Official Ashes Series Thread
-
CameronClayton
- High Draft Pick
- Posts: 652
- Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 2:42 am
Rosso, Healy just said that Read is the best English keeper he has seen in 20 years, maybe since Alan Knott. If anyone knows about glove work, it's Healy - you might have to give dues where they are due. He's keeping a helluva lot better than Gilly is at the moment.Rossoneri wrote:While read is a decent keeper, he aint as great as people seem to think. They have a long tail and if your keeper cant bat, then your tail is even longer.
And yes he can't bat, but neither can jones. The poms are gonna have a long tail regardless of who is keeping.
Warne out stumped. Good ball by Panasear, bowled from about a foot behind the line, which helped warney misread it.
So warney finishes with no test hundred, although really he did. Given out on 99 when caught in the deep off a no ball. Did they cross? Did warne get a single before being caught? That would be a run to make it 100!
So warney finishes with no test hundred, although really he did. Given out on 99 when caught in the deep off a no ball. Did they cross? Did warne get a single before being caught? That would be a run to make it 100!
And so he might be, and good luck to him.CameronClayton wrote:Rosso, Healy just said that Read is the best English keeper he has seen in 20 years, maybe since Alan Knott. If anyone knows about glove work, it's Healy - you might have to give dues where they are due. He's keeping a helluva lot better than Gilly is at the moment.Rossoneri wrote:While read is a decent keeper, he aint as great as people seem to think. They have a long tail and if your keeper cant bat, then your tail is even longer.
And yes he can't bat, but neither can jones. The poms are gonna have a long tail regardless of who is keeping.
But Jones only made one mistake, if any on tour. Everybody is jumping up and down about Jones being picked. Fact is, he didnt do that badly behind the stumps. Personally I prefer that Read does play, because there is more of a chance of Jones pulling a quick 50 out of his arse than Read.
We have been crying out fo England to be attacking. Playing Jones was an attacking move, though it was off set by playing Giles ahead of Panesar. If you were going to play Jones as a batsman, you dont need Giles as a batsman. And while we are on this, whats all this talk about Panesar being crap in the field and a poor bat? I reckon he is a damn fine batsman and should be in before Read in the order. No way should be at #10.
He kicks on the left
He kicks on the riiiiiiiiigggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhttttttttttttt
That boy Hurley
Makes Riewoldt look shite!
He kicks on the riiiiiiiiigggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhttttttttttttt
That boy Hurley
Makes Riewoldt look shite!
Bowden is a f****** moron. Should have been put down with the other sheep in Saudi Arabia, absolute hack of an umpire.
I hope people wake up and decide not to walk from now on. Why people would walk is beyond me. Cricket, like most sports, is about things evening up. You get some shit calls, but you get some lucky calls. Have a look at the last two ashes series, last year we were robbed. This year, we have had some helpful calls.The umpires are their to do a job, make them do their job.
On Lee, bowled ok today. Couple of poor shots by Cook and Bell but still bowled well.
As log as Bell and Collingwood are in the team then all we got to do is concentrate on getting one of the openers and Pietersen out. No depth in England if they can only cover Vaughn and Trescothik with Bell and Collingwood. Collingwood is an out and out fighter, but he aint a test batsman, not against quality bowling on a pitch that offers something to the bowlers as well.
I hope people wake up and decide not to walk from now on. Why people would walk is beyond me. Cricket, like most sports, is about things evening up. You get some shit calls, but you get some lucky calls. Have a look at the last two ashes series, last year we were robbed. This year, we have had some helpful calls.The umpires are their to do a job, make them do their job.
On Lee, bowled ok today. Couple of poor shots by Cook and Bell but still bowled well.
As log as Bell and Collingwood are in the team then all we got to do is concentrate on getting one of the openers and Pietersen out. No depth in England if they can only cover Vaughn and Trescothik with Bell and Collingwood. Collingwood is an out and out fighter, but he aint a test batsman, not against quality bowling on a pitch that offers something to the bowlers as well.
He kicks on the left
He kicks on the riiiiiiiiigggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhttttttttttttt
That boy Hurley
Makes Riewoldt look shite!
