BS: Anyone for cricket?

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone for cricket?
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 25 Aug 03 - 12:27 PM

I tried cricket once. Not too bad if sauteed in garlic butter and served on a bed of brown rice with a dash of good soy sauce.

(My apologies if anybody else had already posted something similar, but I'm not gonna read this whole thread just to find out.)

Bruce

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone for cricket?
From: ard mhacha
Date: 25 Aug 03 - 09:16 AM

Ah God help us, beaten again, what England needs is another ten Fred Flintoffs, as it is they have too many Fred Flintsones. Ard Mhacha.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone for cricket?
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 25 Aug 03 - 06:54 AM

Oh well, it didn't last long today. SA won by a huge margin in the end but I can't help England once again contributed to thier own downfall.

For me, going off for bad light when England were batting well and SA were in disarray was a key point. Our sloppy bowling on the 4th day (which was described by Ian Smith, one of the C 4 commentaters, as "garbage") was another.

I suppose one could also wonder about England not finishing SA off when they were 7 down but for me, that more highlights the way SA will fight when the chips are down - a quality England rarely seem to possess.

As I said before in this thread, I don't believe the difference between the 2 sides is vast. I still believe that in terms of talent. It just needs England to play to what they are capable of.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone for cricket?
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 24 Aug 03 - 08:38 PM

Just thinking more on the sport/uk tv bit and the BBC. It's a few years ago since BBC2 used to show the Sunday league cricket but BBC2 used to split. The Welsh version would almost always have a Glamorgan game on. As I indicated above, I could get all 4 English and all 4 Welsh channels. In reality, with the cricket, that for me could mean trying to sort out which game I thought was the more exciting and at times switching between both.

Anyway, hope you have a good day Fionn. Butcher seemed in good touch today and there may be a chance of some "fireworks" from Flintoff... I don't think we are going to pull the victory off but one never knows...

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone for cricket?
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 24 Aug 03 - 08:00 PM

Just a fiver to get into Headingley tomorrow, and free for under 16s. I think I'm up for that, even if it's just in the hope of seeing a few more overs of Flintoff in full swing.

Ard, if you could set aside your prejudice for a moment and accept that in percentage terms the principality of Wales is a tiny part of the BBC's viewing public, you might notice a much more significant factor governing sports coverage. The channels are blatant about promoting via the news those events for which they have the rights. Thus in terms of news coverage, both Formula 1 and test-match cricket have been hugely downgraded by the BBC in recent years. On the other hand the BBC has been much more ready than ITN to give news coverage to the athletics.

Unfortunately this bias is not confined to sport. ITN thinks nothing of running blatant "news trailers" for so-caled exclusives on the Tonight show. The BBC are equally shameless about plugging Panorama etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone for cricket?
From: Arnie
Date: 24 Aug 03 - 01:43 PM

Come on Freddy Flintoff - your country is depending on you!! Oh, and maybe Butcher will stick around for a while to make up for his missed catches........

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone for cricket?
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 24 Aug 03 - 09:25 AM

Oh well today has not gone the way I thought it would. I think all Ed's optimism is needed now!

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone for cricket?
From: Wotcha
Date: 24 Aug 03 - 07:39 AM

Cricket Explained (www.jokes.net/cricketexplained.htm)

Old schoolboy classic:


All you need to know about cricket:


You have two sides one out in the field and one in .
Each man that's in the side that's in goes out and when he's out he comes in and the next man goes in until he's out .

When they are all out the side that's out comes in and the side that's been in goes out and tries to get those coming in out .

Sometimes you get men still in and not out .

When both sides have been in and out including the not outs , THAT'S THE END OF THE GAME !

HOWZAT !!!!!


Cheers,

Brian

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone for cricket?
From: Wotcha
Date: 24 Aug 03 - 07:33 AM

One side is in when the other side is out ...

You can find a local game of cricket close to the Washington, DC Mall (by the Lincoln Memorial) every Sunday in the summer (expat Pakistanis and Indians I believe). You can also find a club in San Diego, California ...

Cheers,


Brian

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone for cricket?
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 23 Aug 03 - 09:13 PM

SA 199 ahead and 5 wickets in hand. If the rest fall for say another 50 runs, I think we have an interesting match on...

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone for cricket?
From: ard mhacha
Date: 23 Aug 03 - 03:29 PM

Fionn, Why do you persist, next time you view the BBC News at ten, be alert for the newscaster half-way through announce what is coming up in the second half of the News, and yes, England`s victory over Crotia was the leading sports feature.
And South Africa are looking good 250 will take some getting on this wicket. Ard Mhacha.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone for cricket?
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 23 Aug 03 - 10:01 AM

I didn't understand our first bad light decision at all...

