3rd Test thread Aus v Pak in Tassie

[aneale]

I agree with Butt both times there was no run even in a ODI

Rubbish, that was appalling piece of cricket both times. Mike Gatting would have made it both times.

The first was the most disgraceful piece of running i've seen in years, if I was Yousuf i'd have kept running and pushed Butt out of the crease past him, he certainly had time, leaving Butt out, given he gave up half way down completing the second run.

The second one, any U13 kid would have made that run because they would have been in the right position, once again his mate is half way down, turns around and then makes it for about an inch. Even if he ran with Hauritz in the way he'd have made it, rather than what he did.

 

[jo172]

Of course, if you're willing to make sweeping character assessments on such weak evidence you can hardly complain when others have made assessments on your own character as a result.

Pathetic response. The equivalent to when Graham Cornes tells anyone who hasn't played AFL football to STFU.

I don't like cheating, I don't like unfufilled agression, both of which many members of the Australian team carry in spades.

Even if I was wrong, the idea that I'm not allowed to carry petty dislikes into this particular sporting arena is insane considering it's acceptable in apparently all others.

 

[Southerntakeover]

Pathetic response. The equivalent to when Graham Cornes tells anyone who hasn't played AFL football to STFU.

I don't like cheating, I don't like unfufilled agression, both of which many members of the Australian team carry in spades.

Even if I was wrong, the idea that I'm not allowed to carry petty dislikes into this particular sporting arena is insane considering it's acceptable in apparently all others.

No, its not like that at all. Perhaps you shouldnt be throwing the pathetic tag around, you've done the best job of living up to that particular label yourself lately.

You can think whatever you want, and like or dislike whatever you want. You're free to make your assessments. Just as others are free to make their assessments of a man who decides to throw the race card loosely around to try and justify their petty dislike of a number of sports people.

Personally i think it was pissweak.

 

[jo172]

No, its not like that at all. Perhaps you shouldnt be throwing the pathetic tag around, you've done the best job of living up to that particular label yourself lately.

You can think whatever you want, and like or dislike whatever you want. You're free to make your assessments. Just as others are free to make their assessments of a man who decides to throw the race card loosely around to try and justify their petty dislike of a number of sports people.

Personally i think it was pissweak.

And I think it's pissweak to make attacks on other posters over their opinions but hey, that's just me.

 

[Southerntakeover]

And I think it's pissweak to make attacks on other posters over their opinions but hey, that's just me.

So personal attacks are fine as long as the other person has no right of response?

Howzat?



Look Jo, i like you most the time, but if you post something thats crap, im going to call it crap.

 

[birdmanptr]

Not true in either case...

Yousuf: The 3rd run was always there, or it should have been if Butt had got his butt into gear. They would have made it easily. Any Australian who ran the first two that slowly wouldn't be playing the next test match.

Akmal: The run was definitely there - Akmal had time to run 2/3 of the way up the pitch, turn around and run all the way back - only to be caught short by 2-3cm. If Butt had been backing up properly he would have made it easily.

Rubbish, that was appalling piece of cricket both times. Mike Gatting would have made it both times.

The first was the most disgraceful piece of running i've seen in years, if I was Yousuf i'd have kept running and pushed Butt out of the crease past him, he certainly had time, leaving Butt out, given he gave up half way down completing the second run.

The second one, any U13 kid would have made that run because they would have been in the right position, once again his mate is half way down, turns around and then makes it for about an inch. Even if he ran with Hauritz in the way he'd have made it, rather than what he did.

The way i see it

The first one was Butts call for the 3rd run as he was looking at player and ball and the Skipper was running away from fielder and Ball.If they were involved in some frantic run chase then there was a 3rd run but not in the situation they were in.

The second one Hauritz got in Butts way he would not have made it the only thing he did wrong there was maybe not call loud enough as was said Butt was not standing in the correct spot but given where he was standing for mine no run

 

[Punchy Bassett]

Katich the destroyer! Pakis collapsing again!

