Jump to content

My Ashes Rant


Geoff
 Share

Recommended Posts

As people know here, I'm not much of a cricket devotee. I watch what I can when I can, but I am not a follower and certainly don't claim to know a lot about the sport and it's cast.

 

But, I found out we're actually getting The Ashes on free-to-air TV here in Australia on SBS, so I've been watching what I can. I was quite happy to see the Aussies absolutely fucking hammer the Brits in the first 4 days of the first test. Four centuries in one innings was really quite a treat, scoring a total of 674 runs.

 

So Australia then declare having only lost 6 wickets, at 239 runs in front. I then witness the Brits get dismantled again in their batting attempts. They make 221 more runs for a total of 656 for their 2 innings. BUT, at the end of play yesterday the game is called a draw.

 

Now, call me a fucking fuckrat, but what the fuck is the meaning of this shit? This is a professionally run and "organised" event that has a result like this? "Civilized" men actually came together and decided on something so fucking obviously flawed?

 

Don't get me wrong - I'm not here to critisize the Brits for time-wasting or whatever - if you have such a fucked up game at your mercy, why not do all you can to expose it's weakness for your benefit? What I want to know, is how does something like this shit keep going? How can a team so vastly superior in every manner have to settle for a fucking draw? When in one single innings they got more runs than both of England's (albiet one incomplete) innings? Does common fucking sense have no place in this set-up? Is it not plain as fucked up day obvious that England were outplayed and deserved to be 1-0 down? Would I be ranting like this if the roles were reversed? Probably not, but I'd be thinking the same in my head and not cause conflict if I saw a Brit point this out. I think this is a fucking shameful way to run such a highly regarded sporting event.

 

I just despise shit that does not make sense.

 

End rant. Fuck The Ashes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 197
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

if they played until a result is achieved then the game could go for 10-12 days.

Just think... if they was no iurgency then all tema would just bat thru, ie the aussies would have never declared at 6-for. There are more reults in tests over the last 10 years than the 100 years combined before that. It makes teams have to attack knowing that they need a result within 5 days. It also gives a team the opportunity to break even, even when they are miles behind.

 

Maybe 50 overs or 20/20 are more your style geoff?

 

Maybe they can work on a % system, ie if the series is tied 2-2, then the result can be decided on who performed better in the drawn test(s).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As people know here, I'm not much of a cricket devotee. I watch what I can when I can, but I am not a follower and certainly don't claim to know a lot about the sport and it's cast.

 

But, I found out we're actually getting The Ashes on free-to-air TV here in Australia on SBS, so I've been watching what I can. I was quite happy to see the Aussies absolutely fucking hammer the Brits in the first 4 days of the first test. Four centuries in one innings was really quite a treat, scoring a total of 674 runs.

 

So Australia then declare having only lost 6 wickets, at 239 runs in front. I then witness the Brits get dismantled again in their batting attempts. They make 221 more runs for a total of 656 for their 2 innings. BUT, at the end of play yesterday the game is called a draw.

 

Now, call me a fucking fuckrat, but what the fuck is the meaning of this shit? This is a professionally run and "organised" event that has a result like this? "Civilized" men actually came together and decided on something so fucking obviously flawed?

 

Don't get me wrong - I'm not here to critisize the Brits for time-wasting or whatever - if you have such a fucked up game at your mercy, why not do all you can to expose it's weakness for your benefit? What I want to know, is how does something like this shit keep going? How can a team so vastly superior in every manner have to settle for a fucking draw? When in one single innings they got more runs than both of England's (albiet one incomplete) innings? Does common fucking sense have no place in this set-up? Is it not plain as fucked up day obvious that England were outplayed and deserved to be 1-0 down? Would I be ranting like this if the roles were reversed? Probably not, but I'd be thinking the same in my head and not cause conflict if I saw a Brit point this out. I think this is a fucking shameful way to run such a highly regarded sporting event.

 

I just despise shit that does not make sense.

 

End rant. Fuck The Ashes.

 

that's test cricket for you mate.........a complete and utter fucking waste of everyone's time. Always has been always will be.

 

20/20 is where its at.......an absolutely magnificent and exciting set up. The 20/20 World cup was excellent in every way shape and form......this is just boring drivvle.

