and they didn't even mention the cricket


Southern Knights SC - 2024 - Celebrating 30 Years of SAASL Football
SAASL facebook : Southern Knights SC facebook
swannsong Facebook : Elizabeth Downs SC facebook
- God is an Englishman
- Board Member
- Posts: 51452
- Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 5:31 pm
- Has thanked: 24 times
- Been thanked: 85 times
Re: Saffers v Oz
swannsong wrote:The media was focussing on Australia's Winter Olympics successesGod is an Englishman wrote:I knew australia must have lost because watched the news this morning, sport came on and they didn't even mention the cricket

Even my son said to me yesterday "Dad, why did they only show the australians and not the people who are actually good"

- Bomber
- Vice Chairman
- Posts: 60561
- Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 11:40 am
- Has thanked: 46 times
- Been thanked: 141 times
Re: Saffers v Oz
It was lead story when I watched. With rain predicted for day 5, thought they would have at least dug in a bit more towards the end.God is an Englishman wrote:I knew australia must have lost because watched the news this morning, sport came on and they didn't even mention the cricket
Anyway 1-1 with a decider to go.
Ignore this signature
- God is an Englishman
- Board Member
- Posts: 51452
- Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 5:31 pm
- Has thanked: 24 times
- Been thanked: 85 times
Re: Saffers v Oz
Bomber wrote:It was lead story when I watched. With rain predicted for day 5, thought they would have at least dug in a bit more towards the end.God is an Englishman wrote:I knew australia must have lost because watched the news this morning, sport came on and they didn't even mention the cricket
Anyway 1-1 with a decider to go.
Watched ABC news for about 30 minutes or do this morning, first sport segment NOTHING. 2 segment it got mentioned as the last item.
Funnily as part of that, they mentioned liverpool's 7 goal thriller, then showed 4 of the goals and moved on to the next game at 2-2. I still don't know the final score.

- Bomber
- Vice Chairman
- Posts: 60561
- Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 11:40 am
- Has thanked: 46 times
- Been thanked: 141 times
Re: Saffers v Oz
ABC, well there's half your problem. And 4-3 by the way.God is an Englishman wrote:Bomber wrote:It was lead story when I watched. With rain predicted for day 5, thought they would have at least dug in a bit more towards the end.God is an Englishman wrote:I knew australia must have lost because watched the news this morning, sport came on and they didn't even mention the cricket
Anyway 1-1 with a decider to go.
Watched ABC news for about 30 minutes or do this morning, first sport segment NOTHING. 2 segment it got mentioned as the last item.
Funnily as part of that, they mentioned liverpool's 7 goal thriller, then showed 4 of the goals and moved on to the next game at 2-2. I still don't know the final score.
Ignore this signature
- God is an Englishman
- Board Member
- Posts: 51452
- Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 5:31 pm
- Has thanked: 24 times
- Been thanked: 85 times
Re: Saffers v Oz
Unfortunately, it's the best of a very bad bunch.Bomber wrote: ABC, well there's half your problem. And 4-3 by the way.
-
- Star Player
- Posts: 3648
- Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 1:56 pm
Re: Saffers v Oz
As much as I hate to agree with you, this is spot on.God is an Englishman wrote:Unfortunately, it's the best of a very bad bunch.Bomber wrote: ABC, well there's half your problem. And 4-3 by the way.
The rest of the news outlets are only good for following the social lives of the Kardashians or whatever celebrity/tv show the particular network is shamelessly promoting.
"I've missed more than 9000 shots in my career. I've lost almost 300 games. 26 times I've been trusted to take the game winning shot and missed. I've failed over and over and over again in my life. That's why I succeed." -Michael Jordan
- Bomber
- Vice Chairman
- Posts: 60561
- Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 11:40 am
- Has thanked: 46 times
- Been thanked: 141 times
Re: Saffers v Oz
I prefer Sky News (if anything) but in this day and age with social media, today now, newspapers etc, we are being constantly bombarded with news info (crap or otherwise) on basically an hourly basis. Then there's football news...........Black_Panther wrote:As much as I hate to agree with you, this is spot on.God is an Englishman wrote:Unfortunately, it's the best of a very bad bunch.Bomber wrote: ABC, well there's half your problem. And 4-3 by the way.
The rest of the news outlets are only good for following the social lives of the Kardashians or whatever celebrity/tv show the particular network is shamelessly promoting.
Ignore this signature
- Stitch This
- Assistant Coach
- Posts: 11903
- Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 3:51 pm
- Has thanked: 5 times
- Been thanked: 5 times
- Bomber
- Vice Chairman
- Posts: 60561
- Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 11:40 am
- Has thanked: 46 times
- Been thanked: 141 times
Re: Saffers v Oz
"Match referee David Boon said the ball-tampering charge was warranted, but also that it "was not part of a deliberate and/or prolonged attempt to unfairly manipulate the condition of the ball".Stitch This wrote:Good old Aussies, always whingeing
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-26/w ... ts/5285156
Case closed, although Boonie match referee????

