Punter calls for peace

When poked I have 'embiggened' TTF's captaincy. I don't bring up his batsmanship (or lack thereof) unless provoked.

Having rock climbed at Arapiles, Wycheproof is for girls.

Apropos of nothing at all, I used to love watching Taylor bat. He was so unusual in being a left-hander who played extremely straight. A purist issue, undoubtedly...

At a nose-bleeding 43 metres above sea level, Mt W is for geriatric ants.

hmnn...sounds like my sort of hill

Arapiles has a climb described as 'even a Natimuk Grandmother can do'. Of course it also has the world's hardest climb, 'punks in the gym' from memory.

Natimuk is the only small town in the wimmera where the population is growing (mainly through climbing associated tourism)...

saw a great community arts event there a couple of years ago..they used the wheat silo to project doccos on while people abseiled down...virtually the whole town and outllying areas had a level of involvement

horace wrote:Natimuk is the only small town in the wimmera where the population is growing (mainly through climbing associated tourism)...

saw a great community arts event there a couple of years ago..they used the wheat silo to project doccos on while people abseiled down...virtually the whole town and outllying areas had a level of involvement

They all got pissed?

I was at the Natimuk pub the first time SA beat the big V. Me (a QLDer) two Kiwis and some dubbers and one farking sozzie. We made a quick exit after we managed to sedate (well hit himn over the head) the sozzie and point out to the patrons that we were escaped lunatics with rap sheets a mile long.

You mean that wasn't obvious to the naked eye?

Bradman wrote:I was at the Natimuk pub the first time SA beat the big V. Me (a QLDer) two Kiwis and some dubbers and one farking sozzie. We made a quick exit after we managed to sedate (well hit himn over the head) the sozzie and point out to the patrons that we were escaped lunatics with rap sheets a mile long.

You sang them a song?

*I'll get me coat*

They were Vixens. You've got to spell it out for them.

hehehe...had a few ales in that pub myself...your exp. there was similar to my years in Chip Central baiting the locals
'
nonetheless it is a clever community that is prospering when the rest of the Wimmera is shutting down.

taipan wrote:

Bradman wrote:I was at the Natimuk pub the first time SA beat the big V. Me (a QLDer) two Kiwis and some dubbers and one farking sozzie. We made a quick exit after we managed to sedate (well hit himn over the head) the sozzie and point out to the patrons that we were escaped lunatics with rap sheets a mile long.

You sang them a song?

*I'll get me coat*

Now I think of it, singing may have been a better option.

taipan wrote:FrWankensteinain?

Can't believe Dan hasn't already done it.

I think that just might have some legs

Thought it was patently obvious.

Use it at your leisure.

And given that it will inevitably become WS, this explanation can be cut and pasted:

Ponting = creation of CA = Frankenstein = Wankenstain = WS.

Was also thinking of WS

Well you and I can use it and see if it sticks.

So to speak....

Erm, yes, thanks, Nerky.

Merlin wrote:IMO Ponting's biggest problem is that his mouth functions 10 to 20 seconds ahead of his brain - presuming of course that he possesses the latter organ.

And then he wonders aloud why the most neutral of cricket crowds in the UK, at Lord's, gives him a hard time on-field.

If he'd had kept his mouth shut about "time wasting" with an unsubtle reference to Straussers lack of the "spirit of cricket" at Cardiff, he might have avoided all the crap that follows him around now.

Simple as that.

Here are Ponting's exact words once again:

Ricky Ponting wrote:
"I don't think it was required, he changed [the gloves] the over before and I don't think they'd be too sweaty in one over. I'm not sure what the physio was doing out there. I didn't see anyone call for the physio to come out. As far as I'm concerned, it was pretty ordinary, really. But they can play whatever way they want to play. We came to play by the rules and the spirit of the game. It's up to them to do what they want to do.

"A few guys were questioning the umpires, a few guys were questioning the 12th man, but it's not the 12th man's fault. Someone from upstairs was sending him out there. That's where it needs to be taken up. There was nothing there that we could do out on the ground. We had to get them off as quick as we could and get a couple more overs.

"It lasted for a couple of minutes and I was unhappy about it. But we got them off the ground and I don't want to make that big a deal about it. I'm sure others will be taking it up with the England hierarchy, as they should, but it's not the reason we didn't win. We've got to look at those reasons, not other things."

So if Ponting hadn't said that he wouldn't have been booed at Lord's?

Are English supporters really that thin-skinned? They think an opposition captain calling their team on blatant cheating is grounds for booing one of the greatest batsmen of all time and the leader of the touring team?

Strauss cheats and gets cheered. Ponting calls him on it and gets booed. I'm sorry, but there's no way to justify that, even if you do think Ponting is a hypocrite.

Hass wrote:

Merlin wrote:IMO Ponting's biggest problem is that his mouth functions 10 to 20 seconds ahead of his brain - presuming of course that he possesses the latter organ.

And then he wonders aloud why the most neutral of cricket crowds in the UK, at Lord's, gives him a hard time on-field.

If he'd had kept his mouth shut about "time wasting" with an unsubtle reference to Straussers lack of the "spirit of cricket" at Cardiff, he might have avoided all the crap that follows him around now.

Simple as that.