 

End rant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well it's nice to see our boys bending the rules a little in order to get a result. It's what you Aussies have been doing for years, but that twat Ponting forgets that when he's moaning about our sportsmanship. He's an arrogant dick, and hopefully him and his team of knuckle-heads get what they deserve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bring back Dave, he is much better at this mate ;)

 

Obviously your not much of a cricket fan or devotee mate - All sports have rules - the game lasts 5 days and unfortunately we can't change it just for the Aussies, because they can't get out 2 poor tail end batsmen at the end of a game. If yours and anybody elses bowling 'attack' can't get 20 wickets in the game, then tough I am afraid. As Lindsay says, you can't just keep going until you want, as you'd be there for days and days in some cases. Cricket has been played like this for centuries, so complaining now about the rules is a bit pointless. I didn't hear any Aussies moaning when the same thing happened to them and they just managed a draw to keep them in the Ashes series back in 2005. Small memories some people have. It was a great end to the game on Sunday, nail biting stuff and great for all the spectators, which is what it is all about at the end of the day. Ponting made bad decisions in the final session by bowling part timer North, when he should have had his quicks on. Monty wouldn't have stood up to them, so more fool him for bad captaincy and his miserable face when the game ended.

The Aussies dominated the batting for sure and you have the better batting team by probably 30%, but the game I watched showed up the weakness of your bowling attack, especially on the first day when they were getting slogged about the pitch. Johnson was woeful throughout the match, Hauritz got creamed on the first day and really isn't very good at all, Siddle was line and length, but obvious (and needs to calm his mouth down a bit aswell, 'cos it will get filled with a Harmison or Flintoff ball if Harmie comes back on Thursday) and your only real danger was Hilfenhaus who bowled well, but because of the lack of swing and the flat pitch was less effective. You need the excellent Brett Lee back, although he hasn't exactly been firing recently. Englands bowling attack Anderson, Broad, Flintoff and spinner Swann are a way better, and when we get into a bouncy pitch and the ball is swinging and spinning around everywhere, we shall see what happens.

 

A little homework will reveal that these two teams are not that far apart as previous and certainly the Aussie aren't vastly superior, even if they like to think they are. All I heard yesterday from some of my aussie mates was - 'If we had had Warne and McGrath we would have won' - No shit sherlock - well you ain't got 'em anymore , which is why you aren't as good as you were. Your bowling attack seriously need them though that's for sure.

 

Anyway, series still tied, all to play for and roll on Thursday at the Home Of Cricket - where we haven't won for 70 years - That would be extra sweet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was a great end to the game on Sunday, nail biting stuff and great for all the spectators, which is what it is all about at the end of the day.

:lol: Yeah, real nail biting stuff. And so was washing my hair last night.

 

Thanks to Glen for picking up what I'm putting down. I know this is how it is/has been and always will be, but that doesn't mean it's not any less fucked up than it is. I'm only just commenting on it now because it's my first real encounter with it. And I agree, the 20/20 and one dayers are vastly superior in every way. Any sport that does not guarantee an end result (which is not a draw) is a complete and utter waste of time, imo.

 

And before a few of you get too defensive, as I said this was not a rant at the Brits... just the game itself. Though here goes Jez referring back to the past - that thing he refused to acknowledge when England won something for the first time in 800 years. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was a great end to the game on Sunday, nail biting stuff and great for all the spectators, which is what it is all about at the end of the day.

Though here goes Jez referring back to the past - that thing he refused to acknowledge when England won something for the first time in 800 years. ;)

 

Pot calling the kettle there me thinks mate. Living in the past?, Try telling that to some the Yellow and green 'Bad Losers' (or drawers) over here that have been banging on about Warne and McGrath constantly over the last few days and how they would have won if they had them playing. As I said, you would have won if Ponting hadn't fucked up in the last hour of the game by playing the wrong bowlers - simple as that. Admit your error and move on I say, not 'If this' and 'if that'.

I was infact just reminding you and you fellow country folk (that seemed to have forgotten :whistle: ), that it didn't seem to bother the Aussies when they played desperately for a draw in 2005 Ashes thats all. They tried all sorts of shit to 'Stall' (physio and fucking around with sight screens if I recall) and we couldn't get their last batsmen out - You're lot were jumping aroung the players balcony like they had just won the game, when in fact they had had a big let off and should have lost - exactly the same situation as Sunday. Frustrating for us for sure, but we got on with the job afterwards and didn't moan about it like old moaning Ricky and a couple of his pals are doing. Move onto the next game and just get on with the next job in hand. :drink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

stop wasting our time pommy bastard!