Ignore this signature
- God is an Englishman
- Board Member
- Posts: 51452
- Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 5:31 pm
- Has thanked: 24 times
- Been thanked: 85 times
Re: Saffers v Oz
Bomber wrote:"Match referee David Boon said the ball-tampering charge was warranted, but also that it "was not part of a deliberate and/or prolonged attempt to unfairly manipulate the condition of the ball".Stitch This wrote:Good old Aussies, always whingeing
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-26/w ... ts/5285156
Case closed, although Boonie match referee????
Wasn't that about the Du Plessis one and not this current whinge from warner?
- Stitch This
- Assistant Coach
- Posts: 11903
- Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 3:51 pm
- Has thanked: 5 times
- Been thanked: 5 times
Re: Saffers v Oz
God is an Englishman wrote:Wasn't that about the Du Plessis one and not this current whinge from warner?

Time for some righteous indignation
- Jim's Alteregos
- Apprentice
- Posts: 210
- Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2014 9:38 pm
Re: Saffers v Oz
Amazing, bowlers can't be that tired after a short SA innings...they have overnight to rest....soft decision to have a bat...soft!Jim's Alteregos wrote:Again another chance to enforce a follow on not taken.

Southern Knights SC - 2024 - Celebrating 30 Years of SAASL Football
SAASL facebook : Southern Knights SC facebook
swannsong Facebook : Elizabeth Downs SC facebook
- God is an Englishman
- Board Member
- Posts: 51452
- Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 5:31 pm
- Has thanked: 24 times
- Been thanked: 85 times
Re: Saffers v Oz
The only time you would enforce a follow on is if you don't think you have enough time to bowl the side out. Aus can bat until tea today and still have 4 sessions (and a 400 lead) to bowl out SA.
I hate saying it but the whingeing pansy hypocrite got it spot on.
I hate saying it but the whingeing pansy hypocrite got it spot on.
- Bomber
- Vice Chairman
- Posts: 60561
- Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 11:40 am
- Has thanked: 46 times
- Been thanked: 141 times
Re: Saffers v Oz
They'll only need to bat until about midway through second session (assume weather forecast is clear). Going for quick runs and given extended first session, should have a 400 lead by then anyway. Four and a half sessions on a deteriorating track should be enough, but if the saffers were to hang on again like they did in Adelaide couple years ago, then good for them.
Ignore this signature
Re: Saffers v Oz
If Australia wins this game (and the series) it will be gold seeing GIAE trying to put a negative spin on it

- Brocken Spectre
- Boot Polisher
- Posts: 50
- Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:52 pm
Re: Saffers v Oz
Personally I would think it be better to force a follow. At least that way you have a right of reply if your opposition catches you.God is an Englishman wrote:The only time you would enforce a follow on is if you don't think you have enough time to bowl the side out. Aus can bat until tea today and still have 4 sessions (and a 400 lead) to bowl out SA.
I hate saying it but the whingeing pansy hypocrite got it spot on.
- God is an Englishman
- Board Member
- Posts: 51452
- Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 5:31 pm
- Has thanked: 24 times
- Been thanked: 85 times
Re: Saffers v Oz
Batting in the 4th innings is the hardest. So, if you put them back in and they score 500, you now have to chase 300 in the last innings. If you even collapse and score 100, they still have to chase 300.Brocken Spectre wrote:Personally I would think it be better to force a follow. At least that way you have a right of reply if your opposition catches you.God is an Englishman wrote:The only time you would enforce a follow on is if you don't think you have enough time to bowl the side out. Aus can bat until tea today and still have 4 sessions (and a 400 lead) to bowl out SA.
I hate saying it but the whingeing pansy hypocrite got it spot on.
Enforcing the follow on is a risk. Why take it if you don't have to?
- Brocken Spectre
- Boot Polisher
- Posts: 50
- Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:52 pm
Re: Saffers v Oz
There is also a risk in them chasing down a target you set and you're left with no reply.
- God is an Englishman
- Board Member
- Posts: 51452
- Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 5:31 pm
- Has thanked: 24 times
- Been thanked: 85 times
Re: Saffers v Oz
Brocken Spectre wrote:There is also a risk in them chasing down a target you set and you're left with no reply.
Yes there's a risk in everything, but even 300 is a hard score in the 4th innings and that's the lowest score they'll be chasing in the worst case scenario. Realistically they should never chase down a target you set or you've fucked up the captaincy.