As for this celebrity bit, I walked away from the BBC 6 o-clock news in disgust a few months ago. By then, they had dedicated at least the first 5 minutes of main news reporting to the story about Beckham's possible move to Barcelona.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone for cricket?
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 23 Aug 03 - 09:10 AM

Pathetic to see England walking off the field for "bad light" when they were clearly on top of indifferent bowling from the Pollockless SA. When they resumed they had to settle in all over again - and lost two quick wickets.

Ard, sounds like you were watching ITN. There is no "halfway" point in the main BBC news. Incidentally if the BBC's sport slot had led off with England (which, I repeat, it did not) there would have been a case for that, to the extent that about 95 per cent of viewers would have been more interested in that than the Wales game.

As for running a trailer of the Beckham goal, that would have had nothing to do with the England you hate so much, and everything to do with the cult of celebrity, which has become a worldwide idiocy. (Did you happen to see any coverage of Beckham in China?) And this is a guy who will struggle to keep a first-team place with his club side.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone for cricket?
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Aug 03 - 07:55 AM

I can't comment on the TV last night but overall, I think I would be inclined to agree with ard in that perhaps England do tend to get priority in coverage to the other countries in the UK. I don't think that Wales does too badly though and they do have thier own S4C instead of the regular channel 4.

That said, I used to get annoyed with coverage when I lived in Wales. It seemed to need something like a murder to get coverage in North Wales where as something trivial happening in Cardiff could get covered. I often used to think that the BBC North West and Granada were better than the Welsh equivilants for North Wales (we could recive them all in the Llandudno area).

Anyway, back to the cricket 342 - a good score in the end I think.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone for cricket?
From: ard mhacha
Date: 22 Aug 03 - 06:34 AM

Fionn, I know what I was watching and if you remember the ladycaster at the halway point gave us a glimpse of what was to follow, and I saw the great Beckham hammering in his penalty,and no mention of the Welsh game.
The second half of the News may have started with the Welsh game but no mention earlier.
But why do I explain, BBC and ITV will always give prominence to English sport, after all although we Celts pay our licence, we have to take second place to the majority, haven`t seen, for a time, the late Bobby Moore holding aloft the World Cup and our `enry left-hooking Clay, but they will be back. Ard Mhacha.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone for cricket?
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 21 Aug 03 - 05:28 PM

Ard, I beg to differ. I saw the main BBC TV News last night (BBC1, 10pm, Wednesday) and when it came to the football, the Wales game was top of the bill, followed by Scotland's, with England's third and last.

Though this was as it should have been, I must admit I was a little surprised. During the first two match reports I wondered if the England game was going to follow the news, in which case when the presenter turned to the England game I was expecting her to say "If you don't want to know the score, look away now." But no, the match did not follow - the Beeb must have simply reported on Wales first because it was the most significant match. I don't know what you were watching or hearing but it wasn't the BBCTV national news.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone for cricket?
From: Ed.
Date: 21 Aug 03 - 04:06 PM

L E G Ames and G O B Allen

Les Ames and 'Gubby' Allen. Two names which evoke the romance of cricket for me. Ames, because he was the greatest wicketkeeper in the world from his era, and Allen because my dad once met him.

My dad had no idea who he was (they shared a taxi) but 'Gubby' was apparently most unimpressed at the lack of recognition!

Ard,

Support whoever you wish. I have to say that I find the "anyone but England" attitude somewhat tiresome, but each to their own I guess.

Regarding the current match: it's excellently poised. The best test cricket illustrates the ebb and flow of fortunes between two well matched teams. I think that this could become a wonderful match. Glad that it's a Bank holiday weekend

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone for cricket?
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 21 Aug 03 - 02:39 PM

An excellent stand and I believe it is a record for Headingly. They would have a long way to go to beat the record for any 8th wicket partnership in 1st class cricket. According to my 2001 copy of Wisden, the highest ever was 433.

The highest I can find for a test match is a partnership of 313 between Wasim Akram and Saqlain Mushtaq - Pakistan v Zimbabwe 1996-97.

The highest I can find involving England is one of 246 between L E G Ames and G O B Allen - England v New Zealand 1931.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone for cricket?
From: Mark Cohen
Date: 21 Aug 03 - 02:17 PM

Well, that's all well and good, but nothing will top Jim Bunning's perfect game in 1964. So there!