He kicks on the riiiiiiiiigggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhttttttttttttt
That boy Hurley
Makes Riewoldt look shite!
I watched this last night. I taped the days play and then watched it. I reckon that should go down as one of the most atrocious decisions in the history of the game. Talk about an umpire not being aware of his surroundings and a person's character.robrulz5 wrote:How was Gilchrist given out? He didn't get anywhere near the ball.
It is a well known fact (for YEARS) that Gilchrist will make the umpire's job easy by walking to caught behind catches if he's nicked them. He's even walked when umpires had no idea of an edge (Venkat was one who shook his head for not out just before Gilchrist walked. Venkat looked completely shocked to see Gilly walking off). How then does an umpire (Bowden who's so focussed on his own theatrics) completely forget where he is, who Gilly is, and what he stands for?
In Bowden's defence, it looked and sounded out at normal speed. BUT, knowing the facts of Gilchrist's character, the decision was already made for him. NOT f****** OUT!
-
CameronClayton
- High Draft Pick
- Posts: 652
- Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 2:42 am
How was Warne given not out? Blatantly caught behind off Panesar.robrulz5 wrote:How was Gilchrist given out? He didn't get anywhere near the ball.
Swings & roundabouts.
Back to the Panesar & Read debacle, in hindsight, if both these blokes played in Adelaide, the Poms might have won & we would have had an exciting series from then on. After the Aussies pulled a win out of no-where in this game, the Poms were shot.
So the Pommie selectors have got a lot to answer for - they killed this series from Day 1.
And Brett Lee's antics after taking a wicket are OTT & I wish he would take a leaf out of Stuart Clark's book. He just gets on with the job, doesn't give the batsman much verbal (or stupid stare downs) & just looks happy when he gets a wicket. None of this bullshit chain saw, kicking his heels in mid air crap.
I'm off my soapbox now.
-
temporary stevo
- On the Rookie List
- Posts: 338
- Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:15 pm
no, an umpire's interpretation of a player's behaviour after the play shouldn't be considered. first, the umpire has all the evidence he needs by watching only the play. second, the umpire can't second guess a player's character - especially in cases when conflicting interpretations may be equally valid. third, the player may also not understand exactly what has happened, thus behaving in a misleading manner.BenDoolan wrote: I watched this last night. I taped the days play and then watched it. I reckon that should go down as one of the most atrocious decisions in the history of the game. Talk about an umpire not being aware of his surroundings and a person's character.
It is a well known fact (for YEARS) that Gilchrist will make the umpire's job easy by walking to caught behind catches if he's nicked them. He's even walked when umpires had no idea of an edge (Venkat was one who shook his head for not out just before Gilchrist walked. Venkat looked completely shocked to see Gilly walking off). How then does an umpire (Bowden who's so focussed on his own theatrics) completely forget where he is, who Gilly is, and what he stands for?
In Bowden's defence, it looked and sounded out at normal speed. BUT, knowing the facts of Gilchrist's character, the decision was already made for him. NOT f****** OUT!
bad decision by Bowden to give Gilchrist out, but good decision to not let Gilchrist make the decision for him.
Yeah , I can't argue with that, it makes perfect sense what you've said. And you're right, on occasions the batsman is uncertain whether or not he has nicked it or not (it's happened to me before).temporary stevo wrote:no, an umpire's interpretation of a player's behaviour after the play shouldn't be considered. first, the umpire has all the evidence he needs by watching only the play. second, the umpire can't second guess a player's character - especially in cases when conflicting interpretations may be equally valid. third, the player may also not understand exactly what has happened, thus behaving in a misleading manner.BenDoolan wrote: I watched this last night. I taped the days play and then watched it. I reckon that should go down as one of the most atrocious decisions in the history of the game. Talk about an umpire not being aware of his surroundings and a person's character.
It is a well known fact (for YEARS) that Gilchrist will make the umpire's job easy by walking to caught behind catches if he's nicked them. He's even walked when umpires had no idea of an edge (Venkat was one who shook his head for not out just before Gilchrist walked. Venkat looked completely shocked to see Gilly walking off). How then does an umpire (Bowden who's so focussed on his own theatrics) completely forget where he is, who Gilly is, and what he stands for?
