Australia v England, 3rd ODI, Sydney, 19 January, 2014

Red wrote:

skully wrote:

Big Dog wrote:As i have said, Finch is a one trick pony. He's made his big score for the series so he will be shyte for the rest.

Aye, both he and Warner are 1 in 5 merchants. We won't be competitive in the big Gilly games unless the middle order carries us.

I have this vague theory that players like Finch who are poor red ball players can never be truly reliable in any format though when the planets align they'll probably look better than anyone on their odd big day. Remains to be seen what sort of short form career Finch has.

I agree. I blame the media for for promoting these sort of players beyond their capabilities & our NSP always seem to go along for the ride.

Tredwell looks extremely pedestrian. I would have thought Root was a better option if only for his bowling.

Just seen a replay of the catch to get Morgan out - looked fine, but you can understand Morgan wanting clarification. There was also confirmation that Pup's inner qunt is just bubbling below the surface.

FW chucks it away. Dick.

Pup castled. 3-172.

Steady 50 for Bog.

Basil wrote:Just seen a replay of the catch to get Morgan out - looked fine, but you can understand Morgan wanting clarification. There was also confirmation that Pup's inner qunt is just bubbling below the surface.

Agree, there was no reason for him to be so vocal on the issue. Let's face it these days when there is a borderline low to the ground catch most players stick around and they have every right to.

Red wrote:

Basil wrote:Just seen a replay of the catch to get Morgan out - looked fine, but you can understand Morgan wanting clarification. There was also confirmation that Pup's inner qunt is just bubbling below the surface.

Agree, there was no reason for him to be so vocal on the issue. Let's face it these days when there is a borderline low to the ground catch most players stick around and they have every right to.

I pine for the days when a batsman would ask "Did you catch it mate?" and walk off if the fielder asserted that he took the catch cleanly, but that's unrealistic in the modern game - so use the technology and just get on with it.

CT wrote:why isn't Morgan playing in the tests, strange cos frankly the poms should have used him in the ashes could he been any worse than cook.

16 Tests (13 at home against such mighty opposition as Bangladesh and Sri Lanka), 700 runs @ 30.43.

Why didn't he force his way into the Ashes squad? Last season he played TWO first class games, for an average of 32.00.

The season before he played just 7 FC games. 109 runs @ 18.16.

So he's played nine games of proper cricket in two years and scored f*ck all - on top of previously showing that he's not good enough to play Tests. Yeah, it's "strange" that the poms didn't pick him...

Basil wrote:

Red wrote:

Basil wrote:Just seen a replay of the catch to get Morgan out - looked fine, but you can understand Morgan wanting clarification. There was also confirmation that Pup's inner qunt is just bubbling below the surface.

Agree, there was no reason for him to be so vocal on the issue. Let's face it these days when there is a borderline low to the ground catch most players stick around and they have every right to.

I pine for the days when a batsman would ask "Did you catch it mate?" and walk off if the fielder asserted that he took the catch cleanly, but that's unrealistic in the modern game - so use the technology and just get on with it.

Disagree. Don't use the technology for low catches - it isn't fit for purpose. It clouds more issues than it clears.

Stop giving the umpires an easy way out. Just make a bloody decision.

Morgan's looked out enough, but it would've been interesting to see what would've happened if Stokes had stood his ground to Clarke's wonder catch earlier in the day, as that appeared a bit "iffy" from a certain point of view (though an absolute ripper if legit).

In an ideal world it would be great if they took the fielder's word for it as Punter wanted but alas a few fieldsmen claimed dubious catches and that went out the window. More often than not though the low catches favour the batsmen which can be harsh on a fieldsman who has caught it cleanly, especially if the crowd gets involved.

Red wrote:In an ideal world it would be great if they took the fielder's word for it as Punter wanted but alas a few fieldsmen claimed dubious catches and that went out the window.

Like Punter himself trying to claim a catch after dragging the ball on the ground...

Was actually thinking of him Dello which was what made the whole thing slightly hypocritical.

Meanwhile, the stoopid Poms nosedive again.

Up the Women!

All over. 3-0 after a win in a canter this time.

It's just a shame we're not going to see England's new and improved "death" bowling today. They've really been working at it. Before the match I saw one of them bowling at a shoe.

He missed it, of course. But the shoe didn't hit him for six, so that's a positive sign.

Game over, series gone. Nowt else to say really.

Dello wrote:It's just a shame we're not going to see England's new and improved "death" bowling today. They've really been working at it. Before the match I saw one of them bowling at a shoe.

He missed it, of course. But the shoe didn't hit him for six, so that's a positive sign.

Was it wide enough to be called?  

Bonus point for Australia.

Looked like a pretty decent crowd actually. Esp given that the top of the Noble/Bradman is still out of action.

Dello wrote:It's just a shame we're not going to see England's new and improved "death" bowling today. They've really been working at it. Before the match I saw one of them bowling at a shoe.

He missed it, of course. But the shoe didn't hit him for six, so that's a positive sign.

Presumably, it's called death bowling because David Saker was heard to mutter "This lot will be the death of me."

Dello wrote:

Red wrote:In an ideal world it would be great if they took the fielder's word for it as Punter wanted but alas a few fieldsmen claimed dubious catches and that went out the window.

Like Punter himself trying to claim a catch after dragging the ball on the ground...

Would you trust an Aussies word on it?

taipan wrote:

Dello wrote:

Red wrote:In an ideal world it would be great if they took the fielder's word for it as Punter wanted but alas a few fieldsmen claimed dubious catches and that went out the window.

Like Punter himself trying to claim a catch after dragging the ball on the ground...

Would you trust an Aussies word on it?

If Rolf says he didn't touch those two little boys with his two little toys, that's good enough for me.

Dello wrote:

taipan wrote:

Dello wrote:

Red wrote:In an ideal world it would be great if they took the fielder's word for it as Punter wanted but alas a few fieldsmen claimed dubious catches and that went out the window.

Like Punter himself trying to claim a catch after dragging the ball on the ground...

Would you trust an Aussies word on it?

If Rolf says he didn't touch those two little boys with his two little toys, that's good enough for me.

Lets see what DRS says.