-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Cricket
- Thread starter mb64
- Start date
CC TIGER said:
Interesting question. They are bowling fantastic as a team this series. Usually one is on, one is solid and one is a bit off, of the quicks that is, Lyon always solid, and there's been a few pivottal sessions when they're all on. Hazlewood is my favourite, love him, lifts and bends his back when needed. Dunno if he's the best, but my favourite.
BTW how much credit must go to the selectors.
Weren't influenced by the common/popular selection (you only needed to look in here) but everything they touched has turned to gold.
S.Marsh ahead of Maxwell.
Paine ahead of everyone.
Bancroft ahead of Renshaw.
Then M.Marsh ahead of Handscomb.
Kudos needs to go out for all there selections being justified and all playing a big part in the series win.
Weren't influenced by the common/popular selection (you only needed to look in here) but everything they touched has turned to gold.
S.Marsh ahead of Maxwell.
Paine ahead of everyone.
Bancroft ahead of Renshaw.
Then M.Marsh ahead of Handscomb.
Kudos needs to go out for all there selections being justified and all playing a big part in the series win.
Happy we won, but have issues with the bowling to their tail enders, especially Anderson.
He is a rabbit and got hit with short pitched intimidatory bowling in the same way P Hughes was hit.
Unecessary and I think poor sportsmanship.
We have always been a team of front running bullies.
English team is weak and poor in our conditions. We are similar in theirs.
He is a rabbit and got hit with short pitched intimidatory bowling in the same way P Hughes was hit.
Unecessary and I think poor sportsmanship.
We have always been a team of front running bullies.
English team is weak and poor in our conditions. We are similar in theirs.
Tigers of Old said:
x3. they get bagged a lot, but the deserve a stack of credit to answer leysys question. they had a blinder.
pete and tys said:
Hughes was a specialist batsman, not a bunny. Its not bad sportsmanship. The quicks cleaning up the tail with intimidation and pace is standard fare. You can't go easy on the opposition, can't even contemplate it, the minute you do you're stuffed.
tigersnake said:
Point I was making is that Hughes, even though a specialist batter, was killed by the very same bowling dished up to a number 11, yet the Australian team mourns the loss of Hughes. Still happy to threaten a batter without the ability to cope safely.
No, I disagree with you. Not at all necessary to bowl that way to Anderson. He is a bunny and can be dismissed easily with normal bowling.
No worries on the disagreement. I just can't see how or where you can draw a line. Sport is dangerous, top level competitors push themselves to the limit, people get injured and sometimes die. If Cricket wasn't dangerous, it wouldn't be interesting.
Leysy Days said:
Renshaw, Maxwell and Handscomb are all finished. Especially Maxwell and Handscomb being with Victoria.
No, just not to deliberately intimidate and hit the bunnies of the tail.
I know it was to intimidate the opposition bowlers who could pose a threat, but it is unnecessarily dangerous when the batter can't bat.
The P Hughes reference is to demonstrate a two faced behaviour of his team mates.
I honestly do think it was dangerous for Anderson and don't understand why the umpire allows Cummins in particular to bowl that way repeatedly.
Remember the out cry in Oz when J Snow did that to T Jenner and smashed his face?
I know it was to intimidate the opposition bowlers who could pose a threat, but it is unnecessarily dangerous when the batter can't bat.
The P Hughes reference is to demonstrate a two faced behaviour of his team mates.
I honestly do think it was dangerous for Anderson and don't understand why the umpire allows Cummins in particular to bowl that way repeatedly.
Remember the out cry in Oz when J Snow did that to T Jenner and smashed his face?
pete and tys said:
There was a gentleman's agreement back in the day not to bowl short to tailenders, but no anymore. International cricketers are now professional sportsmen, and anyone who pads up in a test match is fair game.
Apart from the box, safety equipment was virtually non-existent in the Snow/Jenner days. Now every batsman is fully decked out, but it's not fool proof given the tragic Phil Hughes (RIP) incident. There is always going to be an element of risk when a hard object is hurled at you at 140kph+.
As a professional cricketer, maybe Anderson should have spent more time in the nets improving his batting?? He's only been playing test cricket for 14 years. We shouldn't bowl short at him because he's a lazy twat? Please.
Nico said:
Yeah.....Na.
You cannot teach a person who has no skill at batting to become a proficient batsman.
If it was that easy we would always have a team full of great batters.
It was poor sportsmanship and reflects badly on our team .
It was also dangerous and the umpires were weak and our players are hypocritical.
No amount of protection excuses the issue as Hughes death proved.
PS... Anderson was hit in the same area Hughes was......see the contusion on his neck .
The resultant rupture artery for Hughes can easily re occur.
Bottom line...unecessary and makes us look poor sports.
The resultant rupture artery for Hughes can easily re occur.
Bottom line...unecessary and makes us look poor sports.