A tad aggressive me thinks !!!!!!!!

 

Pommy Bastard! I say, how rude indeed Wotters, not cricket at all stooping to name calling already, after only one match. It's gonna be a long summer for you boys. I suggest a cold shower, a cucumber sandwich and a jolly nice cup of tea (or something alcoholic In Ricky's case)

 

I was going to say that finally we have a decent Ashes thread, but thinking about it a little more, we need some Aussies that have some cricketing knowledge and a little decorum (if such a beast exhists). For Godsake, someone call Dave up and get him over here. We don't play with amateurs you know! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was a great end to the game on Sunday, nail biting stuff and great for all the spectators, which is what it is all about at the end of the day.

Though here goes Jez referring back to the past - that thing he refused to acknowledge when England won something for the first time in 800 years. ;)

 

Pot calling the kettle there me thinks mate. Living in the past?, Try telling that to some the Yellow and green 'Bad Losers' (or drawers) over here that have been banging on about Warne and McGrath constantly over the last few days and how they would have won if they had them playing. As I said, you would have won if Ponting hadn't fucked up in the last hour of the game by playing the wrong bowlers - simple as that. Admit your error and move on I say, not 'If this' and 'if that'.

I was infact just reminding you and you fellow country folk (that seemed to have forgotten :whistle: ), that it didn't seem to bother the Aussies when they played desperately for a draw in 2005 Ashes thats all. They tried all sorts of shit to 'Stall' (physio and fucking around with sight screens if I recall) and we couldn't get their last batsmen out - You're lot were jumping aroung the players balcony like they had just won the game, when in fact they had had a big let off and should have lost - exactly the same situation as Sunday. Frustrating for us for sure, but we got on with the job afterwards and didn't moan about it like old moaning Ricky and a couple of his pals are doing. Move onto the next game and just get on with the next job in hand. :drink:

Again, I re-emphasise the fact that I was not having a go at the Brits for abusing / taking advantage of an already fucked up set-up of rules. Like I said, I would encourage them, as I would the Aussies, to expose these shitty rules to their benefit. Why would you not?

 

My rant is aimed at the set-up of the match alone. To me, The Ashes appear to be as worthwhile as a 5 day soccer match that ends in a 0-0 draw. What the fuck is the point of playing sport for 5 days in a row without a fucking result? Are you not understanding how pointless and fucked up that is? How about we do the next Olympics without medals? How about the next game of the only proper game ever - Rugby League - we don't keep score of how many tries are scored? What about the US Open we make it that if you can get your opponent to a 5th set it's called a draw? Do these fuckers think people have nothing better to do that waste 5 days of their life on pure insignificance?

 

In it's purest and simplest form:

 

In 5 days Australia lost 6 wickets and scored 674 runs.

In 5 days England lost 16 wickets and scored 656 runs.

 

Are you honestly going to sit there, even with your union jack coloured glasses and tell me that despite whatever fucked up rules govern this game, that England did not lose this contest? I don't give a fuck about people with IQ's of 14 combined designing rules for sporting events.

 

Just like Rugby Union and NFL this event should be fucking abolished.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was a great end to the game on Sunday, nail biting stuff and great for all the spectators, which is what it is all about at the end of the day.

Though here goes Jez referring back to the past - that thing he refused to acknowledge when England won something for the first time in 800 years. ;)

 

Pot calling the kettle there me thinks mate. Living in the past?, Try telling that to some the Yellow and green 'Bad Losers' (or drawers) over here that have been banging on about Warne and McGrath constantly over the last few days and how they would have won if they had them playing. As I said, you would have won if Ponting hadn't fucked up in the last hour of the game by playing the wrong bowlers - simple as that. Admit your error and move on I say, not 'If this' and 'if that'.

I was infact just reminding you and you fellow country folk (that seemed to have forgotten :whistle: ), that it didn't seem to bother the Aussies when they played desperately for a draw in 2005 Ashes thats all. They tried all sorts of shit to 'Stall' (physio and fucking around with sight screens if I recall) and we couldn't get their last batsmen out - You're lot were jumping aroung the players balcony like they had just won the game, when in fact they had had a big let off and should have lost - exactly the same situation as Sunday. Frustrating for us for sure, but we got on with the job afterwards and didn't moan about it like old moaning Ricky and a couple of his pals are doing. Move onto the next game and just get on with the next job in hand. :drink:

 

In it's purest and simplest form:

 

In 5 days Australia lost 6 wickets and scored 674 runs.

