FootballNews

Posted: **Thu Jan 09, 2014 2:26 pm**

At least the 50 over format should mean closer games than the tests, especially with the likes of Johnson being rested first up.
We can only hope.

Posted: **Sun Jan 12, 2014 11:05 am**

5-0

Posted: **Sun Jan 12, 2014 11:32 am**

Bomber wrote:At least the 50 over format should mean closer games than the tests, especially with the likes of Johnson being rested first up.
We can only hope.

England resting their best batsmen and best bowler, also their best bowler from the last series. I'll actually go to the game in Adelaide and want us to win but 50 over cricket is dead and not even played domestically in England.

Posted: **Sun Jan 12, 2014 1:46 pm**

God is an Englishman wrote:
Bomber wrote:At least the 50 over format should mean closer games than the tests, especially with the likes of Johnson being rested first up.
We can only hope.
England resting their best batsmen and best bowler, also their best bowler from the last series. I'll actually go to the game in Adelaide and want us to win but 50 over cricket is dead and not even played domestically in England.

Posted: **Sun Jan 12, 2014 1:47 pm**

God is an Englishman wrote:
Bomber wrote:At least the 50 over format should mean closer games than the tests, especially with the likes of Johnson being rested first up.
We can only hope.
England resting their best batsmen

Who's that ?

Posted: **Sun Jan 12, 2014 3:28 pm**

predator wrote:
God is an Englishman wrote:
Bomber wrote:At least the 50 over format should mean closer games than the tests, especially with the likes of Johnson being rested first up.
We can only hope.
England resting their best batsmen
Who's that ?

Jimmy Anderson.

Posted: **Sun Jan 12, 2014 4:04 pm**

predator wrote:
God is an Englishman wrote:
Bomber wrote:At least the 50 over format should mean closer games than the tests, especially with the likes of Johnson being rested first up.
We can only hope.
England resting their best batsmen
Who's that ?

Extras was probably their top scorer in the ashes series…

Posted: **Sun Jan 12, 2014 4:07 pm**

That can say just as much about the opposition's bowlers than one team's batting.

Posted: **Sun Jan 12, 2014 4:44 pm**

Black_Panther wrote:Extras was probably their top scorer in the ashes series…

no Mitchell Johnson actually bowled to a reasonable standard in this series. Previous series with him bowling though, probably would have been.

Posted: **Sun Jan 12, 2014 7:09 pm**

carried my arse, cheating fuckers, get back in there son and now win the game

Posted: **Sun Jan 12, 2014 7:12 pm**

At the end of the day they got the decision correct.

Posted: **Sun Jan 12, 2014 7:27 pm**

His students are doing him proud

Posted: **Sun Jan 12, 2014 8:48 pm**

Clearly carried, when an aussie walks you know it's out.

Even some of the channel 9 commentators said it was out, another clear sign it's not even close if that lot say an aussie is out.

Posted: **Sun Jan 12, 2014 8:54 pm**

God is an Englishman wrote:Clearly carried

It was obvious you would say that. The batsman walking only acknowledges he hit it. There is know way he would have known for sure if it carried or not. The video was inconclusive. There's no way you could give that out on video referral.

Posted: **Sun Jan 12, 2014 8:56 pm**

You could, the ball lands onto white. Grass isn't white. Clear as day!

Posted: **Sun Jan 12, 2014 8:56 pm**

Who is the 3rd umpire?

Posted: **Sun Jan 12, 2014 8:58 pm**

God is an Englishman wrote:Clear as day!

Clear as an english day perhaps.

Posted: **Sun Jan 12, 2014 9:01 pm**

Now that was a jammy four.

Posted: **Sun Jan 12, 2014 9:07 pm**

Alex Hales - Disgraceful decision, sat with a group of aussies and they all thought he was out as well.

Posted: **Sun Jan 12, 2014 9:10 pm**

aggers - what's the point in icc banging on about sportsmanship when their review system comes up with decisions like that.

Aggers - let's be clear here, warner wouldn't have walked unless he was convinced and he had the best view of all.

Posted: **Sun Jan 12, 2014 9:11 pm**

even ian healey said it was out.

