FootballNews

Bomber wrote:Like I said, then just about every cricketer is

I don't believe that to be the case. I believe most appeal because they believe the guy MIGHT be out but they don't KNOW they're not. I'd like to believe that the situation you describe above happens rarely, which is why I have highlighted the cases in this series.

Might and know - so you know what goes on in every player's mind now?

Ever thought this then - I MIGHT have caught it, I think I did, lets check though - DRS replay shows maybe I didn't. Ok, not out verdict - play on.

Scenario 2 - I think batsman MIGHT have edged it (on to pads for LBW) - but will appeal anyway. Given out - no DRS reviews left - play on.

In which scenario is batsman worse off?

But lets just call certain players cheats when it suits an agenda. Or should I say, attempt to deflect cricketing superiority.

Bomber wrote:Might and know - so you know what goes on in every player's mind now?

Ever thought this then - I MIGHT have caught it, I think I did, lets check though - DRS replay shows maybe I didn't. Ok, not out verdict - play on.

Scenario 2 - I think batsman MIGHT have edged it (on to pads for LBW) - but will appeal anyway. Given out - no DRS reviews left - play on.

In which scenario is batsman worse off?

But lets just call certain players cheats when it suits an agenda. Or should I say, attempt to deflect cricketing superiority.

Well might HAVE is not cheating.

You say certain players - I called Stuart Broad a cheat, I called Voges a cheat, I called Neville a cheat....

All have cheated.

You know when you've caught it, remember the Aussies have pushed that we should accept a fielders word for it. So they themselves are saying the fielder knows.

God is an Englishman wrote:

Bomber wrote:Might and know - so you know what goes on in every player's mind now?

Ever thought this then - I MIGHT have caught it, I think I did, lets check though - DRS replay shows maybe I didn't. Ok, not out verdict - play on.

Scenario 2 - I think batsman MIGHT have edged it (on to pads for LBW) - but will appeal anyway. Given out - no DRS reviews left - play on.

In which scenario is batsman worse off?

But lets just call certain players cheats when it suits an agenda. Or should I say, attempt to deflect cricketing superiority.

Well might HAVE is not cheating.

You say certain players - I called Stuart Broad a cheat, I called Voges a cheat, I called Neville a cheat....

All have cheated.

You know when you've caught it, remember the Aussies have pushed that we should accept a fielders word for it. So they themselves are saying the fielder knows.

2-0 to us I reckon.

throwbackzz wrote:2-0 to us I reckon.

Put your money where you mouth is. I'll let you back any side to win 2-0.

The Chosŏn One wrote:

throwbackzz wrote:2-0 to us I reckon.

Put your money where you mouth is. I'll let you back any side to win 2-0.

1 post and already exposed as numpty of the month.

Green top they say for the third test? Never mind, win toss, still bat first. Huge match and winner will be in prime position.

Tonight marks the first time since 2004 (139 tests ago) that the ECB haven't selected an African born player.

This will also be the 100th year in succession that australia has selected at least one numpty to represent them.

3rd Test in let’s hope they’ve finally come to a consensus on the rules, will both teams will be playing one-hand-one-bounce this match ?

Slinky_Pete wrote:Tonight marks the first time since 2004 (139 tests ago) that the ECB haven't selected an African born player.

The double standards that Aussies claim with this still makes me laugh. Aussies can whinge about some of the England cricket team being born overseas but happily gloss over the fact their rugby team has been doing it on a grander scale. Funny how it was never an issue when Australia held the ashes through the 90s??

Old Redback wrote:

Slinky_Pete wrote:Tonight marks the first time since 2004 (139 tests ago) that the ECB haven't selected an African born player.

The double standards that Aussies claim with this still makes me laugh. Aussies can whinge about some of the England cricket team being born overseas but happily gloss over the fact their rugby team has been doing it on a grander scale. Funny how it was never an issue when Australia held the ashes through the 90s??

It's irrelevant anyway, place of birth is irrelevant to nationality.

Please tell me more.

Sadly rain on day one , but great seats with excellent view . Also lots more leg room than at Adelaide Oval.

Sadly rain on day one , but great seats with excellent view . Also lots more leg room than at Adelaide Oval.

Vegetable Man wrote:Please tell me more.

Under English law, being born in England doesn't guarantee you a British passport. Having an English parent does.

Strangely, I am enjoying this test match a little bit more than Lords.

Who is Ozzie Owl supporting?

didn't watch much nor have read the rags.....

major reason for capitulation???