Aloha,
Mark

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone for cricket?
From: ard mhacha
Date: 21 Aug 03 - 01:28 PM

Emerging from the sand I find an impossible turnaround, records shattered by Kirsten and young Zondeki, the best ever 8th wicket partnership of 119 and counting.
Yes it was all of 21 years ago and Botham was one of the pair that made the previous best 8th wicket stand of 109, the game is wide open again, 260 and counting for the Bucs.
Yes that scandal involving a great cricketer Cronge damaged South African cricket, they have certainly emerged again as a force in World cricket, and be fair, I am their only supporter on this Thread.
Ard Mhacha.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone for cricket?
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 21 Aug 03 - 07:52 AM

Yes, old "beefy" at his best was brilliant. I'm still uneasy about that test though. The bets placed by Rod Marsh and Denniss Lillee were a disgrace.

Thinking again on the SA cheat that Fionn had mentioned, has anyone else read anything about speculation that he was murdered? One article here

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone for cricket?
From: ard mhacha
Date: 21 Aug 03 - 07:31 AM

Jon, You can take my word on this,when Botham did the impossible in that fantastic game against Austraila some twenty odd years ago, I had a few Quid on England, and well, I had to cheer old fat guts on , he was brilliant.
Was their ever a better all-round feat.

I am away to hide, South Africa won the toss on Headingly`s green grassy slope and they wouldn`t listen to me telling them to put England in, and now they are 59 for 4.
But to-morrow may find things equal, oh for Pollock. Ard Mhacha.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone for cricket?
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 21 Aug 03 - 06:55 AM

Ard, what troubles me is that you seem to be letting your feelings influence your judgement on a game of cricket and I really don't see the need for it. I am English and I support my own country in sports but that does not mean I'm proud of or support every action ever made by our country - I'm not/I don't.

Where abouts in Ireland are you? A few years ago I had some very happy times (just a few day trips/and one weekend) in Dublin - sessions in Hughes in particular as well as a wonderful week in Kildare. One day maybe I'll make the West Coast. I also fancy Belfast one day. I've never been North but I've heard good reports...

Jon

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone for cricket?
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 21 Aug 03 - 06:21 AM

Oh and one other comment Mark. When you watch a game of cricket on the tv, one of the first things they do before any play starts is to go out and show you/talk about the wicket (the strip the bowlers bowl on and the batsmen bat on) and try to predict how it will behave.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone for cricket?
From: ard mhacha
Date: 21 Aug 03 - 06:17 AM

Ed, I lived in England through the 50s and 60s and believe me I met English people that I would have trusted my life on, great friends who I still keep in touch with.
My gripe as it always has been is with the English media and government, they make the most prejudiced seem reasonable, just a liitle sample and I only have to go to last nights BBC News, Wales had an important European Championship game in Belgrade, of course headlined was a nothing friendly between England and Crotia, this is a common theme.
This gripe may seem trivial to anyone but an English sports fan, this a common theme, the Scots and Welsh I have met also voice this criticism.
And who ever heard of an Irishman [yes not Scottish] being interested in Cricket, Ed boy just open the other eye and ear and listen to Lloyd and Atherton[dirty balls] and tell me if they are fair. Ard Mhacha.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone for cricket?
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 21 Aug 03 - 06:07 AM

No Mark, only one person seems to be suggesting that may have been the case at Trent Bridge.

Pictches can be prepared to suit the strengths of the home side. I can't claim to remotely understand the technicalities but, say in India, you might expect a ground to take a lot of spin, in England maybe a nice wicket for seamers (you land the ball on the seam and instead of bouncing off straight, it moves a little to one side or other), etc.

In situations like the Trent Bridge one, it is a huge advantage to bat first. The pitch was dry and developing cracks which get worse as time goes on. The result of such a pitch is that it becomes very unpredictable. One ball may bounce and reach the batsman say at hip height and the next one that is bowled at around the same speed and appears to land at more or less the same spot could bounce and reach the batsman at ankle height. If you consider the ball could be travelling between say 80-90mph, the batsman has little time (fraction of a second) to react to the ball that does something strange.

A good start for England today - SA 10 for 2 as I type.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone for cricket?
From: Mark Cohen
Date: 21 Aug 03 - 05:43 AM

Careful, friends, this discussion is sinking almost to the depths of the ones about George Bush and Iraq...except I can't understand this one at all! Are you folks saying that people deliberately sabotage the playing field to help their chances? How is that possible? Don't both teams play on the same field? I'm obviously missing something here.

Aloha,
Mark

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone for cricket?
From: GUEST,Elfcall
Date: 21 Aug 03 - 03:59 AM

Arnie

Technically, we have a Lanky in charge who plays for Yorkshire.

Elfcall

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone for cricket?
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 20 Aug 03 - 05:26 PM

Yep, dropped catches have proved costly and there have been some bad ones. At that level, I would expect to see every reasonable chance taken as well as the occasional "1/2 chance".

