Re: Interesting article in Spiv Sunday paper

by Basil Sun 13 Jan 2008, 13:06

skully wrote:

Merls, The Windies were the best team (easily) of the 80s and the best sledgers. Australia, by mid 90s, had assumed the mantle of best team and best sledgers, and have seemed to maintain that ratio for the past 12 years or so (except for India 2000/01 and Ashes 2005). You may find it sad but I accept it as reality. Winning goes hand-in-hand with sledging. Suck it up, big boy.

If you are trying to argue that winning and sledging are inextricably linked - I would only agree up to a point.

Winners sledge because they they can get away with it, they know their words are less likely to come back to haunt them and make them look foolish.

If you're trying to argue that good teams have to sledge to be succesful - no, absolutely not.

by skully Sun 13 Jan 2008, 13:13

No Bas, sledging has been (rightly or wrongly) an integral part of the best team's success over the past 40 years (except for Tony Grieg's unfortunate 1976 "we are gonna make them grovel" sledge - Viv made 2 x 200s and Mike Holding took 30+ wickets including 14 in one game. Sucked in ya stoopid piece of Saffie duck poop.

by *Buckaroo* Sun 13 Jan 2008, 13:15

x-post from eowyn thread:

skully wrote:
eowyn wrote:I'm not talking about winning a sodding game, meaty and I'm talking about cultures in general and the deliberate lack of understanding and the wilful nastiness that's pervading this forum.
I'm a simple man, your fairness. I do not deliberately misunderstand my subcontinental mates. I play to win, as they do. We won, they didn't. They sooked, we wouldn't have (particularly after SRT had concocted a 70 run lead). We have stuck to our original story of monkey play, India have chosen to come up with different daily versions (then latest "I didn't say monkey, I said Maa ki (motherf....). I leave it up to your and the forum's better judgment who is bullsh!tting and who is not.

If you played fair, you wouldn't win.

that's the point.

You need umpires, match-referees, ICC presidents giving out biased decisions and a whole host of other people help your team win.

by skully Sun 13 Jan 2008, 13:21

*Buckaroo* wrote:If you played fair, you wouldn't win.

that's the point.

You need umpires, match-referees, ICC presidents giving out biased decisions and a whole host of other people help your team win.

Bwahahahahaha. And what's your excuse for the T1 result. Feeble sooking at it's most sooky.

by *Buckaroo* Sun 13 Jan 2008, 13:22

>>And what's your excuse for the T1 result.

that was the defacto practice match.

by *Buckaroo* Sun 13 Jan 2008, 13:25

the lack of practice matches organised by BCCI is also what surprised me and forces me to think this tour is fixed. Who in BCCI decides on tour practice matches .. even Gavaskar doesn't know ?

after the washed out practice match, this is how it panned out for the team:
this would how Kumble's notes would have looked like:

Melbourne: Defacto Practice match.

Sydney: Real opportunity

Perth: Word hard to hold fort

Adelaide: Go for the jugular.

by tac Sun 13 Jan 2008, 13:28

*Buckaroo* wrote:the lack of practice matches organised by BCCI is also what surprised me and forces me to think this tour is fixed. Who in BCCI decides on tour practice matches .. even Gavaskar doesn't know ?

after the washed out practice match, this is how it panned out for the team:
this would how Kumble's notes would have looked like:

Melbourne: Defacto Practice match. Hammered

Sydney: Real opportunity Caved in on the last day - Trophy gone

Perth: Word hard to hold fort

Adelaide: Go for the jugular.

by skully Sun 13 Jan 2008, 13:31

*Buckaroo* wrote:the lack of practice matches organised by BCCI is also what surprised me and forces me to think this tour is fixed. Who in BCCI decides on tour practice matches .. even Gavaskar doesn't know ?

after the washed out practice match, this is how it panned out for the team:
this would how Kumble's notes would have looked like:

Melbourne: Defacto Practice match. - India failed miserably

Sydney: Real opportunity - India fought hard but failed in the end
Perth: Word hard to hold fort - will be interesting to see on a pacey deck
Adelaide: Go for the jugular - probably a draw in hot weather on a road

Fixed.

by Basil Sun 13 Jan 2008, 13:43

*Buckaroo* wrote:

If you played fair, you wouldn't win.

No - wrong!

You win because you have better players and/or play better than the opposition. I'm not asking for players to be saints, a bit of chat between batsman and bowler has always gone on and it be foolish to expect it to stop.

by *Buckaroo* Sun 13 Jan 2008, 13:45

I was talking of umpires first.

players second.

by Basil Sun 13 Jan 2008, 13:51

*Buckaroo* wrote:I was talking of umpires first.

players second.

And you can take your umpiring conspiracy theories and shove them!

by *Buckaroo* Sun 13 Jan 2008, 13:53

Basil wrote:And you can take your umpiring conspiracy theories and shove them!

No!

by Brass Monkey Sun 13 Jan 2008, 14:02

Buckerpoop Laggers, I understand how you're trying to make your persona work, but you're all over the shop and pretty clueless.

by please don't yell Sun 13 Jan 2008, 14:42

Now that enough time has passed i think people are starting to understand how big an over reaction this whole thing has been.