 

[birdmanptr]

Katich the destroyer! Pakis collapsing again!

Cant remember a worse tail end

Dont think Garner,Holding Roberts and co were much but i always thought they threw their wicket away so they could get out and bowl again

 

[RoosterLad]

Katich is a superstar.

 

[aneale]

The way i see it

The first one was Butts call for the 3rd run as he was looking at player and ball and the Skipper was running away from fielder and Ball.If they were involved in some frantic run chase then there was a 3rd run but not in the situation they were in.

The second one Hauritz got in Butts way he would not have made it the only thing he did wrong there was maybe not call loud enough as was said Butt was not standing in the correct spot but given where he was standing for mine no run

the skipper was running towards the ball and fielder given Butt was lollygagging at half pace, it's always Yousuf's call given the ball is going to his end, it only went to the keeper after Mitchell looked up and realised Yousuf was half way down. Poor cricket is poor cricket regardless of their situation. That is a classic example of why they always lose, no urgency, don't see the value of turning over the strike due to their attitude. Their batsmen are all 4 hitters who don't look for scoring opportunities. Australia has taken quick singles for 25 years, there is no coincidence that it coincides with it's most prolific period of wins.

Butt shouldn't have been standing in the crease, another example of why they are losers, show some intent and back up. He should never have been behind Hauritz in the first place. You can go out and watch junior district cricket and not see that rubbish. That was a trot through easy run.

 

[birdmanptr]

We lead by 218

Watson out for 1

 

[jo172]

How do people rate the ethics of not walking for caught behinds now that there's a review system in place which is going to catch you out most of the time?

Seems like a pretty quick way to gain a reputation to me especially when you go around the world trying to sell an agenda on taking the filder's word for catches.

 

[birdmanptr]

How do people rate the ethics of not walking for caught behinds now that there's a review system in place which is going to catch you out most of the time?

Seems like a pretty quick way to gain a reputation to me especially when you go around the world trying to sell an agenda on taking the filder's word for catches.

Before the review system I would have been a walker now with all this technology no way would I walk

That's why I have no respect for Strauss after his 4th rate effort claiming that catch of Hughes

 

[ams4crows]

If you're talking about the ponting dismasal hell it barely touched him he probably didn't even realise! the bowler only appealed after the Wicketkeeper kinda asked the question...... and why Walk when you know there's a review coming you may not actually be out!

 

[jo172]

Before the review system I would have been a walker now with all this technology no way would I walk

I don't understand, why would you not walk once the likelihood of you "being able to get away with it" decreases but walk when you may have gotten away with it?

If you're talking about the ponting dismasal hell it barely touched him he probably didn't even realise! the bowler only appealed after the Wicketkeeper kinda asked the question...... and why Walk when you know there's a review coming you may not actually be out!

Please, you always know.

In my opinion it's probably more of a question of old habits dying hard.

 

[Punchy Bassett]

How do people rate the ethics of not walking for caught behinds now that there's a review system in place which is going to catch you out most of the time?

Seems like a pretty quick way to gain a reputation to me especially when you go around the world trying to sell an agenda on taking the filder's word for catches.

I don't understand, why would you not walk once the likelihood of you "being able to get away with it" decreases but walk when you may have gotten away with it?

Go and do some research on the latest England South Africa test match and Graeme Smith.

 

[jo172]

Go and do some research on the latest England South Africa test match and Graeme Smith.

So you're saying you shouldn't walk just in case the third umpire ****s it up a la Aamer to Ponting?

Probably fair, and I suppose you don't look more like a bad sport than what you did before the review system in the eyes of anyone watching on TV anymore.

 

[aneale]

Please, you always know.

In my opinion it's probably more of a question of old habits dying hard.