Loss of wickets

Went to bed at 7/94. Poms bowled well. Like Bumble said, "it was a tremendous toss to lose" and he said this early in the innings so he proved to make some sense in a way. Our lot need to ensure the lead doesnt get much more than 100-150, otherwise its England's test.
Good to see a "fairer" wicket instead of a flat track for a change.

So everyone happy with the pitch, no gardening tips this week. Ancestry.com.au verified everyones heritage. Interesting that australia lasted less balls than England in their 2nd innings at Lords.

With the aust. rugby squad it's "spot the aussie". What happened to the Pakistani spinner whos citizenship was pushed through at lightening speed? He's not much good, so he has been deported !!

B.Toomer wrote:With the aust. rugby squad it's "spot the aussie". What happened to the Pakistani spinner whos citizenship was pushed through at lightening speed? He's not much good, so he has been deported !!

He's in the touring squad

MegaBonus wrote:didn't watch much nor have read the rags.....

major reason for capitulation???

The pitch and ball were doing a fair bit but a lot of Aussie wickets due to lack of patience. Playing at balls they didn't need to and finding the edge etc...

Bomber wrote:Went to bed at 7/94. Poms bowled well. Like Bumble said, "it was a tremendous toss to lose" and he said this early in the innings so he proved to make some sense in a way. Our lot need to ensure the lead doesnt get much more than 100-150, otherwise its England's test.
Good to see a "fairer" wicket instead of a flat track for a change.

A "fairer" pitch. I love this Aussie divine right to be able to say what a pitch should be like and accuse others of cheating if it doesn't match what they want. All pitches are fair as both teams play on the same one.

God is an Englishman wrote:

Bomber wrote:Went to bed at 7/94. Poms bowled well. Like Bumble said, "it was a tremendous toss to lose" and he said this early in the innings so he proved to make some sense in a way. Our lot need to ensure the lead doesnt get much more than 100-150, otherwise its England's test.
Good to see a "fairer" wicket instead of a flat track for a change.

A "fairer" pitch. I love this Aussie divine right to be able to say what a pitch should be like and accuse others of cheating if it doesn't match what they want. All pitches are fair as both teams play on the same one.

"Fairer" in that quick bowlers/seamers get some slight advantage for a change, rather than the bat dominating on flat tracks all the time.
As for accusing people of cheating so easily, you're the master of that, I wouldn't dare try and take that mantle off you.

Bomber wrote:

God is an Englishman wrote:

Bomber wrote:Went to bed at 7/94. Poms bowled well. Like Bumble said, "it was a tremendous toss to lose" and he said this early in the innings so he proved to make some sense in a way. Our lot need to ensure the lead doesnt get much more than 100-150, otherwise its England's test.
Good to see a "fairer" wicket instead of a flat track for a change.

A "fairer" pitch. I love this Aussie divine right to be able to say what a pitch should be like and accuse others of cheating if it doesn't match what they want. All pitches are fair as both teams play on the same one.

"Fairer" in that quick bowlers/seamers get some slight advantage for a change, rather than the bat dominating on flat tracks all the time.
As for accusing people of cheating so easily, you're the master of that, I wouldn't dare try and take that mantle off you.

He'd just accuse you of cheating anyway......

Bomber wrote:

God is an Englishman wrote:

Bomber wrote:Went to bed at 7/94. Poms bowled well. Like Bumble said, "it was a tremendous toss to lose" and he said this early in the innings so he proved to make some sense in a way. Our lot need to ensure the lead doesnt get much more than 100-150, otherwise its England's test.
Good to see a "fairer" wicket instead of a flat track for a change.

A "fairer" pitch. I love this Aussie divine right to be able to say what a pitch should be like and accuse others of cheating if it doesn't match what they want. All pitches are fair as both teams play on the same one.

"Fairer" in that quick bowlers/seamers get some slight advantage for a change, rather than the bat dominating on flat tracks all the time.
As for accusing people of cheating so easily, you're the master of that, I wouldn't dare try and take that mantle off you.

So it's wrong unless fast bowlers have an advantage? That's not fair - that's giving someone an advantage.

:?

And preparing dustbowls doesn't advantage spinners then?

Bottom line, you see more flat-tracks these days and its nice to see something a little different and a bit of spice in the wicket.

Bomber wrote::?

And preparing dustbowls doesn't advantage spinners then?

Bottom line, you see more flat-tracks these days and its nice to see something a little different and a bit of spice in the wicket.

Of course it does, however it seems only the Aussies have this idea of exactly what a pitch should do and if anyone does anything different it's doctoring.

Both teams play on the same pitch.