Cricket Season Thread

[GNR4LIFE]

Everything Ive heard and read points to PS being 'rested' and that he wouldve given everything to play

I think its pretty damned weak saying "Siddle should be ashamed to call himself an Aussie." without knowing the facts 110%

A lot of things posted on this forum are "pretty damned weak". For instance: certain people who go on incessantly about Sheens and blame him for everything that has turned bad for WT in the last year or so.
It is just an opinion, people are allowed to have 'em. I will stand by my comments re: Siddle

I think you need to watch this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeWMtTDy8nI

Pride and shame should not be linked to your nationality

I watched it and just thought what??????
Every Anzac Day myself and plenty of other people are reminded how proud we are to be an Aussie, nothing wrong with that or anything to be ashamed of. Can't see your argument there.

Pride is something you feel when you have achieved something. Being an Aussie, American, Mexican, Itallian etc isn't an achievement its a genetic accident. As said in the clip, you wouldn't say you are proud to be 5'11

If i failed at something i wouldn't say i should be ashamed to have green eyes. Its a romantic sentiment, but to me in regards to being Australian id use words like happy, lucky and thankful to be an aussie

Thats my argument. You can't argue with George Carlin logic

On the topic of the cricket you said Siddle should be ashamed to call himself an Aussie :crazy

You could basically say he should be ashamed to be a ranger. Its the same logic

 

[innsaneink]

Everything Ive heard and read points to PS being 'rested' and that he wouldve given everything to play

I think its pretty damned weak saying "Siddle should be ashamed to call himself an Aussie." without knowing the facts 110%

A lot of things posted on this forum are "pretty damned weak". For instance: certain people who go on incessantly about Sheens and blame him for everything that has turned bad for WT in the last year or so.
It is just an opinion, people are allowed to have 'em. I will stand by my comments re: Siddle

Wow….a broad swipe about Sheens....that sorta covers everything, yet peoples criticism of Sheens was always backed by facts & results or rather the lack of them.

Do you have facts that Siddle declined to play the 3rd test.....chalk and cheese your pathetic comparison...very very weak in fact

I was referring to you and how you constantly p#$$%d on about Sheens and his supposed injustices while he was coach of WT. I am certain that you did not have 100% factual information from Sheens himself in regards to his various decisions and directions, so you yourself were just speculating.

**Do you honestly believe CA selectors would be so moronic and braindead as to rest their supposed best bowler from a series-deciding game just so he could have a breather?** :laughing:

My pathetic opinions are just as valid as your pathetic opinions on here I guess.

Keep up the good work.

Why dont you choose a specific incident of my supposed p#$$%d on about sheens so we can investigate it deeper, rather than some vague generalisation you conveniently contrived just now.

If youve been paying attention youd realize that is in fact CA's protocol nowadays….nice try

Youre still yet to provide us with anything to suggest he declined to play in the 3rd test, other than your fanciful imagination....pretty damned weak.

 

[Marshall_magic]

Crazy finish to the big bash game tonight. Perth rolled for 69 runs (lowest in Aus domestic T20 history), Malinga taking a phenomenal 6/7\. Melborune in their chase hit 29 off 2 overs, before the rain started. The rain resulted in the chase being reduced to 5 overs (which is the absolute minimum for a T20 game), and the revised target was 6\. As a result one ball had to be bowled for the Stars to win, which was let go by Quiney. The Stars won with 17 balls to spare, and this could possibly be the only time in history that a successful run chase has ended with a dot ball.

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

Was a little perplexed by that, they should have still bowled out the 5 overs, irrespective of whether the total had been met as a minimum 5 overs each side constitutes a game.

 

[happy_tiger]

Was a little perplexed by that, they should have still bowled out the 5 overs, irrespective of whether the total had been met as a minimum 5 overs each side constitutes a game.

I'm pretty sure that rule got changed CB after either it was a World Series Cricket or a WSC one day game in the late 70's or early 80's

I can still remember the West Indies v Australia match and the run chase got reduced to 15 overs and the WIndies getting the runs in about 11 or 12 overs and Ian Chappell storming on the ground arguing with umpires that the game should of still been abandoned as technically still didn't constitute a game because it didn't reach the 15 over cut off

 

[stryker]

Malinga…6/7 that is some sort of effort!

 

[happy_tiger]

Malinga…6/7 that is some sort of effort!

Glad he got that out of the way now and didn't bring it to the Test match

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

Was a little perplexed by that, they should have still bowled out the 5 overs, irrespective of whether the total had been met as a minimum 5 overs each side constitutes a game.

I'm pretty sure that rule got changed CB after either it was a World Series Cricket or a WSC one day game in the late 70's or early 80's

I can still remember the West Indies v Australia match and the run chase got reduced to 15 overs and the WIndies getting the runs in about 11 or 12 overs and Ian Chappell storming on the ground arguing with umpires that the game should of still been abandoned as technically still didn't constitute a game because it didn't reach the 15 over cut off

I understand it's happened before as well, but I'm talking at a technical perspective. If the rule book says both sides must face a minimum five overs for it to constitute a match (notwithstanding a collapse or attaining the runs required,) how could you win a game in 2.1 overs, irrespective of whether the revised total had been met.