In 5 days England lost 16 wickets and scored 656 runs.

 

Are you honestly going to sit there, even with your union jack coloured glasses and tell me that despite whatever fucked up rules govern this game, that England did not lose this contest? I don't give a fuck about people with IQ's of 14 combined designing rules for sporting events.

 

 

I'll make it easy for you as you seem to be having a problem grasping the basic rules here yellow and green man. It's quite an easy thing to grasp this cricket thing (for most anyways), so read carefully ;). To win a game you need to bowl out a team twice (20 wickets) in the allotted time given - 5 days. Whether you played better or not, you didn't do that, ran out of time, so didn't win the game Simple. Next!

 

Any more questions about the rules, give me a shout and I will be happy to explain them to you ,although I suggest you don't bother watching it anymore if it upsets you that much mate to be honest.

 

What did you think of the pitch by the way and what would your plan have been for the last day so you guaranteed getting Englands last 8 wickets, field placings, bowlers etc, and why do you think the ball didn't swing or reverse swing during the whole match. Just interested in your thoughts and tactics compared to old Ponting and Strauss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was a great end to the game on Sunday, nail biting stuff and great for all the spectators, which is what it is all about at the end of the day.

Though here goes Jez referring back to the past - that thing he refused to acknowledge when England won something for the first time in 800 years. ;)

 

Pot calling the kettle there me thinks mate. Living in the past?, Try telling that to some the Yellow and green 'Bad Losers' (or drawers) over here that have been banging on about Warne and McGrath constantly over the last few days and how they would have won if they had them playing. As I said, you would have won if Ponting hadn't fucked up in the last hour of the game by playing the wrong bowlers - simple as that. Admit your error and move on I say, not 'If this' and 'if that'.

I was infact just reminding you and you fellow country folk (that seemed to have forgotten :whistle: ), that it didn't seem to bother the Aussies when they played desperately for a draw in 2005 Ashes thats all. They tried all sorts of shit to 'Stall' (physio and fucking around with sight screens if I recall) and we couldn't get their last batsmen out - You're lot were jumping aroung the players balcony like they had just won the game, when in fact they had had a big let off and should have lost - exactly the same situation as Sunday. Frustrating for us for sure, but we got on with the job afterwards and didn't moan about it like old moaning Ricky and a couple of his pals are doing. Move onto the next game and just get on with the next job in hand. :drink:

 

In it's purest and simplest form:

 

In 5 days Australia lost 6 wickets and scored 674 runs.

In 5 days England lost 16 wickets and scored 656 runs.

 

Are you honestly going to sit there, even with your union jack coloured glasses and tell me that despite whatever fucked up rules govern this game, that England did not lose this contest? I don't give a fuck about people with IQ's of 14 combined designing rules for sporting events.

 

 

I'll make it easy for you as you seem to be having a problem grasping the basic rules here. It's quite an easy thing to grasp, so read carefully ;). To win a game you need to bowl out a team twice (20 wickets) in the allotted time given - 5 days. Whether you played better or not, you didn't do that, ran out of time, so didn't win the game, Simple. Next!

 

Any more questions about the rules, give me a shout and I will be happy to explain them to you ,although I suggest you don't bother watching it anymore if it upsets you that much mate to be honest.

 

 

You have omitted other important rules recently invented by the english:

- sticky cough drops may be rubbed on the ball to assist with swing.

- fielding specialists must be used instead of the 12th man, so when a poor feider is substituted off for unknown reasons, then a much better fielding player is substituted onto the field.

- batsmens gloves must be changed every 2nd over when staring at defeat

- the team physio can halt the game at any opportunity without applying any treatment, especially when... once again, staring at defeat.

 

Geoff, understanding these rules will help you understand the perfomance of the english cricket teams in recent ashes tests.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was a great end to the game on Sunday, nail biting stuff and great for all the spectators, which is what it is all about at the end of the day.

