Ponting at Lord's

footwork wrote:

btw, begging will get you nowhere. Oim a noice gairl oi am.

Two pints of Fosters ought to do it, plus the promise of "loving you" in the morning !

Merlin wrote:

footwork wrote:

btw, begging will get you nowhere. Oim a noice gairl oi am.

Two pints of Fosters ought to do it, plus the promise of "loving you" in the morning !

Go for Cooper's Sparkling. They think it means you care.

Merlin wrote:

footwork wrote:

btw, begging will get you nowhere. Oim a noice gairl oi am.

Two pints of Fosters ought to do it, plus the promise of "loving you" in the morning !

FFS ...you're trying to shag her persuade her to have a very meaningful 8 hour relationship ...not poison her

embee wrote:

Merlin wrote:

footwork wrote:

btw, begging will get you nowhere. Oim a noice gairl oi am.

Two pints of Fosters ought to do it, plus the promise of "loving you" in the morning !

FFS ...you're trying to shag her persuade her to have a very meaningful 8 hour relationship ...not poison her

I'd have said Marston's Pedigree Special, but the poor woman wouldn't have survived a pint let alone take part in a meaningful relationship ....

Shoeshine wrote:

Merlin wrote:

footwork wrote:

btw, begging will get you nowhere. Oim a noice gairl oi am.

Two pints of Fosters ought to do it, plus the promise of "loving you" in the morning !

Go for Cooper's Sparkling. They think it means you care.

That's Farken Sheepdip ...it might impress the Kiwis or the Welsh

You misread me gentlemen.

I cannot be bought with cheap booze and drugs.

Try JD and Coke, white wine and absinthe (ooh-aah).
A coupla swills and I'm anyone's.

footwork wrote:You misread me gentlemen.

I cannot be bought with cheap booze and drugs.

Try JD and Coke, white wine and absinthe (ooh-aah).
A coupla swills and I'm anyone's.

Worth a try. It's well known that absinthe makes the heart grow fonder.
























I'll get my coat.

Jontyh wrote:Yeah - no way that was a flounce. Nowhere near enough dummy spitting, toy throwing or taking the ball home.

Not even a hint of Allanesque combustion, either, so you'd have to mark the Oz contender down for that, I think.

You are a hard taskmaster Jaunty.
I'm embarrassed at the inadequacy of my strop. It felt so cathartic at the time too.
Perhaps a few nasty words about Mr. KPtin? Or even Rude Curser - he's outta favour right now?

Shoeshine wrote:

footwork wrote:You misread me gentlemen.

I cannot be bought with cheap booze and drugs.

Try JD and Coke, white wine and absinthe (ooh-aah).
A coupla swills and I'm anyone's.

Worth a try. It's well known that absinthe makes the heart grow fonder.



























I'll get my coat.

Shoeshine wrote:
Then can I ask your view on what would happen here? If Australia lose the series it seems inconceivable to an outsider that Ponting would retain the captaincy, but equally inconceivable that he'd be dropped as a batsman. What do you think?

More likely than not Ponting will retain the captaincy even if Australia lose the series.

Things would get interesting if we lost 4-0. The last Aussie skipper to lose a series by that margin was Bill Lawry (who also just happens to be the last Aussie skipper to be unambiguously sacked).

Hughes resigned after losing 3-0 to the West Indies away and losing the first two tests of the return series in Australia. It amounted to five losses in a row under his captaincy. No other Australian captain has lost five matches in a row (although a few have lost four).

Ponting is safe unless there is an absolute catastrophe. The mistake was made when he was given the one-day captaincy in 2002 (and the test captaincy two years later). The board and the selectors are living with that decision. It's like a Catholic marriage. Something really, really bad is going to have to happen before the Pope grants an annulment.

Hass, who do you think should have got it? Gilchrist maybe? And then who?

footwork wrote:You misread me gentlemen.

I cannot be bought with cheap booze and drugs.

Try JD and Coke, white wine and absinthe (ooh-aah).
A coupla swills and I'm anyone's.

What are your feelings on rohypnol?

Rob I wrote:Hass, who do you think should have got it? Gilchrist maybe? And then who?

Warney?

WS: Ouch.

Rob I wrote:Hass, who do you think should have got it? Gilchrist maybe? And then who?

Gilchrist should have got the job on Waugh's retirement.