 

[Jazza]

Was a little perplexed by that, they should have still bowled out the 5 overs, irrespective of whether the total had been met as a minimum 5 overs each side constitutes a game.

I'm pretty sure that rule got changed CB after either it was a World Series Cricket or a WSC one day game in the late 70's or early 80's

I can still remember the West Indies v Australia match and the run chase got reduced to 15 overs and the WIndies getting the runs in about 11 or 12 overs and Ian Chappell storming on the ground arguing with umpires that the game should of still been abandoned as technically still didn't constitute a game because it didn't reach the 15 over cut off

I understand it's happened before as well, but I'm talking at a technical perspective. If the rule book says both sides must face a minimum five overs for it to constitute a match (notwithstanding a collapse or attaining the runs required,) how could you win a game in 2.1 overs, irrespective of whether the revised total had been met.

My understanding was also that for a result to happen, the minimum amount of overs needed to be bowled to constitute a result.
There have been many instances where teams have been ahead of the D/L par score before the required amount of overs have been bowled and when the rain has come, its has resulted in a draw.

In saying that, the Stars deserved to win that game.

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

I agree that the Stars deserved nothing less than a win, but surely you can't have a result if the minimum amount of overs haven't been faced?

 

[tig_prmz]

Malinga…6/7 that is some sort of effort!

Glad he got that out of the way now and didn't bring it to the Test match

he's retired from tests. will be playing one dayers and T20's though. dangerous bowler.. sometimes erratic as well unfortunately

 

[Tbone]

I watched Phil Hughes bat a couple of times recently. The bloke has totally transformed his game. He used to score all his runs on the off side and about 60% through point/gully. Once bowlers tightened him up for long periods he would give his wicket away. He now has a very solid legside game. I reckon he's going to do very well over the coming years and will prove a lot of doubters wrong. God knows we need him to perform over the next few years.

 

[Sabre]

How does Hilfenhaus continue to make the team?

 

[happy_tiger]

Malinga…6/7 that is some sort of effort!

Glad he got that out of the way now and didn't bring it to the Test match

he's retired from tests. will be playing one dayers and T20's though. dangerous bowler.. sometimes erratic as well unfortunately

Explains my confusion at why he was able to play a game 4 days before a Test Match

Thanks Prmz

 

[Peaches]

This Hobart pitch looks okay but I think if will be one of those pitches where the batsman never really fills like they are in, especially if the bowling is tight.
\
\
_Posted using RoarFEED 2012_

 

[Jazza]

I watched Phil Hughes bat a couple of times recently. The bloke has totally transformed his game. He used to score all his runs on the off side and about 60% through point/gully. Once bowlers tightened him up for long periods he would give his wicket away. He now has a very solid legside game. I reckon he's going to do very well over the coming years and will prove a lot of doubters wrong. God knows we need him to perform over the next few years.

Agree, what changed my opinion on him was in a Ryobi Cup game a couple of weeks beak where I saw him play a few pull shots. I'd never seen him play that before, he used to back away so he could cut those deliveries.

 

[citizen_cub]

Good to see Hughesy score some runs. I have nothing but admiration for the guy, he's defied 2-3 setbacks and a core group of doubters who believed he'd never cut the mustard as a successful test batsman to come back again this time far more fluent and competent, a tribute to his application and professionalism. His leg side shot array in particular has improved out of sight, he was playing some shots today I'd never seen him play before which was great to see. Disappointing to see him not get a ton in the end, he had dictated terms sternly up until his dismissal.
\
\
_Posted using RoarFEED 2012_

 

[Yossarian]

I agree that the Stars deserved nothing less than a win, but surely you can't have a result if the minimum amount of overs haven't been faced?

But suppose a team gets bowled out for 32 and the other mob scores that in 3 overs? They're not going to bother batting the 5 overs in a 20/20 or 15 in an ODI. The DWL tallies are revised targets and so no different than a normal run chase. The minimum over numbers are more a protection for the chasing side they have a reasonable amount of time to construct a chase but if they are bowled out before they reach the minimum they still lose. I imagine the revised DWL score was based on the 5 over minimum - the other mob were so poor that the Stars had already reached that figure. Why they had to go back on for one ball baffles me though…

 

[Yossarian]

Okay this is the actual law:

To constitute a match, a minimum of 5 overs have to be bowled to the team batting second subject
to the innings not being completed earlier.

http://www.cricket.com.au/pv_obj_cache/pv_obj_id_95058CB436106466CFD10F3926FA1B85B5B50000/filename/twenty20.ashx

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

Ah OK. Fair enough.