Bloody Convicts

[canveyshrimper]

I've just seen the end of the 2nd Test from Sydney, Michael Clarke took 3 wickets in the penultimate over to give them a 16th consecutive Test victory.

This match is a parallel to the Adelaide Test last year where England had a lead with 500 plus and lost. Although in that match the Aussies chased down a target.

Fair play to them, 17 in a row coming up I think.

 

[Grayson]

Pathetic effort from the India tail.

Steve Bucknor played well for Australia, too. Shocking umpiring for Symonds first innings, and then Dravid today.

 

[Uncle Leo]

Just seen the highlights on SSN. Astonishing. Dravid (given out caught behind off Symonds but never touched it) and Ganguly (looked like it hit the ground before Clarke snaffled it up in the slips) were both incredibly unlucky, but you still have to say fair play to the Aussies.

Even if it does stick in the throat to say so :rolleyes:

 

[number11]

Just seen the highlights on SSN. Astonishing. Dravid (given out caught behind off Symonds but never touched it) and Ganguly (looked like it hit the ground before Clarke snaffled it up in the slips) were both incredibly unlucky, but you still have to say fair play to the Aussies.

Even if it does stick in the throat to say so :rolleyes:

Actually I dont think you can say 'fair play' to the Aussies. They have been banging on for ages about wanted to have 'gentleman's agreements' about fielders taking catches and taking their word for it whether they carried or not. Vaughan was slated for being unsporting when he refused to make such an offer last year, but Kumble agreed for this series.

Come the final day in a tense match, Ponting (and Clarke) claim catches that didnt carry , and the umpires (foolishly) took their word for it. Ponting raising his finger to signal a dismissal for a catch Clarke took that didnt carry was a disgraceful sight.

 

[canveyshrimper]

Actually I dont think you can say 'fair play' to the Aussies. They have been banging on for ages about wanted to have 'gentleman's agreements' about fielders taking catches and taking their word for it whether they carried or not. Vaughan was slated for being unsporting when he refused to make such an offer last year, but Kumble agreed for this series.

Come the final day in a tense match, Ponting (and Clarke) claim catches that didnt carry , and the umpires (foolishly) took their word for it. Ponting raising his finger to signal a dismissal for a catch Clarke took that didnt carry was a disgraceful sight.

Indeed, I also find it a tad ironic, that "walker" Gilchrist took great delight in claiming the "catch" which saw off Dravid.

 

[Uncle Leo]

Actually I dont think you can say 'fair play' to the Aussies. They have been banging on for ages about wanted to have 'gentleman's agreements' about fielders taking catches and taking their word for it whether they carried or not. Vaughan was slated for being unsporting when he refused to make such an offer last year, but Kumble agreed for this series.

Come the final day in a tense match, Ponting (and Clarke) claim catches that didnt carry , and the umpires (foolishly) took their word for it. Ponting raising his finger to signal a dismissal for a catch Clarke took that didnt carry was a disgraceful sight.

You're right, 'fair play' was an unfortunate turn of phrase. I more mean 'well done' in terms of winning so many Tests in a row, 'fair play' tends not to come in to it with them.

Good article by Simon Barnes in The Times today on sledging actually:

Third article down

 

[Ailsa Road Shrimper]

Unfortunately standards of behaviour have really slipped in cricket during the last few years, the sport is becoming more like football with the growth of unsporting behaviour and ugly incidents.

By dropping Bucknor for the next test the authorities are pandering to the players, instead of supporting their umpires.

The players have made umpires tasks very difficult now as batsmen don't walk and fielding teams appeal too aggressively. If batsmen walked life would be fairer for all as bowlers would get the wickets they deserve and batsmen would be less likely to be given out if they haven't edged a ball.

 

[Pubey]

some sense from agnew

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/tms/2008/01/players_are_the_problem_not_um.shtml

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

Bucknor has been past it for some time. He use to be the best around, but that was a long time ago. Surprised to see India only have a problem with him now - I don't remember them complaining when Sreesanth was plumb lbw at Lords but Bucknor said no to stop England going 1-0 up in the series.

The behaviour of both Australia and India has been despicable, not just on the field but their off the field whining as well.

 

[sufcintheprem]

The problem seems to be that Australia have shown that you can win cricket matches when your talent deserts you somewhat. Their talent is not in any doubt but then you could argue that Muralitharan inspired Sri Lanka have the armoury to be a better cricketing team. If Sri Lanka had Australia's attitude, they would have upped their run rate to try and destroy bowling morale and pile pressure on the batsmen. Instead, Sri Lanka played in a way that was most likely to win the series. I've no problem with that happening but it was incredibly dull to watch some sets of 'highlights'.

The Australian way of playing the game makes for more entertaining cricket. I would say that they're pretty much responsible for dragging test run rates from around 3 to around 4 (with no evidence mind).

If, as seems to be implicated, conduct and match-winning in cricket, which is more important?

 

[SUFC Forever]

Nobody (apart from Gilchrist) walks anymore so if that is the case, they have to accept bad decisions when they come along. Surely the time is not too far away now when technology has to be used to back up the umpires decisions for caught behinds and LBW. Already used in a small way in televised games, perhaps time to expand this now?

 

[canveyshrimper]

It is all well and good saying that Gilchrist is a walker, however it didn't stop him claiming the "catch" that dismissed Dravid.

