England v Australia, 2nd test, Lord's, July 16-20 (II)

JKLever wrote:

Shoeshine wrote:Ah, a good old fashioned whinge:

Sook: click for details

Aus definitely didn't get the rub of the green, but I never want to hear from an Australian again about Poms whinging or Subis sooking.

I rather doubt your desire will be granted.

Lever whinging and sooking about whingers sooking about sooking whingers.

Typical.

Fantastic Flintoff Fires!!!! Well done England, commiserations Australia, 115 runs close

Invader Zim wrote:Lever whinging and sooking about whingers sooking about sooking whingers.

Typical.

Suck it up Timothy...

It was a moment that encapsulated England's unexpectedly cynical attitude in this series.

WTF?

of the character on which the English generally pride themselves, so unbecoming of any cricket team, but especially of England. Australia, of all countries, and Australians, of all people, should know.

WTF?

It was evident before the series began, in the widespread sneering towards the unorthodoxy of rookie opener Phillip Hughes.

WTF? Like a Strino newspaper has never commented about an opposition player? Because if they mean the team (which is what I think is being said) I didn't hear a jot from them about Hughes.

It showed in England's elaborate time-wasting tactics at the end of the first Test in Cardiff, which lay in that bleak no-man's-land between gamesmanship and cheating. Never mind that the umpires should have acted more forcefully: the laws of the game enjoin the captain to uphold the spirit.

Coming from an Aussie?

At Lord's, England again has been the uglier team. Strauss claimed a catch that replays showed to be doubtful.

He claimed it because he thought he caught it, never heard of TV foreshortening?

England's bowlers have sledged more than Australia's.

Oh cry me a farking river Bruce....

When Mike Hussey was given out erroneously, the England players leapt into one another's arms without a backward glance at the umpire.

Because they thought it was a genuine edge? Y'know like Ricky did off Collingwood at Cardiff.

Doubtlessly, some will see this viewpoint as sour grapes

Yes mate.

Hehe noice JKL.

For Zim-

Courtesy of myself and Lever.

On the Mike Hussey edge, I genuinely thought that was out until I saw the snicko verdict and hot spot. It sounded out, it looked out. It wasn't but . . . understandable decision.

Here's a really good whinge. In fact it goes further - it's known as a lie in the headline:

Whingy whinge

Wow, that whole article is BS. No surprises when you consider what City the article came from.

Henry wrote:Courtesy of myself and Lever.

And an extra box, courtesy of The Biggest One on the Forum.

Blackadder wrote:

footwork wrote:Well I can't imagine English fans agreeing, but since three of our top order bats were gunned - freaking disgusting umpiring- I think Aus has done brilliantly to partially recover.
Imagine if they'd all been allowed to bat until they were actually out.

And I've just developed a newfound loathing of certain English commentators, such as the eejit who said, 'bad luck!', in sarcy tone, when the ump got it wrong. And the one who said, 'England has bowled so brilliantly, they've deserved these wickets.'
What the?
I'm sick of 'it's all swings and roundabouts', when the other team is on the receiving end. If England had lost most of their bloody top order to crapulence, they'd be talking about 'cheating', not 'swings and roundabouts.'

On the posditive side, we're into a 5th day and it could swing either way. This is the eternal optimist speaking.
And if it rains all day, you can sympathise with me on www.feckinfriggincricket.com.

Aye lead by a cheating qunt of a captain that claims catches on the bounce.

You get me on a bad day Sir, when I have the ignominy of watching my great Australian compatriots being whooped at the Home of Cricket.
So please. Say what you will about our beloved leader, but let us lay blame where blame is due Badders- at the big white-shoed feet of the bloody useless umpires, who, if you read my post, were the dirty dogs who ruined this entire match and made my fifth day at Lord's an English nightmare, (although the atmosphere was amazing -fairly fizzing with tension it was. Have to say I loved it!)

Proving or disproving catches etc, should be as easy as REFERRING them upstairs. What a pity this wasn't done yestee. Pontificating is also irrelevant. Two wrongs do not a right make.

I can now say I was there when Aus lost the Test at Lord's for the first time in 70something years.
I'm just heading for the 'I was there when' thread...and I'm taking my third lemoncello with me.
*insert tail-between-legs emote*

Oh. Here's ya tenner merllicioso. *insert monopoly money emote*
Congrats to all you English winners. Hate yus all.

Are you that Adelaide girl from C4 who constantly seemed to be looking for a job?

Henry wrote:Wow, that whole article is BS. No surprises when you consider what City the article came from.

Have you noticed they've changed the headline?

footwork wrote:Proving or disproving catches etc, should be as easy as REFERRING them upstairs. What a pity this wasn't done yestee. Pontificating is also irrelevant. Two wrongs do not a right make.

*Sigh* No. It isn't that simple. It is anything but that simple. Low catches should never be referred.

