Way to play in the spirit of the game, Ricky!!

welcome to my confused world smerfy!!!

Get a room you two . . .

1. Slow over rates are shit ...but the ICC obviously doesn't care too much or otherwise Bowden and Rauf would have been telling Ricky to hurry up ...maybe you should fire them an email Trev

2. Ricky mentions the "Spirit of Cricket" because some PR farqwit at CA has told him to ...not because he believes in it or actually thinks he follows it

3. Games can only go to 30 minutes past the scheduled stumps time because of TV scheduling

I was away from the PC for most of the first day's play and wanted to come on here to give Ponting a serve for his ridiculously slow over rate.

I was pretty worked up about it while watching the game with a tinnie in my hand at 3 in the morning.

As has been evident from other threads, I couldn't give a toss what he said at Cardiff. But I do give a toss when we play for 6 and a 1/2 hours in perfect conditions and still fall four overs short of the MINIMUM number required for the day.

The ICC should have banned him for a test after Nagpur and should ban him for a test after this effort.

But will they do it? No. Players and spectators will continue to be short-changed while the nongs on the ICC do nothing but play their fiddles.

DJ_Smerk wrote:Listen Horace, I admire every forummer in this place. Even the people who want rid of me. I love being here, no matter how festive that sounds. It's great and I will not argue.



It has nothing to do with my nationality, but I will be here all the time, even with who people don't like it. I don't mean to offend.

A simple f*ck off Horrie, you bitter old qunt normaly suffices....

A Mudge sooking thread - what a surprise.

The ICC should have banned him for a test after Nagpur and should ban him for a test after this effort.

But will they do it? No. Players and spectators will continue to be short-changed while the nongs on the ICC do nothing but play their fiddles.

Captains need to be accountable for this fundamental responsibility. Fines are not a universal deterent so it needs to be runs or a suspension. I'd go with suspension first. I'd be happy to see chronic offenders like the Tasmanian moron cop two or three matches.

Sage.

You guys really wouldn't mind if your best batsman is forced to sit out a few tests?

Henry wrote:You guys really wouldn't mind if your best batsman is forced to sit out a few tests?

What has Pup to do with this?

Aus did bowl 90 overs. Probably more. Just so happened that 20-odd extra balls had to be bowled as they were no-balls/wides

Aye, in balls bowled Danny, it may have been 90 overs -but that's not really the point.

I'll forget the 3 wides and just use the 18 no balls. 3 illegal overs which rightly scored us a run a ball (Aus' problem, not ours - they bowled 'em). Point is, had they bowled the full 90 overs on time as well as the nb's, it's not fantasy to think we may have picked up another 20 runs and been 350 odd.

As it happens it probably won't make much difference - but if it was us needing just the draw rather than the win, those extra runs may have been vital.

Maybe. It's all conjecture though. There were an inordinate amount of boundaries for the runs scored, coupled to the extra balls and you've got a not-so-bad OR of 13. Considering every team around the world does similar or sometimes worse, it's very much got Chas' 'Nothing to see here' comment stamped all over it in fluorescent 128pt writing.

True about the conjecture bit.

I think we must agree to differ on the subject of acceptable over rates. I still think every team slowing the rate down doesn't make it right, and that the ICC should either deal severely with offending captains - else do away with any requirements at all.

What's the debate all about. The rate was piss poor. Penalise them.

Out of curiosity - what do the posters who aren't too fussed about over rates consider to be acceptable?

Danny says a "not too bad" O/R of 13.

The reason I ask is - if 12/hour was the accepted norm, and a side as yesterday bowls 20 odd wides/nbs - should they be required to still bowl the legal bowls to the rate?

No, I didn't mean that just because everyone else is doing it that it's OK. I was more on about the thread being started about it.

Growler wrote:Out of curiosity - what do the posters who aren't too fussed about over rates consider to be acceptable?

Danny says a "not too bad" O/R of 13.

The reason I ask is - if 12/hour was the accepted norm, and a side as yesterday bowls 20 odd wides/nbs - should they be required to still bowl the legal bowls to the rate?

I don't think it is too bad in lieu of the boundaries, wickets and extras.

I think the 6.30 cut-off mark is pointless. If the conditions are still good, get as many overs as you can in.

NP Dan.

Thread being started - simple of course ...... it's a legitimate subject to debate on a cricket forum - even if it has been done to death before.