Though here goes Jez referring back to the past - that thing he refused to acknowledge when England won something for the first time in 800 years. ;)

 

Pot calling the kettle there me thinks mate. Living in the past?, Try telling that to some the Yellow and green 'Bad Losers' (or drawers) over here that have been banging on about Warne and McGrath constantly over the last few days and how they would have won if they had them playing. As I said, you would have won if Ponting hadn't fucked up in the last hour of the game by playing the wrong bowlers - simple as that. Admit your error and move on I say, not 'If this' and 'if that'.

I was infact just reminding you and you fellow country folk (that seemed to have forgotten :whistle: ), that it didn't seem to bother the Aussies when they played desperately for a draw in 2005 Ashes thats all. They tried all sorts of shit to 'Stall' (physio and fucking around with sight screens if I recall) and we couldn't get their last batsmen out - You're lot were jumping aroung the players balcony like they had just won the game, when in fact they had had a big let off and should have lost - exactly the same situation as Sunday. Frustrating for us for sure, but we got on with the job afterwards and didn't moan about it like old moaning Ricky and a couple of his pals are doing. Move onto the next game and just get on with the next job in hand. :drink:

 

In it's purest and simplest form:

 

In 5 days Australia lost 6 wickets and scored 674 runs.

In 5 days England lost 16 wickets and scored 656 runs.

 

Are you honestly going to sit there, even with your union jack coloured glasses and tell me that despite whatever fucked up rules govern this game, that England did not lose this contest? I don't give a fuck about people with IQ's of 14 combined designing rules for sporting events.

 

 

I'll make it easy for you as you seem to be having a problem grasping the basic rules here. It's quite an easy thing to grasp, so read carefully ;). To win a game you need to bowl out a team twice (20 wickets) in the allotted time given - 5 days. Whether you played better or not, you didn't do that, ran out of time, so didn't win the game, Simple. Next!

 

Any more questions about the rules, give me a shout and I will be happy to explain them to you ,although I suggest you don't bother watching it anymore if it upsets you that much mate to be honest.

 

 

You have omitted other important rules recently invented by the english:

- sticky cough drops may be rubbed on the ball to assist with swing.

- fielding specialists must be used instead of the 12th man, so when a poor feider is substituted off for unknown reasons, then a much better fielding player is substituted onto the field.

- batsmens gloves must be changed every 2nd over when staring at defeat

- the team physio can halt the game at any opportunity without applying any treatment, especially when... once again, staring at defeat.

 

Geoff, understanding these rules will help you understand the perfomance of the english cricket teams in recent ashes tests.

 

 

Haha - The England team thanx you for the tip on the cough drops, (we changed it to Werthers Originals - much more classy, more swing aswell) maybe you lot should have used the sour grapes they were chewing. We actually got that one off Merv 'The Swerve' I think it was,back in the 80's, aswell as the sawdust in the pocket to rough up the seam. What goes around comes around guys :whistle:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't speak Cricket (or whatever the hell sport you guys are talking about) so I really have nothing to contribute here. I just wanted to say that:

 

Fuck The Ashes

 

would be a FABULOUS name for a band. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll make it easy for you as you seem to be having a problem grasping the basic rules here yellow and green man. It's quite an easy thing to grasp this cricket thing (for most anyways), so read carefully ;). To win a game you need to bowl out a team twice (20 wickets) in the allotted time given - 5 days. Whether you played better or not, you didn't do that, ran out of time, so didn't win the game Simple. Next!

Okay, serious question. So if Australia had bowled England out yesterday just before end of play and England had 700 runs, Australia would still be the victors with 674 runs? Even though England had more runs (even though, obviously if given more time Australia would easily make the difference) they'd win because there isn't time for Australia to quickly make up the 27 runs?

 

However you answer the question, I still persist - the rules are fucking stupid!!! If you can't finish it off properly, why bother?

 

Also, according to your rules Australia obviously didn't do what they needed to, so why is not then a loss to Australia? Didn't England "win" then? Why is it a draw?

 

Any more questions about the rules, give me a shout and I will be happy to explain them to you ,although I suggest you don't bother watching it anymore if it upsets you that much mate to be honest.

I'd watch synchronized swimming it there was a chance of seeing England in defeat. It's such a beautiful sight and one I never get sick of. One of the world's great wonders, imo.