Still, I feel England did seem a lot more focused in the last test.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone for cricket?
From: Ed.
Date: 20 Aug 03 - 05:03 PM

ard mhacha,

I apologise if I'm misrepresenting you here, but almost everyting that you've said appears to be anti English.

If hating England helps you define yourself as a Scot, I can only feel sorry for you.

If you can't back up your comments with much more than "a few letters on ceefax agreed with me", I stop feeling sorry for you, and begin to pity you.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone for cricket?
From: ard mhacha
Date: 20 Aug 03 - 04:46 PM

I am not the only one who believed that the lousy wicket helped England, read your papers and hear what the South African Captain had to say regarding the Wicket.
I listened to his comments on Radio 5 live and he wasn`t at all pleased, and also a few of the letters on Ceefax were of the same opinion. Ard Mhacha.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone for cricket?
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 20 Aug 03 - 04:43 PM

England are inferior at least to the extent that their hopeless fielding allowed Graeme Smith to go into the Trent Bridge Test with an absurd average of about 202. He's not bad, and may one day be in the league of Lara and Co, but he would have scored only a small fraction of his runs haul if catches had been held. I'm backing England to follow up the Trent Bridge win with another at Headingley, just as in the last home series against SA. After which... I'll be hedging my bets.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone for cricket?
From: Arnie
Date: 20 Aug 03 - 04:42 PM

I've just got back from Corfu and have seen the pitch mentioned above. Corfu was a British protectorate during much of the 1800's and cricket is a legacy of that era. So is ginger beer! The pitch is pretty small and the residents must fear for their windows and cars when a boundary is hit. However, the ginger beer is brewed locally and tastes like it used to in the UK when I was a kid....I'd love to have seen a match but with the temperature in the 40's that must some feat - for the spectators as well as the players! Anyway, Headingley tomorrow and with a Yorkie in charge we could just be in luck.....

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone for cricket?
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 20 Aug 03 - 03:38 PM

"Why did the Groundsman get it so wrong?"

That is an interesting question. As I indicated above, I feel that the poor pitch was a side effect of this summer where UK record temperatures have been reached - I can't see any groundsman willfully putting a pich like that out and I would also assume the guy has some experience.

Quite why he felt that it would be an advantage to bat second, particularly when just about everyone else rightly felt the pitch would get worse, is a mystery.

As for the next test, I'll probably be proved wrong but even though I say I feel SA are the stronger side, I quite fancy our chances at Headingly.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone for cricket?
From: GUEST,Ed
Date: 20 Aug 03 - 02:33 PM

"Ploughed Field", "Doctored Pitch". Come on! Unless you think that we fiendisly fixed the toss as well, it would have been of no advantage to us.

England are not a much inferior side to South Africa (how quickly the one day series has been forgotten). I really hope South Africa win the toss tomorrow, then there'll be no excuse if we win.

Although I'm sure you'll think of something...

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone for cricket?
From: ard mhacha
Date: 20 Aug 03 - 02:23 PM

Why did the Groundsman get it so wrong?, he was very incompetent or a liar. Ard Mhacha.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone for cricket?
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 20 Aug 03 - 02:14 PM

Hmm, I don't think there was any question over the wicket at Trent Bridge being "doctored". It was just a very bad wicket, presumably as a result of the exceptional weather we have had. Preparing a type of wicket that may suit our bowlers is one thing but preparing a wicket that is going to fall apart is another - unless of course you had a means of influencing the toss to ensure you batted first.

As for "much inferior side", I'm not convinced. I do think that SA are a stronger side than England but I don't think the difference is that vast, at least not if England play at thier best.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone for cricket?
From: ard mhacha
Date: 20 Aug 03 - 08:02 AM

I also seen the Groundsman being interviewed and he was adamant about the wicket holding out, he was wrong of course, and as Fionn said he wasn`t questioned again.
And please Teribus no long winded comments on the prepared wicket, it is obvious to anyone who has the slightest knowledge of Cricket, that the state of the wicket resulted in a much inferior side winning the lottery.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone for cricket?
From: Hrothgar
Date: 20 Aug 03 - 04:38 AM

That pitch at Old Trafford was doctored more than most ..........

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone for cricket?
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 19 Aug 03 - 01:56 PM

If my mermory serves me correctly, Atherton's comments the other day were along the lines that he never believed in walking and the it was the umpires job to decide. It seemed that Donald was pretty annoyed at the time of the match...

I am one of the ones who likes to think players will walk when they know they are out but I feel sure that is an unrealistic expectation in a tough professional game.