Here are Ponting's exact words once again:

Ricky Ponting wrote:
"I don't think it was required, he changed [the gloves] the over before and I don't think they'd be too sweaty in one over. I'm not sure what the physio was doing out there. I didn't see anyone call for the physio to come out. As far as I'm concerned, it was pretty ordinary, really. But they can play whatever way they want to play. We came to play by the rules and the spirit of the game. It's up to them to do what they want to do.

"A few guys were questioning the umpires, a few guys were questioning the 12th man, but it's not the 12th man's fault. Someone from upstairs was sending him out there. That's where it needs to be taken up. There was nothing there that we could do out on the ground. We had to get them off as quick as we could and get a couple more overs.

"It lasted for a couple of minutes and I was unhappy about it. But we got them off the ground and I don't want to make that big a deal about it. I'm sure others will be taking it up with the England hierarchy, as they should, but it's not the reason we didn't win. We've got to look at those reasons, not other things."

So if Ponting hadn't said that he wouldn't have been booed at Lord's?

Are English supporters really that thin-skinned? They think an opposition captain calling their team on blatant cheating is grounds for booing one of the greatest batsmen of all time and the leader of the touring team?

Strauss cheats and gets cheered. Ponting calls him on it and gets booed. I'm sorry, but there's no way to justify that, even if you do think Ponting is a hypocrite.

Only because he went on to talk about the spirit of cricket, and how Australia abide by it, to the amusement of everyone else. I doubt he'd have got as much stick if he'd left that bit out, because few people disagreed with him being unhappy about the core issue.

Hass, much as I admire your sterling support for a brainless tick (but a batsman extrordinaire), you really do view Ponting's outbursts through rose tinted glasses.

Like you, us Poms are pretty thick skinned, but we do draw the line at being labelled "cheats" and not playing in the "spirit of cricket" especially when spouted by the worst protagonist and biggest non-exponant of said 'spirit' the game has witnessed.

Prima Donna and soap boxes do not sit well with Ponting. His petty-mindedness in several acts thus far on this and previous tours demand that he take a closer look in the mirror first, rather than engage mouth before brain and label others.

The booing at Lord's (I hasten to add I was not part of it) was a reflection of how the general cricket public here view Pontings overall actions and dissents. Can you blame them? Or are ALL Pom fans now deemed

Small example - Hughes and Strauss became close friends when the former had his 6 week stint with Middlesex early season. At Lord's when Hughes was caught by Strauss he turned to ask and then accepted Strauss's acknowledgement that the ball was caught cleanly. He was then prepared to walk off UNTIL PONTING STOPPED HIM AND DEMANDED IT WAS CLARIFIED BY THE UMPIRES.

Hughes did as his captain asked only to be given out by the onfield Umpires without reference upstairs. This in no way condemns Strauss as a cheat and no matter which way you cut it, Ponting's references in articles to "that" Strauss catch have unnecessarily aggravated a situation which, rather than target Strauss, ought to have focused on the umpires actions in not going upstairs.

Strauss is - as documented in CC and in Tests - not a cheat, and clearly Hughes believed as much. Ponting's intervention (I have no problem with that) however, and subsequent unsubtle remarks have only fuelled a situation which will now, guaranteed, get worse as this tour goes on.

Merlin. I don't think I'm viewing Ponting's comments through rose-tinted glasses.

Here are a couple of my posts from last year's Nagpur test. I condemn Ponting as harshly as anyone in the "sook" thread. The second post is probably the most relevant:

Hass wrote:Ponting should be sacked as captain. What we all witnessed today can only be described as gross incompetence.

Firstly, as captain it is his responsibility to keep the over rate on track in the first place. Suddenly waking up to the fact at tea-time can only be put down to ignorance, incompetence, arrogance, selfishness or a combination of all four.

Then deciding to bowl Mke Hussey at the exact moment he should have been putting the foot down can only be put down to incompetence, gutlessness or selfishness (in order to save his own neck).

Not considering using the fast bowlers off short runs or bowling Simon Katich can only be put down to incompetence, stubborness or favouritism.

It's the most pathetic display I've seen from an Australian captain in at least 20 years.

Even after using those harsh words I still feel like I'm going easy on him.

Hass wrote:Ponting seemed to be thumbing his nose at the laws and playing conditions when it came to over-rates for the entire series.

He certainly wasn't thinking too much about them for most of the time on day four.

He only developed his undying passion for the "spirit of the game" when he was threatened with suspension.

I think he deserved that harsh criticism then. But I don't think incidents like that should prevent him from claiming the moral high ground when the opposition engages in blatant cheating (which they did at Cardiff).

I genuinely think Ponting's comments in Cardiff were very reserved considering the situation. You view him as getting on a soap box. I didn't see it like that at all, but it's not because of any bias towards Ponting. I thought England's actions at Cardiff were an absolute disgrace and am suprised Ponting didn't blow a gasket.

Maybe that's where I'm being biased, but I don't think so. England's actions at the end of the Cardiff match left me with a knot in my stomach not because I was outraged it was going to cost Australia victory, but because I genuinely thought "this has been an amazing fight by England - why did they have to go and spoil it with this unseemly act". It offended me as a cricketer, not as an Australian.

I just think there's a bit of a Pavlov's dog reaction to anything Ponting says or does (from both Australians and Britons).

I mean, describing Ponting as the "worst protagonist and biggest non-exponent of said 'spirit' the game has witnessed" does little to make me think the argument on the other side is completely rational.