 

What did you think of the pitch by the way and what would your plan have been for the last day so you guaranteed getting Englands last 8 wickets, field placings, bowlers etc, and why do you think the ball didn't swing or reverse swing during the whole match. Just interested in your thoughts and tactics compared to old Ponting and Strauss.

Do I look like a grasshopper? I don't know. I don't give a shit either. I'm just watching a bunch of muppets bowling and then batting. Fuck the pitch. They're both playing on the same pitch so they should shut their traps and just play their stupid fucked up contest quicker to they can squeeze a result in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

had bowled England out yesterday just before end of play and England had 700 runs, Australia would still be the victors with 674 runs? Even though England had more runs (even though, obviously if given more time Australia would easily make the difference) they'd win because there isn't time for Australia to quickly make up the 27 runs?

 

 

No, you need to both a) make more runs, and B ) get the opposition out twice.

Therefore if the English overtook the australians and then got bowled out with a lead of say 20, the Aussies would have had to go into bat and make that 20 runs to win the match.

 

This is part of the reason the english were stalling, ... so even if they did get bowled out with a small lead, and the Australians had to go into bat, there would not have been enough time. (They lose a pre-determined set amount of minutes for change of innings, so say there was 10 minutes left and it takes 15mins for a change of innings, it would have been the end.

 

In the end, the English guys survived anyway...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

had bowled England out yesterday just before end of play and England had 700 runs, Australia would still be the victors with 674 runs? Even though England had more runs (even though, obviously if given more time Australia would easily make the difference) they'd win because there isn't time for Australia to quickly make up the 27 runs?

 

 

No, you need to both a) make more runs, and B ) get the opposition out twice.

Therefore if the English overtook the australians and then got bowled out with a lead of say 20, the Aussies would have had to go into bat and make that 20 runs to win the match.

 

This is part of the reason the english were stalling, ... so even if they did get bowled out with a small lead, and the Australians had to go into bat, there would not have been enough time. (They lose a pre-determined set amount of minutes for change of innings, so say there was 10 minutes left and it takes 15mins for a change of innings, it would have been the end.

 

In the end, the English guys survived anyway...

Yeah, so if there isn't enough time for Australia to bat those last few balls it's still a draw?

 

It just seems like a hell of a lot of effort to go to for five days for such a pathetic and unsatisfactory result for everyone. No wonder I never watch test cricket...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

had bowled England out yesterday just before end of play and England had 700 runs, Australia would still be the victors with 674 runs? Even though England had more runs (even though, obviously if given more time Australia would easily make the difference) they'd win because there isn't time for Australia to quickly make up the 27 runs?

 

 

No, you need to both a) make more runs, and B ) get the opposition out twice.

Therefore if the English overtook the australians and then got bowled out with a lead of say 20, the Aussies would have had to go into bat and make that 20 runs to win the match.

 

This is part of the reason the english were stalling, ... so even if they did get bowled out with a small lead, and the Australians had to go into bat, there would not have been enough time. (They lose a pre-determined set amount of minutes for change of innings, so say there was 10 minutes left and it takes 15mins for a change of innings, it would have been the end.

 

In the end, the English guys survived anyway...

Yeah, so if there isn't enough time for Australia to bat those last few balls it's still a draw?

 

It just seems like a hell of a lot of effort to go to for five days for such a pathetic and unsatisfactory result for everyone. No wonder I never watch test cricket...

 

Are most Aussies completely ignorant about Cricket like you obviously are? Seems like you don't know everything about everything after all mate. Never thought I'd see the day :whistle:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any sport which has a tea break ain't a proper sport :whistle:

 

One sugar or two old chap?

 

Toodle pip ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll make it easy for you as you seem to be having a problem grasping the basic rules here yellow and green man. It's quite an easy thing to grasp this cricket thing (for most anyways), so read carefully ;). To win a game you need to bowl out a team twice (20 wickets) in the allotted time given - 5 days. Whether you played better or not, you didn't do that, ran out of time, so didn't win the game Simple. Next!

Okay, serious question. So if Australia had bowled England out yesterday just before end of play and England had 700 runs, Australia would still be the victors with 674 runs? Even though England had more runs (even though, obviously if given more time Australia would easily make the difference) they'd win because there isn't time for Australia to quickly make up the 27 runs?

 

However you answer the question, I still persist - the rules are fucking stupid!!! If you can't finish it off properly, why bother?

