Koertzen's century nothing to celebrate!

League Saturdays, friendlies Sundays.

Bradman wrote:Discretion is definately the better part of valour.

And sometimes cowardice is the better part of discretion.

Years ago, I was playing against an Australian touring team, and they were far better than the motley group we put out. Anyway, they had a first class bowler on show, and their skipper suggested that he bowl full to my batting partner as he wouldn't be able to cope with anything short. His response "Awww yeah mate, no problems - but I'm not pitching it up to the other bloke, he can bat a bit" made me proud and terrified at the same time.

Shoeshine wrote:League Saturdays, friendlies Sundays.

My first and only serious coach, a school chaplain, always said the only friendly thing about cricket were the ladies who provided the tea, and then only if you were winning.

Shoeshine wrote:Years ago, I was playing against an Australian touring team, and they were far better than the motley group we put out. Anyway, they had a first class bowler on show, and their skipper suggested that he bowl full to my batting partner as he wouldn't be able to cope with anything short. His response "Awww yeah mate, no problems - but I'm not pitching it up to the other bloke, he can bat a bit" made me proud and terrified at the same time.

So, you are county player Shoeshine?

Bradman wrote:I like Crash, but that's mainly due to his stance during the superleague war (and I only experienced that uproar third hand). I (as every Qlder should) hate Ray Hadley's guts but will always have a soft spot for him over the gun control stuff, despite his Superleague carry-on.

Matter of varying perspective I suppose.

You're not a Super League supporter are you?

I don't remember Craddock's stance at the time, but I do remember Hadley being vehmently against it.

Ray Hadley is a rude, egotistical, self-absorbed wanker. There's not much to like about him except his calling of the game itself (he's still the best radio caller in the land). But at least he was on the right side during the war.

JKLever wrote:

Shoeshine wrote:Years ago, I was playing against an Australian touring team, and they were far better than the motley group we put out. Anyway, they had a first class bowler on show, and their skipper suggested that he bowl full to my batting partner as he wouldn't be able to cope with anything short. His response "Awww yeah mate, no problems - but I'm not pitching it up to the other bloke, he can bat a bit" made me proud and terrified at the same time.

So, you are county player Shoeshine?

Ah, if only. Got as far as some of the youth representative teams, then my march to the England Test team was cut short on utterly unreasonable and spurious grounds.*













*Not remotely good enough so they said, the blind bastards.

Blimey, d'you mean you're even worse than Gashley Piles?
Jeez, you really must be a crock of poo !

How dare you. I am a batsman and a wicketkeeper. Therefore I am clearly a marginally better bowler than he is, you cheeky young pup.

Shoeshine wrote:In tennis, Hawkeye shows what happened, it doesn't predict what might happen. Even there, there are question marks over its accuracy.

True, SS, but don't forget, technologies generally improve.

Hawkeye may not be able to apply 'rule of thumb', 'best guess' or 'human experience' strategies that umpires do, to predict what is likely to happen next, to a sound, whether it is that of a bat nicked rather than a boot hit, or the impression that a ball was caught before it hit the ground, but the system will be able to simulate decisions with possibly better accuracy than a human.

After all, unmanned drones are used to target terrorists, in terror hotspots in the world, with civilian targets accepted as collateral damage. So, what's a machine-poor decision in cricket compared with a human umpire-bad one!

This is as good a place as any to put this.

From Dizzy's cricinfo column

I can't go without commenting on Rudi Koertzen's view that it's cheating if a batsman waits for the umpire to make a decision when they know they've nicked the ball. I was not a walker, but I didn't feel like a cheat. Like my Dad and my coaches told me, always respect the umpire's decision - good or bad. Sometimes I got lucky, sometimes I got howlers, with the bat and ball. I just got on with it.

In the so-called Spirit of Cricket and in the rules of the game it clearly states that the umpires are in charge and players must respect their decision. Therefore, why is a player a cheat if he waits for their judgment?

Indeed. And that's a bowler talking.

Well said, Diz.

Rudi was clearly just done snorting when he made that statement. And will probably regret saying it (if he hasn't already).

Zat wrote:This is as good a place as any to put this.

From Dizzy's cricinfo column

I can't go without commenting on Rudi Koertzen's view that it's cheating if a batsman waits for the umpire to make a decision when they know they've nicked the ball. I was not a walker, but I didn't feel like a cheat. Like my Dad and my coaches told me, always respect the umpire's decision - good or bad. Sometimes I got lucky, sometimes I got howlers, with the bat and ball. I just got on with it.

In the so-called Spirit of Cricket and in the rules of the game it clearly states that the umpires are in charge and players must respect their decision. Therefore, why is a player a cheat if he waits for their judgment?

Indeed. And that's a bowler talking.

he ended his career as a batsman

Cheaping the art of batting,IIRC.

No, that was the Bangers.

Good times

Trouble is, the players want it all ways. The want to stand there if they've nicked it, and wait for the umpire's decision, but they also want to shake their heads and make it absolutely clear it's a terrible decision if they've been given out wrongly (and often even if they've been correctly given out).

And I would say that is cheating.

Aye SS. Standing and looking galled is not on. But they all do it, unfortch.

I can live with a moment of shocked look, but to stand then slowly walk off shaking one head is not on.

Batsmen are a pimple on the arse of the game. They've been given every break possible short of automatic weapons and still they bitch.

Automatic weapons sounds good. Is that planned?

Bradman wrote:Batsmen are a pimple on the arse of the game. They've been given every break possible short of automatic weapons and still they bitch.

Tubby used to turn on his heel and go without a 2nd look, qmy. Fine spirited chap.

Given his batting skulls he probably knew there wasn't too much point bitching.

Shoeshine wrote:Automatic weapons sounds good. Is that planned?

If I had my way it would be, if they were given to the bowlers. Seeing as that is about the only way you can get a batsman out short of prostituting the laws.

Shoeshine wrote:Trouble is, the players want it all ways. The want to stand there if they've nicked it, and wait for the umpire's decision, but they also want to shake their heads and make it absolutely clear it's a terrible decision if they've been given out wrongly (and often even if they've been correctly given out).

And I would say that is cheating.

As is waving a ball contemptously under an Umpire's nose whilst harangueing him unnecessarily for a "catch".

Merlin wrote:

Shoeshine wrote:Trouble is, the players want it all ways. The want to stand there if they've nicked it, and wait for the umpire's decision, but they also want to shake their heads and make it absolutely clear it's a terrible decision if they've been given out wrongly (and often even if they've been correctly given out).

And I would say that is cheating.

As is waving a ball contemptously under an Umpire's nose whilst harangueing him unnecessarily for a "catch".

Of course. It's all very well for players to moan about incorrect decisions, but the truth is the players all cheat, just as Koertzen said. They rely on the "umpire's decision" defence some of the time, yet refuse to accept that decision if they feel it is wrong and show clear dissent.

If you don't walk you've no right whatsoever to moan when the umpires fires you out wrongly. And if you happily take a wicket when the umpire makes a mistake you've no right to moan when he fails to spot an edge. The players cheat, and then load all the responsibility on the umpire.