In Bowden's defence, it looked and sounded out at normal speed. BUT, knowing the facts of Gilchrist's character, the decision was already made for him. NOT f****** OUT!
bad decision by Bowden to give Gilchrist out, but good decision to not let Gilchrist make the decision for him.
Although, if the batsman has doubt there must be other contributing factors to cause that doubt (i.e bat hit ground or pad at same time ball went passed), and surely based on "doubt", the benefit should be given to the batsman.
-
temporary stevo
- On the Rookie List
- Posts: 338
- Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:15 pm
well, most Test batsmen would struggle against "quality bowling on a pitch that offers something to the bowlers" so i'm not sure how much that weighs against Collingwood's merits as a Test batsman. don't forget that Langer started out as a tough but limited batsman.Rossoneri wrote:As log as Bell and Collingwood are in the team then all we got to do is concentrate on getting one of the openers and Pietersen out. No depth in England if they can only cover Vaughn and Trescothik with Bell and Collingwood. Collingwood is an out and out fighter, but he aint a test batsman, not against quality bowling on a pitch that offers something to the bowlers as well.
Bell looks to me to be a good player who suffered from not making big scores when he got a start. if he'd made two 100s and two 50s instead of four 50s, his numbers and his reputation would be much better. he's also batting too high in the order - he struggled with Australia's pace bowlers, but was surprisingly effective against Warne. but that happened by necessity, with the injuries to Vaughan and Trestcothick - i think otherwise Bell normally bats at four or five.
And another 10 wickets win and we sweep the scum. Will that old sheila give our boys an OBE? f***, even Collingwood and Bell have one.
What a way to end the series, the players should all wear #50 in the Twenty20 match on Tuesday.
What a way to end the series, the players should all wear #50 in the Twenty20 match on Tuesday.
He kicks on the left
He kicks on the riiiiiiiiigggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhttttttttttttt
That boy Hurley
Makes Riewoldt look shite!
He kicks on the riiiiiiiiigggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhttttttttttttt
That boy Hurley
Makes Riewoldt look shite!
-
jimmyc1985
- Champion of Essendon
- Posts: 5869
- Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2006 11:33 pm
- Location: Position A
Well, what a drubbing. A complete peripeteia from the '05 Ashes - this time it was the English who suffered from inconvenient injuries and form slumps to both batters and bowlers, probably to an even greater extent than Australia did in the '05 series. And it was the Poms who were on the wrong end of the umpiring more often than not. Australia, in contrast from '05, had numerous batters in the form of their life (Ponting, Hussey, and even Symonds since his recall), Warne and McGrath were still rock solid, but the big difference i feel was the success of our 3rd pace bowler - instead of a struggling Gillespie or wayward Tait, we had Stuart Clark taking 26 wickets at 17 through the series. Were it not for Ponting's excellent batting, particularly early in the series, Clark probably would've snagged man of the series. And what's amazing about Clark's efforts is the way he earned his wickets - out of his 26 wickets, 18 were wickets of actual batters, and out of his 26 wickets, 10 were caught by Gilchrist, 5 were LBW's, and 2 were bowled, so he's really actually getting the good batsman out. Very impressive.
I'd also begrudgingly admit that Lee improved significantly in the Melbourne and Sydney Tests after his poor showings in the first 3 matches - as the commentators pointed out, he altered his run-up so that he propped before running in, and perhaps this allowed him an extra few seconds to focus on what he was doing and bowl better on a more regular basis. I still expect him to be the lead bowler in the ODI series, as i've said all along he's a much better ODI bowler than Test bowler.
I'd also begrudgingly admit that Lee improved significantly in the Melbourne and Sydney Tests after his poor showings in the first 3 matches - as the commentators pointed out, he altered his run-up so that he propped before running in, and perhaps this allowed him an extra few seconds to focus on what he was doing and bowl better on a more regular basis. I still expect him to be the lead bowler in the ODI series, as i've said all along he's a much better ODI bowler than Test bowler.