 

Also, according to your rules Australia obviously didn't do what they needed to, so why is not then a loss to Australia? Didn't England "win" then? Why is it a draw?

 

Any more questions about the rules, give me a shout and I will be happy to explain them to you ,although I suggest you don't bother watching it anymore if it upsets you that much mate to be honest.

I'd watch synchronized swimming it there was a chance of seeing England in defeat. It's such a beautiful sight and one I never get sick of. One of the world's great wonders, imo.

 

What did you think of the pitch by the way and what would your plan have been for the last day so you guaranteed getting Englands last 8 wickets, field placings, bowlers etc, and why do you think the ball didn't swing or reverse swing during the whole match. Just interested in your thoughts and tactics compared to old Ponting and Strauss.

Do I look like a grasshopper? I don't know. I don't give a shit either. I'm just watching a bunch of muppets bowling and then batting. Fuck the pitch. They're both playing on the same pitch so they should shut their traps and just play their stupid fucked up contest quicker to they can squeeze a result in.

 

 

:lol: I think you need to go and sit down and take a chill pill, you are getting way to excitable old bean.

 

 

Did you see Ponting on the TV again today - still that fucking miserable look on his face. Someone slap him for god sake? ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was a great end to the game on Sunday, nail biting stuff and great for all the spectators, which is what it is all about at the end of the day.

Though here goes Jez referring back to the past - that thing he refused to acknowledge when England won something for the first time in 800 years. ;)

 

Pot calling the kettle there me thinks mate. Living in the past?, Try telling that to some the Yellow and green 'Bad Losers' (or drawers) over here that have been banging on about Warne and McGrath constantly over the last few days and how they would have won if they had them playing. As I said, you would have won if Ponting hadn't fucked up in the last hour of the game by playing the wrong bowlers - simple as that. Admit your error and move on I say, not 'If this' and 'if that'.

I was infact just reminding you and you fellow country folk (that seemed to have forgotten :whistle: ), that it didn't seem to bother the Aussies when they played desperately for a draw in 2005 Ashes thats all. They tried all sorts of shit to 'Stall' (physio and fucking around with sight screens if I recall) and we couldn't get their last batsmen out - You're lot were jumping aroung the players balcony like they had just won the game, when in fact they had had a big let off and should have lost - exactly the same situation as Sunday. Frustrating for us for sure, but we got on with the job afterwards and didn't moan about it like old moaning Ricky and a couple of his pals are doing. Move onto the next game and just get on with the next job in hand. :drink:

 

In it's purest and simplest form:

 

In 5 days Australia lost 6 wickets and scored 674 runs.

In 5 days England lost 16 wickets and scored 656 runs.

 

Are you honestly going to sit there, even with your union jack coloured glasses and tell me that despite whatever fucked up rules govern this game, that England did not lose this contest? I don't give a fuck about people with IQ's of 14 combined designing rules for sporting events.

 

 

I'll make it easy for you as you seem to be having a problem grasping the basic rules here. It's quite an easy thing to grasp, so read carefully ;). To win a game you need to bowl out a team twice (20 wickets) in the allotted time given - 5 days. Whether you played better or not, you didn't do that, ran out of time, so didn't win the game, Simple. Next!

 

Any more questions about the rules, give me a shout and I will be happy to explain them to you ,although I suggest you don't bother watching it anymore if it upsets you that much mate to be honest.

 

 

You have omitted other important rules recently invented by the english:

- sticky cough drops may be rubbed on the ball to assist with swing.

- fielding specialists must be used instead of the 12th man, so when a poor feider is substituted off for unknown reasons, then a much better fielding player is substituted onto the field.

- batsmens gloves must be changed every 2nd over when staring at defeat

- the team physio can halt the game at any opportunity without applying any treatment, especially when... once again, staring at defeat.

 

Geoff, understanding these rules will help you understand the perfomance of the english cricket teams in recent ashes tests.

 

 

Haha - The England team thanx you for the tip on the cough drops, (we changed it to Werthers Originals - much more classy, more swing aswell) maybe you lot should have used the sour grapes they were chewing. We actually got that one off Merv 'The Swerve' I think it was,back in the 80's, aswell as the sawdust in the pocket to rough up the seam. What goes around comes around guys :whistle:

 

Never truer words were uttered.....or written down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.