The "dust in the pocket" one caused me some amusement at the time. If I remember right, it didn't seem too long (a year?) after everyone was branding Pakistan as cheats and there we go... our "lilly white" captain gets caught red handed on camera!

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone for cricket?
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 19 Aug 03 - 10:05 AM

Interviewed on the pitch before the game, the Trent Bridge groundsman said he'd advise whever won the toss to bowl first as the wicket would play better on the second day. According to a TV report last night, he has now "gone to ground." (Where else would he go?)

Jon, I'd have been interested to see Atherton and Donald on C4. I've never liked Atherton's "means justify the ends" attitude (remember that ball-tampering episode?) but I have a lot of respect for Donald. Their confrontation was my first experience of a test match where everything was replayed to spectators in slow motion on giant screens. Atherton was plainly out, except in the umpire's judgment, so everyone understood exactly what was going on. The following day Stewart came in to bat with England needing about 50 to win and Atherton needing about six for his century. Stewart was in the form of his life, and Donald seemed to have lost his menace from the previous evening. Athers was reduced to a spectator as Stewart knocked off the most of the runs for victory, and was stuck on 98 not out at the end. Rough justice, I thought.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone for cricket?
From: Beardy
Date: 19 Aug 03 - 07:47 AM

Re Trent Bridge's 'ploughed field', considering the pitch played up on Thursday morning and the Test lasted until lunch on the last day with Boucher making 52 I think its rather an uncharitable description. Also the leading wicket taker in the country, James Kirtley, exploited the conditions superbly on his debut for 6-34.

I think conditions more in favour of England at Headingly but the quick flat strip at the Oval could favour SA batsmen.

Stewart

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone for cricket?
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Aug 03 - 02:03 AM

Ard Mhacha - Re Test Wickets and some of your comments on them

"on a doctored wicket at Old Trafford"

"The wicket at Headingly won`t be like the ploughed field at Trent Bridge, the South African Captain wasn`t too pleased, which resulted in the game being a lottery."

It is the "home sides" perogative to prepare test wickets to their advantage. Test grounds are selected and the Captain of the home side tells the head groundsman exactly how he wants that test wicket to be prepared for that test. Sometimes it comes off, sometimes not, particularly in England due to the weather. It is not "cheating", it is no part of any diabolical "Brit" plot - It is allowed - It is part of the game - It is done the world over where cricket is played.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone for cricket?
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Aug 03 - 05:13 PM

I think there is some justification in suggesting that with the pitch as it was, winning the toss was quite an advantage.

That said, England still had to get the runs in the first innings and I thought they batted really well. I also thought they bowled well and overall looked a very different side to the ones we witnessed in the first 2 tests.

It's a shame Sean Pollock will miss Headingly as I would have liked to see SA at full strength up there. There again, England probably have more injury worries with Harmison...

Jon

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone for cricket?
From: ard mhacha
Date: 18 Aug 03 - 01:42 PM

Micca, The wicket at Headingly won`t be like the ploughed field at Trent Bridge, the South African Captain wasn`t too pleased, which resulted in the game being a lottery. Ard Mhacha.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone for cricket?
From: Micca
Date: 18 Aug 03 - 10:57 AM

Well, How about that!! England beat them to level the series and SA are without Pollock at Headingly!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone for cricket?
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 17 Aug 03 - 07:07 PM

Now Donald v Atherton was a classic. Did you see the recent (this series) bit on the C4 coverage where they both were together and talked about it?

For my favourite all time "stylish" batting rather than the (at times) Viv Richard belt every ball out of the park for 6, I think I would go for Mark Waugh at his best.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone for cricket?
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 17 Aug 03 - 06:11 PM

Ed, having been at Trent Bridge on Thursday I can assure you that Hussain's ton, welcome though it was, was hugely eclipsed by Butcher's. When Butcher is flowing, it's almost as fine a spectacle as when Stewart on the top of his form (very rare is these days).

Such moments make cricket a joy to behold in a way that,for me, baseball could never match. Neither does baseball have much opportunity for the overt person-to-person menace that can creep into cricket, as it did for instance with the Donald v Atherton hostilities the last time England played SA at Trent Bridge.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone for cricket?
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 17 Aug 03 - 04:18 PM

We toyed with the idea of going (I reckon on about 3hrs from Cromer) but decided against.

It will be interesting to see how it goes tommorrow. I'd favour England but I think it's too early to write SA off.

It's been a good game for changes of fortune.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone for cricket?
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Aug 03 - 03:32 PM

Free tickets at Trent Bridge tomorrow (Mon) - what a bargain!! Pity I'm over 200 miles away and can't make it. Just hope England don't snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.....