Are the poms the new Bannies?

doctoring wickets for their benefit?
ball tampering?

....between the Laker test and 2005 the Poms did not seem to doctor wickets and ceratinly did not tamper with the ball...but over the past 8 years things have changed in Pomgolia....here the idea of pitch doctoring is ruled out by the authorities (it is not the done thing)...

...perhaps the only honest matches these days are conducted between Oz, WI and the saffies

well?

horace wrote:doctoring wickets for their benefit?
ball tampering?

....between the Laker test and 2005 the Poms did not seem to doctor wickets and ceratinly did not tamper with the ball...but over the past 8 years things have changed in Pomgolia....here the idea of pitch doctoring is ruled out by the authorities (it is not the done thing)...

...perhaps the only honest matches these days are conducted between Oz, WI and the saffies

well?

[cough]fuserium [/cough]

hehehehe.....cough] i was trying to be generous[ cough....hehehehe

Embee ...what do you think of the theory that the Poms believe they as the colonial masters who took places by conquest can make , bend or break the rules as they plse

I like doctored wickets far more than the flat shit that makes batsmen look more competent than Chris Martin. But they're doctored so too...

It's taken one day of the Ashes for the senile old fool to completely lose his marbles and dribble his urine soaked, pill fuelled, kerosene aided vitriol all over this forum.

Yeah we know you're online Henry but can you tell us what you think of Horrie?

rofl....so Mudge - I take it you endorse both pitch doctoring and ball tampering...

btw ...no offence taken

The outfields on the test match grounds have largely been relaid in recent years - so moisture gets sucked out of pitches at faster rate than previously - compounded by the recent dry spell. No conspiracy, no ball tampering - in other words - nothing to see here.

We had the same problem in Cape Town a few years back. The drainage from the pitch was improved and it didn't retain moisture as well as before. You might recall Red tried to make a conspiracy out of it.

Incidentally has anyone ever seen Red and horrie on the forum at the same time.

taipan wrote:We had the same problem in Cape Town a few years back. The drainage from the pitch was improved and it didn't retain moisture as well as before. You might recall Red tried to make a conspiracy out of it.

Incidentally has anyone ever seen Red and horrie on the forum at the same time.

no merls/ian

curators are perfectly capable of adjusting watering and pitch prep regimes to allow for those issues - and no-one other than red suggested Cape Town was doctored.....it was the pomgolian commentators who were laughing nervously about the pitch

horace wrote:

taipan wrote:We had the same problem in Cape Town a few years back. The drainage from the pitch was improved and it didn't retain moisture as well as before. You might recall Red tried to make a conspiracy out of it.

Incidentally has anyone ever seen Red and horrie on the forum at the same time.

no merls/ian

curators are perfectly capable of adjusting watering and pitch prep regimes to allow for those issues - and no-one other than red suggested Cape Town was doctored.....it was the pomgolian commentators who were laughing nervously about the pitch

In another odd co-incidence you seem to be the only one suggesting that the current pitch is doctored.

rofl......have a listen to the pom commentariat Merls/Ian

Unfortunately some of us are still gainfully employed.

do you happen to work in Norfolk?

horace wrote:do you happen to work in Norfolk?

Is tha a region of Victoria?

hehehe....not the last time I saw the map Ian

Nice tits red.

rofl...the meerkat squeak makes me laugh

Eh? How's it doctored? Oh, by doctored do you mean it made 10 batsmen look like loose-techniqued sherberts? I thought that was their issue, but now it's not I'm feeling better about the England team.

doctored to have no pace, bounce or seam and to break up early...views put by tuffers, boycott, aggers et al

Oh, so you're not blaming the 14 wickets on the pitch - you're complaining about something that may happen in the future?

Brass Monkey wrote:Oh, so you're not blaming the 14 wickets on the pitch - you're complaining about something that may happen in the future?

correct....there was nothing in the pitch for the quicks on the first day - most wickets were due to poor batting

horace wrote:

Brass Monkey wrote:Oh, so you're not blaming the 14 wickets on the pitch - you're complaining about something that may happen in the future?

correct....there was nothing in the pitch  for the quicks on the first day - most wickets were due to poor batting

So basically your whines today are about a pitch that has done nothing wrong and an LBW that was confirmed by technology.

squeak squeak....simply repeating what was said by pom commentators and what I observed....the pitch was doctored