Cricket thread

[downesy]

Somewhat double standards. Trescothick wrote in his autobiography that he was responsible for keeping the shine on the ball and he used to suck mints to enhance the effect of the saliva. This was known by all the team at the time

Anyway, looks like a draw in this test

If that's the case with Trescothick then yes I will tar him with the same brush.
Sports is really simple you go out and be the best you can,the minute you try to enhance your performance illegally to my mind that's it your done.
I know everything is not black and white in life, but cheating is you are either a cheat or not .
I do agree @Grant Fondo he is a fantastic batter , which makes it even sadder he went down that path

 

[Grant Fondo]

If that's the case with Trescothick then yes I will tar him with the same brush.
Sports is really simple you go out and be the best you can,the minute you try to enhance your performance illegally to my mind that's it your done.
I know everything is not black and white in life, but cheating is you are either a cheat or not .
I do agree @Grant Fondo he is a fantastic batter , which makes it even sadder he went down that path

Yes he is such a good batsman he could deal with a badly roughed up ball. Good job Warner is off form at least?

 

[downesy]

[QUOTE="Grant Fondo, Yes he is such a good batsman he could deal with a badly roughed up ball.

True dat ;-)

 

[Dayvo]

England playing themselves into a losing position.

Had Anderson not been so 'keen' to play (by declaring himself match-fit), it all might have been so different.

 

[downesy]

Was just thinking that it's a pity could have give archer a shot, still suppose Jimmy has earned one bad call .

 

[Accy cyclist]

I was watching the test match highlights on a tv in a pub the other night. The sound was turned down so I couldn't hear why the umpires were having a two minute conversation about the new ball they were going to choose from a box. I think there were 4 balls in the box,which looked like it'd contained 6 balls. I have two questions. Firstly, why not just take any ball out. Why would brand new cricket balls be different from one another? and what were they looking for in their examination of each ball?

 

[Paulus]

I was watching the test match highlights on a tv in a pub the other night. The sound was turned down so I couldn't hear why the umpires were having a two minute conversation about the new ball they were going to choose from a box. I think there were 4 balls in the box,which looked like it'd contained 6 balls. I have two questions. Firstly, why not just take any ball out. Why would brand new cricket balls be different from one another? and what were they looking for in their examination of each ball?

They are looking to get a ball that is of a similar age and has done around the same amount of overs as the damaged ball to be replaced. As it happened they picked one that was in better condition and swung even more.

 

[Accy cyclist]

They are looking to get a ball that is of a similar age and has done around the same amount of overs as the damaged ball to be replaced. As it happened they picked one that was in better condition and swung even more.

Ah,so the balls in the box weren't new. That explains it.

 

[AndyRM]

 

[Beebo]

A draw is Englands only option, but batting for a draw is often harder than batting to score runs.
Burns is already out.

 

[Beebo]

England cruising to a crushing defeat!
It looked so good after day 3.
They need a plan for Steve Smith.

 

[philk56]

I haven't watched much of today's play but sounds like a horror show. Unless four hours rain is imminent can't see the point in sending out an injured Anderson to face a few balls and potentially make his injury worse. Think I'll have to avoid watching the sports news on tv over here for the next few days

 

[AndyRM]

I haven't watched much of today's play but sounds like a horror show. Unless four hours rain is imminent can't see the point in sending out an injured Anderson to face a few balls and potentially make his injury worse. Think I'll have to avoid watching the sports news on tv over here for the next few days

Everything was fine until Roy lost his head. Frustrating to have lost from 122/8, but I don't think it's the disaster it will be made out to be.

Neither side was particularly great, but Smith was the difference. A significant difference, but that was all it was.

 

[Dayvo]

And with that humiliating defeat go the Ashes back to Australia, I suspect.

Out-played in all departments, I'd imagine (following on cricbuzz, not TV). Apart from Anderson being replaced by, most likely, Archer (if he's fit), then I can't see anyone knocking on the door to get into the team for the 2nd Test.

The Aussies are on a high (winning the 1st Test of an Ashes encounter is a major confidence booster) and they, IMO, didn't play their best bowlers, what with Starc and Hazlewood sitting this game out.

I think Bairstow should be given a chance to open with Burns, Root at three. Not sure Denly's up to it (at Test level) but who else is there?

2nd Test at Lord's, which hasn't been a successful ground for England in Ashes Tests.

 

[philk56]

Everything was fine until Roy lost his head. Frustrating to have lost from 122/8, but I don't think it's the disaster it will be made out to be.

Neither side was particularly great, but Smith was the difference. A significant difference, but that was all it was.

Yes, if you take way Smith's runs we would have won! At least there is a bit of time before Lords to sort out a few issues and we hopefully won't be handicapped by being a bowler short for most of the game.