Growler wrote:NP Dan.

Thread being started - simple of course ...... it's a legitimate subject to debate on a cricket forum - even if it has been done to death before.

Aye, but in reality it was another Trev instigated Aussie beat-up I don't mind, I was just pointing it out.

Someone said clock cut-off is due to telly.

Well sorry, but telly shouldn't dictate time of play. There are circumstances where programmes are put back. If they can't be- well while its hard cheese on the viewer - the paying spectator should get his full days play if the light and weather allow the overs to be bowled.

Growler wrote:Someone said clock cut-off is due to telly.

Well sorry, but telly shouldn't dictate time of play. There are circumstances where programmes are put back. If they can't be- well while its hard cheese on the viewer - the paying spectator should get his full days play if the light and weather allow the overs to be bowled.

Oh, definitely. As if Sky wouldn't stay with it anyway - they have so many times before - even with domestic OD stuff. Fools.

Anything up and beyond 14 for me is fair enough, what with the length of run-ups, idiots in the crowd, 4 runs scored, wickets taken etc...

Add to that if a side have a stinker and bowl an extra 3 overs as yesterday, thats fairly hard work. Yes spectators lose out, but I would rather see more quality in player and play than see a full 90 overs of rushed cricket and inferior bowlers due to other ones not having time to recover potentially.

Anything under 13 though is shocking and they should get smacked around the head with a massive bat.

holcs wrote:Anything up and beyond 14 for me is fair enough, what with the length of run-ups, idiots in the crowd, 4 runs scored, wickets taken etc...

Add to that if a side have a stinker and bowl an extra 3 overs as yesterday, thats fairly hard work. Yes spectators lose out, but I would rather see more quality in player and play than see a full 90 overs of rushed cricket and inferior bowlers due to other ones not having time to recover potentially.

Anything under 13 though is shocking and they should get smacked around the head with a massive bat.

Chas - if, as I assume from your comment, you enjoyed the 86 overs bowled yesterday as "quality" ... can't understand your reasoning regarding another mere 4 (FOUR) overs to complete the 90/day being 'rushed' (with inferior bowlers ??? ) ... can't see your point mate !

As a spectator I'd feel "robbed" if 4 overs of the allocated 90 hadn't been bowled - EVEN IN the extended half hour.
It's bollocks - whether Aus, England, WIndies - whoever - it is bollocks.
Fine the offence.

In Ponting's case however, it grates because (a) he is a serial offender, (b) he gets away with it and (c) he goes off on pious spirit of cricket sermons that are frankly laughable ... THERE's the rub.

Merlin wrote:

holcs wrote:Anything up and beyond 14 for me is fair enough, what with the length of run-ups, idiots in the crowd, 4 runs scored, wickets taken etc...

Add to that if a side have a stinker and bowl an extra 3 overs as yesterday, thats fairly hard work. Yes spectators lose out, but I would rather see more quality in player and play than see a full 90 overs of rushed cricket and inferior bowlers due to other ones not having time to recover potentially.

Anything under 13 though is shocking and they should get smacked around the head with a massive bat.

Chas - if, as I assume from your comment, you enjoyed the 86 overs bowled yesterday as "quality" ... can't understand your reasoning regarding another mere 4 (FOUR) overs to complete the 90/day being 'rushed' (with inferior bowlers ??? ) ... can't see your point mate !

As a spectator I'd feel "robbed" if 4 overs of the allocated 90 hadn't been bowled - EVEN IN the extended half hour.
It's bollocks - whether Aus, England, WIndies - whoever - it is bollocks.
Fine the offence.

In Ponting's case however, it grates because (a) he is a serial offender, (b) he gets away with it and (c) he goes off on pious spirit of cricket sermons that are frankly laughable ... THERE's the rub.

Merls was talking in general, not about yesterday. The lack of overs in a day comes down to the fact that quicks have longer run-ups etc etc etc..

Their recovery time would be less over a full test, even series if they bowled quicker etc.. so I would rather in the grand scheme of things 13 overs an hour and the best bowlers out there than otherwise. I understand what I am saying is pure speculation however!

Meh, lets be fair most Aussies don't quite get the spirit of cricket thing anyway. You and I have played with enough of them to know that. Take it with a pinch of salt, and then thwack him massively when he properly farks up is the best way. This just looks a bit petty really!

Its not his fault he gets away with it is it?!