Warne was still suspended at that time so you couldn't have had him going from drug ban to skipper in the space of a week.

Gilchrist was apparently looked over because they didn't want to overburden him. I think it was a cop out.

If you go back to Waugh's axeing from the one-day team in 2002 I'd have been happy with either Warne or Gilchrist as captain. I'd have preferred Gilchrist though because he also carried himself well off the field (something which isn't completely necessary but it's better to have a captain like that if you can).

I think they chose Ponting because he was considered a "future Australian captain" from the time he was 18. They wanted to groom someone to take over from Waugh in tests long-term. I thought it was a massive insult to Gilchrist myself.

Ooh. I didn't see the "And then who?"

Truth be told, if they gave the captaincy to Gilchrist all those years ago Ponting would probably still be captain today.

The only exception to that I could see is if Gilchrist retired a year earlier and Warne (with his reputation revived) decided to stay on for a couple of years as captain - something I think he would have done had the Australian Board given him the chance.

The timing wouldn't have been right for Katich to become captain as he has only been a regular in the team for about 18 months.

The thing is, in this alternative universe Ponting would only be into his second year of the captaincy. He'd have had another six years of training under a good captain and would be all the better for it now.

It's partly why I'm a fan of choosing older captains unless the team is in a rut and there's only one man for the job (Allan Border 1984/5 being the prime example).

Ponting deserved his shot at being captain as he was the outsanding batsman in the team and was being groomed for the role. However, his consistent failure in the role should have resulted in him being relieved of the captaincy well before now.

Hass wrote:Ooh. I didn't see the "And then who?"

Truth be told, if they gave the captaincy to Gilchrist all those years ago Ponting would probably still be captain today.

The only exception to that I could see is if Gilchrist retired a year earlier and Warne (with his reputation revived) decided to stay on for a couple of years as captain - something I think he would have done had the Australian Board given him the chance.

The timing wouldn't have been right for Katich to become captain as he has only been a regular in the team for about 18 months.

The thing is, in this alternative universe Ponting would only be into his second year of the captaincy. He'd have had another six years of training under a good captain and would be all the better for it now.

It's partly why I'm a fan of choosing older captains unless the team is in a rut and there's only one man for the job (Allan Border 1984/5 being the prime example).

To keep wicket and captain is a seriously big ask of a player. The keeper is concentrating on each ball in a way that the other fielders aren't. I do it at club level, and I know perfectly well that I'm a much worse captain keeping than I am if I stand in the field. Gilchrist might well have been capable, but if he was, that's remarkable.

The keeper can judge how bowlers are bowling and is in the best position in the field to make fielding placements. It is a myth that keepers shouldn't captain.

Aye! Don't know where that fallacy came from. But the game's been run by batsman forever.

Paul Keating wrote:The keeper can judge how bowlers are bowling and is in the best position in the field to make fielding placements. It is a myth that keepers shouldn't captain.

Well, look all I can say is that in my own personal experience at a clear non-Test level I find it extremely difficult. When you keep you are concentrating on the ball to a much greater extent than you are when you're fielding. If I'm captaining the side when keeping I miss things that I don't when I'm just in the field. Yes, I'm in a good position to see things, and that's useful information to impart to the captain, but it's mentally exceptionally draining to try to run the team from the keeping position. I can generally do it for a few games here and there, but it grinds me down very quickly and I perform the captaincy job poorly before long.

I await endless abuse for this from you 'orrible lot, but it is perhaps a slight insight into the issue.

SS - maybe you're just not very good.

That is always a possibility!

I'm starting to find it physically difficult in my mid-thirties I can tell you that.

We're still talking about wicket keeping right?

Shoeshine wrote:I await endless abuse for this from you 'orrible lot, but it is perhaps a slight insight into the issue.

Sounds like you have an insight into this place

JGK wrote:We're still talking about wicket keeping right?

I bloody hope so!

Actually, TV commentators do talk utter bollocks about wicketkeeping anyway. Like when the keeper is stood up and there's an edge, they always say something idiotic like "good catch". You haven't the first idea he's nicked it until the ball is well in your gloves, because there isn't time for it to register in your mind with such a short distance to travel, and the idea you can move your gloves to cover a thicker edge is complete nonsense. Ian Smith took the others to task for this a while back, telling them they were talking cobblers. Most amusing it was too.