Clarke claimed a 50/50 catch?

So what? dhoni claimed a catch against kp that landed 2 feet in front of him.

Singh got banned for racism..so what? so did lehmann and gibbs all our team did was report him which isn't a crime.

India got the worst of the umpiring?

So what? the umpires aren't perfect they make mistakes the mistakes have to go against somebody.

No doubt our team needs to improve it's overall behavior but the over reaction to this test happened for one reason...it's india and india lost.

by *Buckaroo* Sun 13 Jan 2008, 14:48

If Aus continues to win like this, then ultimately it's cricket that loses.

At the very sight of a threatening opposition the Aus+Ponting combo starts shitting bricks and uses every trick in the book to subvert fair play and the 'spirit of the game'.

Fixing umpires seem par for the course.

Absolutely shameful.

by Basil Sun 13 Jan 2008, 14:49

skully wrote:No Bas, sledging has been (rightly or wrongly) an integral part of the best team's success over the past 40 years (except for Tony Grieg's unfortunate 1976 "we are gonna make them grovel" sledge - Viv made 2 x 200s and Mike Holding took 30+ wickets including 14 in one game. Sucked in ya stoopid piece of Saffie duck poop.

This is an odd example to quote: Greig's comments were more ill-judged bravado than sledging. And the Windies were head and shoulders the better side, and would have won convincingly anyway.

by eowyn Sun 13 Jan 2008, 14:57

wrong thread...

by Merlin Sun 13 Jan 2008, 15:02

embee wrote:The Defender of Jardine and Bodyline ....Phurt

Ahhhh ... halcyon days! Wink

I defend Jardine - always have done.
He was an exponent of a "form" of cricket untried at the time - it worked.
His subsequent treatment and persecution by the politically correct English
establishment arses at that time is what I find apalling and unacceptable.
Carr being the worst.

by Merlin Sun 13 Jan 2008, 15:09

eowyn wrote:merls, for a man who advocated taking someone behind the dressingroom and beating a lesson into them, I find your comments about aggressive sledging a bit rich.

That person's behaviour warranted it - and I wasn't the only one advocating the beating either!

Re aggressive sledging - I repeat - as I did for the single celled tac ... these comments are attributed to respectable
pundits, writers, ex players and the media in general across the entire cricket spectrum - NOT specifically me!
So do try avoid making this "personal".
You cannot isolate one singular incident whilst avoiding the whole bloody mess.

A hornets nest has been stirred at the SCG (ta skull, my bad) - I've always acknowledged the deep-seated truth in the sayig:
It takes TWO hands to clap**!

** for tac's benefit only ... errrr, no tac, not to GET the clap.

by Merlin Sun 13 Jan 2008, 15:16

skully wrote:Indians hate the Poms (you know, Colonial masters and all that), yet some Poms choose to defend the deranged and totally unorganised Indians. However I suspect it's more to do with trying to bring those damned convicts down a peg or two rather than actually support the hash smokers.

You're totally off the beam here skull ...
I'm not defending anyone or anything.
If Singh is proved to have racially abused the "token" - then sling him out of cricket - period.
Set an example. Burn his effigy.

What I am saying however, is that something .. somewhere ... someone along the way, provided the provocative spark.
And it wasn't the "hey you silly billy " kinda provocation!!!

Believe me - it's nowt to do with colonials or convicts or smelley Poms lording it a la Victoriana ....
Just plain common sense.

by furriner Sun 13 Jan 2008, 15:38

skully wrote:Indians hate the Poms (you know, Colonial masters and all that), yet some Poms choose to defend the deranged and totally unorganised Indians. However I suspect it's more to do with trying to bring those damned convicts down a peg or two rather than actually support the hash smokers.

You're utterly wrong skulls there skulls, IMHO.

We have a love hate relationship with the English. Had we only hated them they wouldn't have lasted 2 years in India, far less 200. Not worth a long discourse on this forum, but it is my contention that the Indians and the English- where I have seen interactions - 'get' each other in a way that no two other races do (that I have seen). Obviously this is a theory based solely on one person's experience.

Love your hash smokers description, btw. bounce

by Lara Lara Laughs Sun 13 Jan 2008, 15:54

What's this about beating sense into people? Who did who want to beat sense into?

by eowyn Sun 13 Jan 2008, 16:17

merls advocates violence as a disciplinary method.

by Brass Monkey Sun 13 Jan 2008, 16:39

Aye, didn't you know, if someone's point of view differs to yours usually after the 10th punch to the face from some nasty-wasty person usually makes you go "Oh yeah, sh!t, what was I thinking he was right. Silly me."

by Lara Lara Laughs Sun 13 Jan 2008, 16:47

I guess the idea is that they say what you want them to say or you keep hurting them until they die.

That reminds me of something else..........oh yes - torture.

Seriously, what was the context for merlin's theory? Does anyone know? Who did he want to hit?

by Sponsored content