Crap, anyone who says that knows nothing and has never played the game. I took a divot out of the pitch at Kensi one day and had no idea I hit, 3rd slip was pretty aware of the fact tho'.

hot spot barely picked up anything which would suggest it was that faint on the glove it could easily have not been felt.

I wouldn't walk, make them give you out, the referral and technology pretty much shows that 9/10 the umpire gets in right anyway.

 

[aneale]

So you're saying you shouldn't walk just in case the third umpire ****s it up a la Aamer to Ponting?

Probably fair, and I suppose you don't look more like a bad sport than what you did before the review system in the eyes of anyone watching on TV anymore.

he didn't **** that up, it was clearly past the bat when the noise was made, hot spot showed nothing and snicko proved the noise wasn't a 'wood' sound by the 'fingerprint' it left.

 

[jo172]

he didn't **** that up, it was clearly past the bat when the noise was made, hot spot showed nothing and snicko proved the noise wasn't a 'wood' sound by the 'fingerprint' it left.

Disagree and hotspot is unreliable similar to snicko.

 

[birdmanptr]

I don't understand, why would you not walk once the likelihood of you "being able to get away with it" decreases but walk when you may have gotten away with it?
.

I suppose it does sound a bit strange but with all this help they have now to get these decisions right make technology a judge you out i personally would not feel at all bad if i did snick it and hot spot was inconclusive.

 

[aneale]

Disagree and hotspot is unreliable similar to snicko.

disagree all you like, you're still wrong. with snicko and hotspot excluded, the ball was still 3 inches past the bat when the noise was made looking at all the replays. Doesn't take a genius to realise it's come from either the handle of the bat (which happens) or Ponting's feet (which is right by the stump mike as opposed to Aamer bowling 4ft away from the off stump) which in this case was probably it. The umpire got it right, the technology supported it and the referral ump made the obvious decision. There was no **** up at all, the Paki's knew it wasn't out.

 

[Punchy Bassett]

So you're saying you shouldn't walk just in case the third umpire ****s it up a la Aamer to Ponting?

Probably fair, and I suppose you don't look more like a bad sport than what you did before the review system in the eyes of anyone watching on TV anymore.

Was simply pointing out as this appears another subtle dig on your behalf against Ponting, that there are plenty of other players that do not walk. In fact 99.9% of them don't.

As for bad sportsmanship, please the walking argument has been dead and buried for decades now in cricket, it is a full time professional sport. Going by your logic Tom Hawkins should have said to the umpires in the GF oh you know what that shot of mine hit the post.

 

[ams4crows]

Adam Gilchrist onced walked when he wasn't actually out! so yeah sometimes you think you've hit it and you haven't, other times you have hit it and you don't think you have!

 

[jo172]

Was simply pointing out as this appears another subtle dig on your behalf against Ponting, that there are plenty of other players that do not walk. In fact 99.9% of them don't.

And I was wondering whether it'll increase now that if you're out it's going to get found out eventually so the incentive for having your sportsmanship questioned is no longer as great.

As for bad sportsmanship, please the walking argument has been dead and buried for decades now in cricket, it is a full time professional sport. Going by your logic Tom Hawkins should have said to the umpires in the GF oh you know what that shot of mine hit the post.

No, my logic does not suggest that all sports share the same ethical codes. What's acceptable in UFC is different to boxing is different to football is different to golf is different to cricket. It's courses for horses.

What I'm pointing out is that Ricky Ponting has for the best part of 5 years advocated a fielders honour system in relation to the taking of low catches but is not a walker (as you rightfully point out he is in a nearly total majority there.) My point is I don't see how honour can be demanded of fielders whilst not being a walker. But it's possible I'm just a frustrated bowler.

Adam Gilchrist onced walked when he wasn't actually out! so yeah sometimes you think you've hit it and you haven't, other times you have hit it and you don't think you have!

I read his book last week (including a rather tedious 5 chapters on walking) and he never brings this up. I must say that makes me skeptical as to the veracity of that claim.