I've slammed the Aussie team a bit in the last few pages but serious respect to Clarke and Haddin yesterday - they gave me a big fright, and if Ponting ever wins the toss they could rack up a big one somewhere. Respect also to the admirable Siddle, who never gives up.

Combined side so far:

Johann (c)
Kabbage
Ponting
Clarke
Wobbles
North
Haddin (marginally more karp keeper but he has got lots of runs)
Fred
Swannee
Siddle
Hilf?

JKLever wrote:You almost hope Aus win this so we don't have to listen to all the whinging about the umpires.

Seriously i've seen several forums, if it's not the umpires it's the Sky commentators. Australians don't whinge though, of course...

It's a sad state when thems that states facts are called whingers because they do.
The facts are these:
Three top-order Australian batsmen were gunned. It automatiucally changed the entire course of the game.
One blooper maybe; two, appalling; three, unforgivable.
Do you imagine any cricket lover, and any Australian, would actually ignore those facts? Would you, if three of your top order had been gunned in a crucial match?
There's not a forummer here who wouldn't be talking about it, if it had happened to their team. Be honest now.
Using the 'whingeing' defence is the easy way out.

Those blunders are going to be talked about and so they should be.

Well the Sky commentators - dya mean the likes of Nassar Hasbeen?

Shoeshine wrote:

footwork wrote:Proving or disproving catches etc, should be as easy as REFERRING them upstairs. What a pity this wasn't done yestee. Pontificating is also irrelevant. Two wrongs do not a right make.

*Sigh* No. It isn't that simple. It is anything but that simple. Low catches should never be referred.

Of course. The umps should just continue to get them wrong.

But I see your *sigh* and raise you one

footwork wrote:

Shoeshine wrote:

footwork wrote:Proving or disproving catches etc, should be as easy as REFERRING them upstairs. What a pity this wasn't done yestee. Pontificating is also irrelevant. Two wrongs do not a right make.

*Sigh* No. It isn't that simple. It is anything but that simple. Low catches should never be referred.

Of course. The umps should just continue to get them wrong.

But I see your *sigh* and raise you one

My point is made. You are saying the decision is wrong because of what you saw on television. Television does not work with low catches. It has been demonstrated time and again that the two dimensional images cannot cope with the foreshortening effect of the long lens, and a ball held six inches off the ground appears to be on the floor. This is a fact, whether you like it or not, and your comment that it was wrong is materially incorrect, because you do not and cannot know that, and nor can I.

And you are whingeing by the way.

Shoeshine wrote:

Henry wrote:Wow, that whole article is BS. No surprises when you consider what City the article came from.

Have you noticed they've changed the headline?

And all it took for them to change it was a couple of whingeing Poms.

I assume you are Jim Jones? I'm not so sure my comments on the article will be published.......

Henry wrote:

Shoeshine wrote:

Henry wrote:Wow, that whole article is BS. No surprises when you consider what City the article came from.

Have you noticed they've changed the headline?

And all it took for them to change it was a couple of whingeing Poms.

I assume you are Jim Jones? I'm not so sure my comments on the article will be published.......

Nope. Just noticed the comment and echoed it because it was correct.

Shoeshine wrote:

footwork wrote:

Shoeshine wrote:

footwork wrote:Proving or disproving catches etc, should be as easy as REFERRING them upstairs. What a pity this wasn't done yestee. Pontificating is also irrelevant. Two wrongs do not a right make.

*Sigh* No. It isn't that simple. It is anything but that simple. Low catches should never be referred.

Of course. The umps should just continue to get them wrong.

But I see your *sigh* and raise you one

My point is made. You are saying the decision is wrong because of what you saw on television. Television does not work with low catches. It has been demonstrated time and again that the two dimensional images cannot cope with the foreshortening effect of the long lens, and a ball held six inches off the ground appears to be on the floor. This is a fact, whether you like it or not, and your comment that it was wrong is materially incorrect, because you do not and cannot know that, and nor can I.

And you are whingeing by the way.

Exactly, Dermot Reeve & Tony Greig both proved this foreshortening effect 10 years ago. They proved they had the ball firmly in their hands on close up but when the camera panned back it looked like the ball was resting on the ground.

And the thing is with the deciision - on Boparas clearly the umpires did not see it so referred it. On the Hughes catch clearly Doctrove saw it so didn't need to go upstairs.

And if we are playing by the spirit of cricket which Ponting so clearly loves, surely that dictates this is left to the umpires to decide

"By the way, I ought to let you know I'll keep bowling until all the wickets are gone" - Andrew Flintoff to Andrew Strauss today.

Rob I wrote:

Combined side so far:

Johann (c)
Kabbage
Ponting
Clarke
Wobbles
North
Haddin (marginally more karp keeper but he has got lots of runs)
Fred
Swannee
Siddle
Hilf?

Dunno why you've put a question mark against Hilf - he's been Australia's best bowler by a mile.