• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

The Ashes 1st Test

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ak47 @ Jul 13 2009, 04:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
Yesterday, was deadest blatant – and laughable, Monty wouldn't even know your entitled to a new set of gloves when you see fit…

Its how you do it…..and for England to come out with new gloves, when monty hadn't put the 1st set on yet, is a joke…its almost as though England were advertising and letting it known to all 'we want to slow it down'

Monty could have butted down some cracks moved the sidescreen a bit, called for centre, and maybe pull out of a delivery…..there is no need to the 12th man to get involved….you can slow it down on the field, but when you use someone off the field you better have good reason as to why they are coming on.

Aussies lost it playing Mitchell Johnson with new ball whom never found his mark the whole TEST……its another case of poor captaincy on behalf of ponting, then the dumb Tasmanian decides to bowl M North to get through the overs (ie bowl more balls to the tail, get wickets eventually mentality)…stupid move, quality balls get wickets, M North is a part timer, the quality in his bowling is rare, should have stuck with Hilfy/Siddle and Hauritz.

Anyway the stage is set for another cracker of a series, and my sleep patterns are all farked[/b]

England just blatantly and rather bumblingly did something that Australia have done many times. When sneakiness isn't your strong suit (it obviously isn't for England), then you can end up looking too obvious.

Thats Englands crime, not being sneaky enough in following the conventions of being sneaky.

Maybe Ponting could put out a sneakiness handbook and then the other captains could read it and then get their sneaky etiquette up to Australian satisfaction?
 
its stupid when its so obvious, even the commentators (english) said themselves

'noor need for this blatant delay' - That english bloke with the thick thick northern accent

all nations do it, and have done for decades - some captains like to make it obvious, maybe to frustrate the opposition, some captains do it in disguise to escape purist scrutiny of 'not in the spirit of the game'

Cricket is one for the few sports left, where the spirit still exists.

Unlike soccer, the world biggest sport, which is plagued by divers, bullshit artists and cheats, taking advantage of the flaws in the rules.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ak47 @ Jul 13 2009, 06:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
its stupid when its so obvious, even the commentators (english) said themselves

'noor need for this blatant delay' - That english bloke with the thick thick northern accent

all nations do it, and have done for decades - some captains like to make it obvious, maybe to frustrate the opposition, some captains do it in disguise to escape purist scrutiny of 'not in the spirit of the game'

Cricket is one for the few sports left, where the spirit still exists.

Unlike soccer, the world biggest sport, which is plagued by divers, bullshit artists and cheats, taking advantage of the flaws in the rules.[/b]

Yeah, I do agree that other teams would've done it so much more efficiently and less obviously. Australia would've brought out the gloves and iced a sore wrist or something significantly cleverer. They also would've scattered the interruptions a little better over the last 2-3 wickets and not in the last 7-8 overs. At the end of the day, they'd do most of those things to save a test, just in a way which would maintain the idea of the game being played in the spirit.

I mean, I'm sure Ponting didn't mean to be caught signalling to bowl at the bodies of the english.
 
last ball of the day a good decade ago
warny and healy have a chat for a good 3 mins
put the batsmen off big time delaying the game
bowls him between his legs with an amazing leg break that turn at right angles - and later says his discussion with healy was to bowl him between or around the legs
it terrified batsmen all over the world,
after his retirement it was later admitted, warny was just discussing what they were haaving for dinner, pasta or steak
i love thse little mind games in cricket, and i dont dis what england did, but to do it twice (repeat gloves)was laughable, atleast come out the 2nd time with a new bat or maybe a runner :p
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ak47 @ Jul 13 2009, 08:24 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
last ball of the day a good decade ago
warny and healy have a chat for a good 3 mins
put the batsmen off big time delaying the game
bowls him between his legs with an amazing leg break that turn at right angles - and later says his discussion with healy was to bowl him between or around the legs
it terrified batsmen all over the world,
after his retirement it was later admitted, warny was just discussing what they were haaving for dinner, pasta or steak
i love thse little mind games in cricket, and i dont dis what england did, but to do it twice (repeat gloves)was laughable, atleast come out the 2nd time with a new bat or maybe a runner :p[/b]

Cricket wouldn't be the same without mind games, true. I'd heard that Warney/Heals story and it's a classic. Totally agree, Englands tactics are fine, they just need to create the illusion of reality a hell of a lot better.

Where are these english supporters anyhow?
 
I admit that bringing on extra gloves etc was poor and not in the spirit of the game, but for anyone to claim Australia wouldn't use similar tactics and would have 'lost in noble fashion' is absolutely laughable. I don't even need to mention the 'underarm' incident to show that if any nation has set a precedant for 'win at all costs' mentality, it is not England.

I won't condone it from England, but I also think it's a bit rich claiming you guys wouldn't have done the exact same thing, albeit in perhaps more subtle fashion.
 
Funny thread. I cant believe anyone is actually talking about that bit at all.

Australia had close to 40 minutes to get either of the last two guys out and failed to do it. England slowing down the run rate is a minor issue. I'd be looking at why the ball wasnt given to one of the faster guy to bang it in at them. Spin to the tail end? Even Andersen himself admitted that he was happy to see that.