I absolutely disagree that technology should be used for catches & lbw's, and also bear in mind that Hawkeye is just a suggestion not a fact. Also when some catches have been referred the result has been largely inconclusive.

 

[sufcintheprem]

I absolutely disagree that technology should be used for catches & lbw's, and also bear in mind that Hawkeye is just a suggestion not a fact. Also when some catches have been referred the result has been largely inconclusive.

To be fair the suggestion of Hawkeye isn't too shabby given that the same technology has been used to detect approaching air threats to planes. When a rocket scientist says it's not 100% accurate, he is being precise in his judgement because that technology is a far better indicator than the human eye. With catches, I'd say it's pretty simple - if in doubt, it's not out.

I would say that technology has the competency to fulfil the required role but the real implications such as the end of reliance on spirit of the game and the worth of on-field umpires may be harder to take for traditionalists.

Perhaps have some sort of annual fair play list relating to cricketers owning up to grounded balls, slight nicks or other similar shows of sportsmanship - hit the cheats in their pride.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

The problem seems to be that Australia have shown that you can win cricket matches when your talent deserts you somewhat. Their talent is not in any doubt but then you could argue that Muralitharan inspired Sri Lanka have the armoury to be a better cricketing team. If Sri Lanka had Australia's attitude, they would have upped their run rate to try and destroy bowling morale and pile pressure on the batsmen. Instead, Sri Lanka played in a way that was most likely to win the series. I've no problem with that happening but it was incredibly dull to watch some sets of 'highlights'.

The Australian way of playing the game makes for more entertaining cricket. I would say that they're pretty much responsible for dragging test run rates from around 3 to around 4 (with no evidence mind).

If, as seems to be implicated, conduct and match-winning in cricket, which is more important?

I was pretty critical of Sri Lanka's lack of ambition at times, but with hindsight they were spot on. They won the first test, so its hard to criticise them for not pressing on more there as they got it spot on; the second test was on a flat pitch which looked like a draw, they might not have pressed on but they wore England down which lead directly to the 81 all out at Galle; in the third test they really pushed on on the third morning and completely demoralised England. They'd have won 2-0 had it not been for the weather.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

Nobody (apart from Gilchrist) walks anymore so if that is the case, they have to accept bad decisions when they come along. Surely the time is not too far away now when technology has to be used to back up the umpires decisions for caught behinds and LBW. Already used in a small way in televised games, perhaps time to expand this now?

Gilchrist doesn't walk all the time.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

It is all well and good saying that Gilchrist is a walker, however it didn't stop him claiming the "catch" that dismissed Dravid.

I absolutely disagree that technology should be used for catches & lbw's, and also bear in mind that Hawkeye is just a suggestion not a fact. Also when some catches have been referred the result has been largely inconclusive.

My preferred solution is to give the umpire a handheld monitor. He sees the action live and makes his mind up, he then double checks the replays to confirm that his original impression was right.

If replays are inconclusive they should go with the original decision. What is a problem is when umpires have got decisions completely wrong and replays confirm that. When Krusty got Dravid caught behind (a catch honest Adam Gilchrist claimed), there was about 3 or 4 inches between bat and ball.

I'd also like to see a challenge system whereby a team has 3 challenges in an innings. If they get it wrong they lose a challenge. That would make teams and players put up or shut up.

An extreme version of that could be that any appeal would be considered a challenge (unless the umpire gives it out), which should cut down considerably speculative and intimidatory appealing.

 

[Uncle Leo]

Gilchrist doesn't walk all the time.

He'd walk at 180/1 after 30 overs in a ODI.

He wouldn't at 180/5 in a Test.

 

[canveyshrimper]

My preferred solution is to give the umpire a handheld monitor. He sees the action live and makes his mind up, he then double checks the replays to confirm that his original impression was right.

If replays are inconclusive they should go with the original decision. What is a problem is when umpires have got decisions completely wrong and replays confirm that. When Krusty got Dravid caught behind (a catch honest Adam Gilchrist claimed), there was about 3 or 4 inches between bat and ball.

I'd also like to see a challenge system whereby a team has 3 challenges in an innings. If they get it wrong they lose a challenge. That would make teams and players put up or shut up.

An extreme version of that could be that any appeal would be considered a challenge (unless the umpire gives it out), which should cut down considerably speculative and intimidatory appealing.

Wasn't a challenge system used in the 50 over competition (whatever the bloody thing is called now) last season. IIRC two or three challenges were allowed to each side per innings, I think that in all cases the original decision by the standing umpire was upheld.

 

[canveyshrimper]

Nice to see India have bounced back and beaten the convicts in Perth and ending their winning run.

Should be a very interesting 4th Test in Adelaide for the traditional Australia Day Test match.

 

[Uncle Leo]

Nice to see India have bounced back and beaten the convicts in Perth and ending their winning run.

Should be a very interesting 4th Test in Adelaide for the traditional Australia Day Test match.

Wasn't so nice to hear Michael Slater's astonishingly biased and over the top commentary. What a berk.

Still, well done India. Not least because we've got a fecking idiot in the office who, despite being born in England and of Asian descent, supports the Aussies in cricket :confused: . A total tool who is a lot quieter now than he was when Clark and Johnson were smashing it about.