Appears I'm not the only one who thinks it was clear.

Posted: **Sun Jan 12, 2014 9:11 pm**

God is an Englishman wrote:Clearly carried

Botham talking his usual shite in the sky sports commentary box

Posted: **Sun Jan 12, 2014 9:16 pm**

Who gives a toss about dress up decks?

Posted: **Sun Jan 12, 2014 9:17 pm**

predator wrote:
God is an Englishman wrote:Clearly carried

Botham talking his usual shite in the sky sports commentary box

Did he know it carried as well? Botham has to be the best of all commentators, pity we don't get him over here more often.

Posted: **Mon Jan 13, 2014 6:54 am**

God is an Englishman wrote:
Bomber wrote:At least the 50 over format should mean closer games than the tests, especially with the likes of Johnson being rested first up.
We can only hope.
England resting their best batsmen and best bowler, also their best bowler from the last series. I'll actually go to the game in Adelaide and want us to win but 50 over cricket is dead and not even played domestically in England.

It must have been in a coma .... The 50 over game will be resuming this year domestically in England replacing the CB40 comp

Posted: **Mon Jan 13, 2014 10:19 am**

Looking at the scorecard and you'd think it was a pretty decent match, but I sat through most of it and was underwhelmed. Test cricket still the best, although another convincing win all the same.
As for the "catch", was similar to the Haddin one not long ago when he said he wasn't sure. It looked to have bounced, but fingers/glove so not 100%. How anyone can say with certainty either way is kidding themselves.
Umps got both right in my view - any doubt, favour the batsman.

Posted: **Mon Jan 13, 2014 11:22 am**

Bomber wrote:Looking at the scorecard and you'd think it was a pretty decent match, but I sat through most of it and was underwhelmed. Test cricket still the best, although another convincing win all the same.
As for the "catch", was similar to the Haddin one not long ago when he said he wasn't sure. It looked to have bounced, but fingers/glove so not 100%. How anyone can say with certainty either way is kidding themselves.
Umps got both right in my view - any doubt, favour the batsman.

He walked!

Posted: **Mon Jan 13, 2014 12:23 pm**

God is an Englishman wrote:
Bomber wrote:Looking at the scorecard and you'd think it was a pretty decent match, but I sat through most of it and was underwhelmed. Test cricket still the best, although another convincing win all the same.
As for the "catch", was similar to the Haddin one not long ago when he said he wasn't sure. It looked to have bounced, but fingers/glove so not 100%. How anyone can say with certainty either way is kidding themselves.
Umps got both right in my view - any doubt, favour the batsman.
He walked!

And then he walked back,
for someone who wasn't interested in the one day series you sure have had a lot to say about it, most of it drivel as usual

Posted: **Mon Jan 13, 2014 2:11 pm**

Let's just take things one dayer at at a time !

Posted: **Mon Jan 13, 2014 2:16 pm**

predator wrote:
God is an Englishman wrote:
Bomber wrote:Looking at the scorecard and you'd think it was a pretty decent match, but I sat through most of it and was underwhelmed. Test cricket still the best, although another convincing win all the same.
As for the "catch", was similar to the Haddin one not long ago when he said he wasn't sure. It looked to have bounced, but fingers/glove so not 100%. How anyone can say with certainty either way is kidding themselves.
Umps got both right in my view - any doubt, favour the batsman.
He walked!
And then he walked back,
for someone who wasn't interested in the one day series you sure have had a lot to say about it, most of it drivel as usual

Do you understand the concept of walking as a batsmen? Clearly not.

FootballNews

One dayers

One dayers

Re: One dayers

Re: One dayers

Re: One dayers

Re: One dayers

Re: One dayers

Re: One dayers

Re: One dayers

Re: One dayers

Re: One dayers

Re: One dayers

Re: One dayers

Re: One dayers

Re: One dayers

Re: One dayers

Re: One dayers

Re: One dayers

Re: One dayers

Re: One dayers

Re: One dayers

Re: One dayers

Re: One dayers

Re: One dayers

Re: One dayers

Re: One dayers

Re: One dayers

Re: One dayers

Re: One dayers

Re: One dayers

Re: One dayers