Cricket | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • 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

Phantom said:
Why is the Kiwi captain making comments about Australian batsmen?

The article should be printed, laminated and stuck to the door of Hughes' locker.

I can remember Tony Greig making comments in 1976 about making the West Indies grovel.
The WIndies won 4-0 and it was England who grovelled, as I recall.
.
Click to expand...
I assume he made the comments either because he is stupid for the reasons you point out or he doesn't rate Hughes ability to stop nicking them to the slips .
I agree that its not normally very smart for a captain to be commenting on opposition players.
 
Good game at the MCG...with one ball to Qld needed 2 runs and Victoria 1 wicket to win. A single was scored so it was a draw with scores level!
 
Watched the last 15 minutes online. Amazing finish. Both teams threw it away.

Not sure why Qld didnt deliberately run themselves out going for the 2nd run off the final ball. Cost both teams 3 extra points.
 
Lavy you should know by now every state in Australia will cut off its nose to spite Victoria.

Except NSW. It has two noses and snubs them both.
 
Leysy Days said:
Watched the last 15 minutes online. Amazing finish. Both teams threw it away.

Not sure why Qld didnt deliberately run themselves out going for the 2nd run off the final ball. Cost both teams 3 extra points.
Click to expand...

Not really. Victoria get two anyway don't they (for the first innings lead)?
But still, if Qld had just gone for the second run, all they risk is giving Victoria one extra point for getting three more themselves. And they might have also pressured the Vics into fumbling the runout so Qld might have won anyway. They couldn't have lost because they already had the first run.
I think when Qld review the last ball they will realise they should have gone for it. Then again if the run was 100% suicide there might have been claims of match-fixing.
 
Yeah it would have been 100% suicide 159.

The points from the match were

Vics 2 Qld 0

If they went for the last run it would have been

Vics 5 Qld 3
 
Interesting ... look at this site: http://www.espncricinfo.com/sheffield-shield-2011/engine/series/527821.html?view=pointstable

According to that it would have been 3-3 if they had gone for the last run and been run out. But I suspect (iv) and (v) are not explicit enough or do not describe what they really mean.

"(v) For a first innings lead (to be retained even if beaten outright) 2"

Surely if you retain the first innings points for an outright loss you should retain them for a tie ?!? The way those points are listed the notion of "retaining" first innings points only makes any sense if you otherwise get none - but here you would get another 3. The question is are the 2 included in the 3 for a tie, and from these rules it's not obvious. I suspect you are right leysy but that ain't what the rules state!

As usual, some professional sports admininstrators have not thought it through.

Either that or CricInfo have got it wrong.
 
I hadn't seen the full replay of the Sunday morning session of the Test match and they just showed it on Fox sports .
Pattinson was very impressive , that was lethal fast bowling. In his first 4 overs nothing was less than 140kmh and he got it up to 148.
Lightning quick outswingers to the right handers. The only bowler I have seen bowling that sort of stuff in recent years is Jimmy Anderson at his best.
We certainly have a couple of massive young talents in him and Cummins.
 
Leysy Days said:
Yeah it would have been 100% suicide 159.

The points from the match were

Vics 2 Qld 0

If they went for the last run it would have been

Vics 5 Qld 3
Click to expand...
23.21.159 said:
Interesting ... look at this site: http://www.espncricinfo.com/sheffield-shield-2011/engine/series/527821.html?view=pointstable

According to that it would have been 3-3 if they had gone for the last run and been run out. But I suspect (iv) and (v) are not explicit enough or do not describe what they really mean.

"(v) For a first innings lead (to be retained even if beaten outright) 2"

Surely if you retain the first innings points for an outright loss you should retain them for a tie ?!? The way those points are listed the notion of "retaining" first innings points only makes any sense if you otherwise get none - but here you would get another 3. The question is are the 2 included in the 3 for a tie, and from these rules it's not obvious. I suspect you are right leysy but that ain't what the rules state!

