![]() |
|
|
#1 (permalink) |
|
Mrs Pilkington
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: You can't make someone love you! All you can do is stalk them and hope they panic and give in!
Posts: 19,693
|
ENG v RSA 2nd Test...
I know there's already a thread but I'm hoping my old thread starting magic powers will kick in again and get us out of this hole Rams' thread has dug us into.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3 (permalink) |
|
Mrs Pilkington
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: You can't make someone love you! All you can do is stalk them and hope they panic and give in!
Posts: 19,693
|
ARGH! Cricket is supposed to provide me with a respite from seething at my television but that's what I ended up doing yet again yesterday.
Umpires aren't allowed to use replays to see if a ball has brushed bat and not trouser leg (something it can clear up in an instant) but they are allowed to use it to see if a ball has been grounded (something it only confuses more)? Madness! And bloody Smith and Nel telling Amla to go back after he's been given out officially? Who put them in charge? ARGH! |
|
|
|
|
|
#4 (permalink) | |
|
Pooper Trooper
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 12,021
|
Quote:
![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#6 (permalink) | |
|
El Presidente - Voted best poster 2007
![]() Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Number 17. (Laura's got a cellulite arse). RIP Jermaine Stewart.
Posts: 26,903
|
Quote:
A precedent was set when Pietersen was sent back against India at Lords(I think it was Lords). So we can't cry foul, that'd be uber hypocritically. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#7 (permalink) | |
|
The
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 19,043
|
Quote:
Either way, just because England may have benefitted before, doesn't make it right. They need to clear this up, as GG says, why not refer a decision like Cooks where he clearly didn't touch the ball? When an umpire gives a player out, that should be the end of it Looking at the Vaughan catch, one angle appears to show the ball bouncing, another seems to show his fingers wrapped underneath the ball. The camera technology isn't good enough to decide these matters yet The real disgrace of yesterday anyway was De Villiers. He got a lovely reception as he walked out to bat today. Sometimes with these things you have your eyes closed, or can genuinely think you've caught the ball when you haven't. The ball bloody fell out of one hand and was caught (barely) with the other. We're meant to take peoples word for it regarding catches, how can you when there are cheats like this operating in the game ![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#8 (permalink) |
|
El Presidente - Voted best poster 2007
![]() Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Number 17. (Laura's got a cellulite arse). RIP Jermaine Stewart.
Posts: 26,903
|
Vaughan's catch looked uncaught from every angle I've seen. It was clearly not out. And to be fair, Bell also had one of those 'I'm not sure it was out' moments. So, I reckon we're being very hypocritical here. Both sides have been as bad as each other.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#10 (permalink) |
|
El Presidente - Voted best poster 2007
![]() Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Number 17. (Laura's got a cellulite arse). RIP Jermaine Stewart.
Posts: 26,903
|
When they clearly aren't underneath the ball. And as for sportsmanship and cheating. . .Collingwood sure played his part, in that one-dayer against New Zealand. I hate it. . . it's cricket for fuck's sake. As I said, for everything they've done, England have been just as guilty. I'd ban players for cheating and unsportsmanlike conduct(for a few matches).
|
|
|
|
|
|
#11 (permalink) |
|
Mrs Pilkington
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: You can't make someone love you! All you can do is stalk them and hope they panic and give in!
Posts: 19,693
|
I read today that DeVilliers wasn't sure about his catch and suggested they look at it but his teammates surrounded him to shut him up basically. Don't know if that's true.
And as for Vaughan's catch, there's no way he could have known for sure himself since his head was up and his eyes were probably closed but from the way he reacted he definitely felt he had it and so did Bowden who was only a few feet away. It was only looked at after the RSA dressing room complained. If Bowden's word was final on the Collingwood/Cook dismissals, why wasn't it in this case? Even the guys on TMS this morning having viewed it several times concluded it was out. And as for Bell's catch. He wasn't sure he had it so he shrugged his shoulders meaning "look at it again" but the RSA team were still bleating on about it saying he should've owned up straight away. So we can't win apparently. Well, it's all irrelevent I suppose seeing as our batting and the bowling hasn't been good enough but these one sided bad decisions don't seem to be doing us any small favours. I think Bowden still hates us after the Collingwood/Sidebottom run out. |
|
|
|
|
|
#12 (permalink) |
|
The
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 19,043
|
The ball after, when Bowden gave a no-ball when Flintoffs foot was plenty well on the line if not just behind it, was a very interesting decision indeed. It was a late call, personally I think he ducked the decision of whether Anwar had gloved it to the keeper down leg side or not
|
|
|
|
|
|
#13 (permalink) |
|
El Presidente - Voted best poster 2007
![]() Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Number 17. (Laura's got a cellulite arse). RIP Jermaine Stewart.
Posts: 26,903
|
Apparently DeVilliers reckons he wasn't sure. . .I think Smith and the others started celebrating. I'll have to look it at it again, though. And I don't think Bowden hates anyone. Not sure who gave Amala (sp) out, but he got a very bad decision. It looked as if it was going down leg side from the naked eye. Many players throughout history have claimed catches that simply didn't carry, but you can;t get way with it anymore. There are too many cameras. And our batting has been awful, and that's really the reason why SA look as if they're going to win. Too many loose shots, symptomatic of 20/20 and the 50 overs game. Also, you have to say, that most wickets around the world are very flat and lifeless, get most players on a pitch that may offer a little, and you see them struggle.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#15 (permalink) |
|
The
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 19,043
|
England started brilliant; but eventually it became evident English bowlers are unable to take 20 Safrican wickets in a match, and we're now going through the long slow process of losing the series heavily
|
|
|
|
|
|
#16 (permalink) |
|
Mrs Pilkington
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: You can't make someone love you! All you can do is stalk them and hope they panic and give in!
Posts: 19,693
|
Yeah, the Saffies have paid God to make it cloudy when we bat, sunny when you bat and Billy Bowden even more mental than he was before.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#19 (permalink) |
|
The
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 19,043
|
I always said Jimmy could bat a bit. He's a very harsh 11th man usually
It's sun all the way for the rest of this test now. We won't because we're England and we eventually throw our wickets away, but there should be no reason why we can't dig in until the afternoon session of tomorrow, having seen what the Safricans can do with the bat, and the lack of cloud cover. With the runs we'll have scored in that time, might just be enough to get out of jail I reckon Cook needs to bat at least until tea, and that we can only afford to lose Jimmys wicket by then. If we keep it to no worse than 4 down at the end of play, its game (or rather draw) on. Possibly |
|
|
|
|
|
#27 (permalink) | |
|
Mrs Pilkington
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: You can't make someone love you! All you can do is stalk them and hope they panic and give in!
Posts: 19,693
|
Quote:
Mockers? Jimmy was our MOM for me. Bowled well with little luck and batted like a trooper. Even took a blow to the head for his troubles. Broad may also have saved his skin at the end there. Very brave stuff. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#29 (permalink) |
|
Mrs Pilkington
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: You can't make someone love you! All you can do is stalk them and hope they panic and give in!
Posts: 19,693
|
Operation: Straw Clutch
Ok so yeah they effectively beat us by an innings...but if you look at the actual scorecard, apart from Prince's 149 and De Villiers' 174 no other RSA batsman made more than 44.
So tecnically, if you discount those two...the top scoring batsmen were Cook and Broad. I feel better now. |
|
|
|