That said Australia deserved to win but as happens quite a bit in England, the weather took the result away from them. Unlucky, but thems the breaks.
 
Well I have agree with you, Logorrhea, for a change, but thats Ricky Ponting. As capable of good sportsmanship as any captain and will take the credit for being that type of guy gladly. As soon as it comes to acknowledging that he's ever done anything contentious however, he rather not talk about it. Then as soon as another team "plays hard" as he puts it when Australia does it, it's well worth discussing and he'll be keen to bring it up at any post match press conference.

I guess looking like George Bush's illegitimate offspring must get to him sometimes, so he needs to vent.
 
Typical poms getting so f***ing excited about a draw. Miserable excuse of a country.
 
Seems the Australians are quite angry about it all


Did The Poms Cheat?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
The short answer to the question is obviously “yesâ€. Not just because I’ve had four hours sleep. Not just because there’s a foot-shaped hole in our plasma television. Not just because, after retiring at 3.50am, I spent the next hour starting at the ceiling, going through the several stages of grief at this shocking non-result, moving from disappointed resignation, to intense sorrow, to where we are now - seething anger.

The inventors of cricket experiment with a 13-a-side formation.The inventors of cricket experiment with a 13-a-side formation.

The question “Did the Poms cheat?†was perhaps put most succintly by mate Steve, watching the game online in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, who inquired via text message in the final few overs this morning: “WHY IS THERE A MEMBER OF AL QAEDA HOLDING A F***ING GLOVE AND A FAT POM IN A TRACKSUIT OUT IN THE MIDDLE?†It’s a fair if offensively-crafted question, and one which is now on every Australian mind, none more so than Ricky Ponting.

Ponting has a bit of explaining to do. Talk about snatching defeat (OK, it was a draw, but it feels like a defeat to us) from the yawning jaws of victory. His decision to persist with Mitchell Johnson when he seemed to be aiming not at the stumps but square leg, and to bring on trundler Marcus North in the crucial final overs, will be the subject of valid scrutiny whatever his heroics with the bat.

But he’s absolutely within his rights to question the not-one-but-two appearances made on the ground in the final overs by 12th man Bilal Shafayat, holding a pair of gloves as a prop, and English physiotherapist Steve McCaig, who clearly keeps the team in shape by eating all the pies.

Ponting rightly queried why a bloke who’d been batting for less than an hour (James Anderson) and his partner (Monty Panesar) who’d been in for all of two overs would need any attention from the physio at all. In fact all McCaig did was pat Anderson on the backside when he came out, prompting the commentators on Fox Sports Three to quip: “Well, that’s made a lot of difference.â€

“I don’t think it was required, he (Anderson) changed (gloves) the over before,†Ponting said.

“I don’t think they’d be too sweaty in one over. I’m not sure what the physio was doing out there, I didn’t see anyone call for the physio to come out, as far as I’m concerned, it was pretty ordinary really.

“But they can play whatever way they want to play. We came to play by the rules and the spirit of the game, it’s up to them to do what they want to do.â€

You can read Ponting’s full account here.

In trying to defend his tactics, England captain Andrew Strauss rabbited on about how Anderson had spilt some gatorade on his glove, clearly a life or death situation. But with one comment he unwittingly admitted he was playing silly buggers.

“Our intentions were good. We weren’t out there to waste a huge amount of time,†he said.

That’s precisely the point. England didn’t need to waste a huge amount of time. Just enough time to get them to the 6.50pm cut-off, which they did.

It’s unclear whether any members of this team will receive knighthoods, they are already being hailed by the Brits as heroes.

Sadly that’s the only thing we Aussies can take out of this game - a bit of juvenile teasing of the Poms for celebrating a game they didn’t actually win, and which we should have.

Anyway I’m going to bed. And Steve, good luck fixing your laptop.[/b]

how incredibly racist
 
Australian Whine, their finest export. I wonder perhaps if 2009 will be of the same vintage as 2005. Or for that matter, 2003 & 2007.
 
LOL, the english calling us whingers..... well we learn from the best in the business, the motherland :)
 
The Australians do seem to have a strong sense of "conviction" about this, don't they? ;)
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (C A Iversen @ Jul 14 2009, 11:42 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
The Australians do seem to have a strong sense of "conviction" about this, don't they? ;)[/b]
Dude you are from New Zealand, don't ever make another joke again.
 
Lote Tuqiri should make the code change to Cricket, while Andrew Symonds comes to Union.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Woldog @ Jul 14 2009, 01:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
Lote Tuqiri should make the code change to Cricket, while Andrew Symonds comes to Union.[/b]

Or they could split a bottle of spirits under a bridge somewhere.
 
It's an interesting mindset where a nation will be celebrating a draw, I'm glad it's something we haven't really slipped into.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Teh Mite @ Jul 14 2009, 12:40 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
Australian Whine, their finest export. I wonder perhaps if 2009 will be of the same vintage as 2005. Or for that matter, 2003 & 2007.[/b]

Well considering our win/loss ratio against England allows little room for the sour grape, you better savour such a rare vintage.
 
I think it's great to see such feeling between the two sides so early in the series, can't wait for the next test, should be a cracker as well.
 

Latest posts

Top