As usual, some professional sports admininstrators have not thought it through.

Either that or CricInfo have got it wrong.
Click to expand...

Definitely only 3 each following the Cricinfo rules. Point (iv) looks pretty clear cut to me. So yes, Queensland definitely should have run, risking no points for themselves to gain 3, with a risk of giving only 1 extra point to one team, that obviously being the Vics.
 
Sintiger said:
I hadn't seen the full replay of the Sunday morning session of the Test match and they just showed it on Fox sports .
Pattinson was very impressive , that was lethal fast bowling. In his first 4 overs nothing was less than 140kmh and he got it up to 148.
Lightning quick outswingers to the right handers. The only bowler I have seen bowling that sort of stuff in recent years is Jimmy Anderson at his best.
We certainly have a couple of massive young talents in him and Cummins.
Click to expand...

Exactly Sin. Bowlers bowling at pace and swinging the ball late are bloody difficult to play against, no matter who the batsmen are. Pattinson made Siddle's straight up and down, short of a length stuff look ordinary.

I would include Dale Steyn with Jimmy Anderson as the two most dangerous quick bowlers in the world who swing it at pace. If Cummins and/or Pattinson can get to their level over time, then we will have a very potent attack.
 
23.21.159 said:
Interesting ... look at this site: http://www.espncricinfo.com/sheffield-shield-2011/engine/series/527821.html?view=pointstable

According to that it would have been 3-3 if they had gone for the last run and been run out. But I suspect (iv) and (v) are not explicit enough or do not describe what they really mean.

"(v) For a first innings lead (to be retained even if beaten outright) 2"

Surely if you retain the first innings points for an outright loss you should retain them for a tie ?!? The way those points are listed the notion of "retaining" first innings points only makes any sense if you otherwise get none - but here you would get another 3. The question is are the 2 included in the 3 for a tie, and from these rules it's not obvious. I suspect you are right leysy but that ain't what the rules state!

As usual, some professional sports admininstrators have not thought it through.

Either that or CricInfo have got it wrong.
Click to expand...

jb03 said:
Definitely only 3 each following the Cricinfo rules. Point (iv) looks pretty clear cut to me. So yes, Queensland definitely should have run, risking no points for themselves to gain 3, with a risk of giving only 1 extra point to one team, that obviously being the Vics.
Click to expand...

Sorry lads, leysy stands corrected. Doesnt make a lot of sense to leysy but both teams would have finished on 3 pts in total as you both said.

Boof Lehmann said he told the incoming batsman who came in to face the final ball what to do.

Just goes to show the old maxim is correct. The lowest common intellectual denominator on the planet are fast bowlers.
 
Just been announced Pat Cummins will be out of action to mid January.Follow up scans on his heel is worse than first detected.
 
CptJonno2Madcow2005 said:
Just been announced Pat Cummins will be out of action to mid January.Follow up scans on his heel is worse than first detected.
Click to expand...

And just announced he will be chasing the big bucks in the IPL......
 
Leysy Days said:
Just goes to show the old maxim is correct. The lowest common intellectual denominator on the planet are fast bowlers.
Click to expand...

... but they still get the girls (Thommo, Shoab, Imran, Curtley...)
 
Punxsutawney Phil said:
I would include Dale Steyn with Jimmy Anderson as the two most dangerous quick bowlers in the world who swing it at pace. If Cummins and/or Pattinson can get to their level over time, then we will have a very potent attack.
Click to expand...
Yes you are right . Forgot about Steyn .
 
Gutted we won't get to see Cummins rattle a few ageing Indian cages on Boxing Day, maybe not at all. Hope he gets back for Perth. Jan 13-17 so probably not.
 
Interesting "whatever happened to" article for those of us old enough to remember:

http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/541421.html?addata=col_mod
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
< Lowlife of the week award. | NFL & NCAA Football Threads >
Top Bottom