Cricket Discussion - Part 1

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bumbles talking haircuts in the expensive part of London was a good laugh. But I agree 91 pounds is a bit much. Stokes looking good. I have been a fan of his since I saw him played in the Adelaide test in December 2013. Cook is boring to watch this morning.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

RussellEbertHandball said:
Bumbles talking haircuts in the expensive part of London was a good laugh. But I agree 91 pounds is a bit much. Stokes looking good. I have been a fan of his since I saw him played in the Adelaide test in December 2013. Cook is boring to watch this morning.
Click to expand...
Cook may be boring, but he's still there, and has obviously set himself to bat through the innings. If he does, the Poms may get to 300+.

I really wish Warner was as boring as Cook at times!!!
 
You're not a NSW keeper if you don't claim one that's hit the ground ;). To be fair Peter Nevill wouldn't have known.
 
Australia would have to force the follow-on if given the chance.

An innings win would give the Australians a massive psychological edge going into Edgbaston.

For me, the best form of attack is more attack and not enforcing the follow-on is silly pusillanimity.
 
Listening to the 3rd umpire go through the motions of the review is going to get real old real quick.

Delicious delivery from Hazlewood, nipping back half-way up middle stump.

Do these bowlers have the legs to back up for the follow on? Here's hoping
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

From here 500 in front with five sessions to play seems a reasonable target with only the weather likely to save the Poms.

Hopefully this wicket hasn't been 'doctored' and will deteriorate as the match progresses.

It was good to see Michael Clarke win a toss in England. I am pretty sure he lost 3 out of 5 last series in England. The side batting first seems to have a huge advantage in England and that usually means winning the toss.
 
News flash- Ken KG Cunningham has announced that he will seek election to the SACA Board.

Cunningham has openly expressed his dismay in the direction that South Australian cricket has taken over the years. He has been particularly critical of the Grade Cricket scene, it's size and standard and SA's inability to produce Test players. I have to say some of KG's criticisms of the SACA over the years have been near the mark. My only reservation is that despite his public comment Cunningham, who is now 75, is very much old school tie as far as the establishment is concerned and he may not rock the boat if elected. There are three spots up for grabs so hopefully Cunningham will have a couple of decent running mates who see the need to change.

It has seemed to me for a while that the SACA needs change at the very top before anything happens.
 
Whilst the umpiring has been generally pretty good how the heck can Steve Smith still be given out on the video review and Moeen Ali not out by the field umpire?

Smith already had made 215 so it wasn't a big deal but if a coat of varnish on the ball had smudged hitting him in line with the stumps it was being generous and still there was no hesitation in giving him.

The ball that denied Lyon the wicket of Ali was clearly hitting the stumps, the umpire's decision call might have been there on review and that's the rule but a lot of that ball seemed to be hitting leg stump. Mark Taylor did bang on about it too much but on that deck the bowlers deserved a bit of benefit of doubt from the field umpire. There was no doubt the ball would hit the stump just how much of it. It's not given out leg before enough of the wicket.

Anyway terrific bowling display with attacking fields by Australia on a deck giving nothing as shown by Warner and Rogers carving it up again in the second dig.
 
Ford Fairlane said:
Whilst the umpiring has been generally pretty good how the heck can Steve Smith still be given out on the video review and Moeen Ali not out by the field umpire?

Smith already had made 215 so it wasn't a big deal but if a coat of varnish on the ball had smudged hitting him in line with the stumps it was being generous and still there was no hesitation in giving him.

The ball that denied Lyon the wicket of Ali was clearly hitting the stumps, the umpire's decision call might have been there on review and that's the rule but a lot of that ball seemed to be hitting leg stump. Mark Taylor did bang on about it too much but on that deck the bowlers deserved a bit of benefit of doubt from the field umpire. There was no doubt the ball would hit the stump just how much of it. It's not given out leg before enough of the wicket.

Anyway terrific bowling display with attacking fields by Australia on a deck giving nothing as shown by Warner and Rogers carving it up again in the second dig.
Click to expand...
DRS: Dharmasena Requires Spectacles :)
 
Seanybruz said:
I only just got home after grabbing something to eat & didn't even see what happened, what's wrong with him?
Click to expand...
He was hit in the head by Anderson's first ball on day 2. There's some suggestion that he's still suffering some residual effects from the blow. I say we let him sit out the rest of the match, so he can be ready for the Third Test.
 
Lol Steve Smith got out to Ali trying to play him from the cover boundary. I think it's a competition in the Australian team.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

K
Opinion Jeremy Finlayson verdict broader discussion
2 3
Replies
71
Views
1K
Duckimus Prime
Duckimus Prime
Festerz
Corona virus and other pestilences. Poxes ‘n stuff. Part 6.
71 72 73 74 75
Replies
2K
Views
69K
OneGreatClub
OneGreatClub

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top