- Jul 26, 2004
- 17,902
- 23,971
Has there ever been a wicket during Jerusalem?
And if so do they carry on?
And if so do they carry on?
Last Thursday, Somerset County Cricket Club announced that Bancroft won't be joining for the forthcoming county season.Been offline for a few days. Probably a good thing! So the penalties have been announced, and the pressers done.
Bancroft: Silly young lad. Needs to get his head down now and get on with playing as soon as he is able. Haven't heard if his county gig is still happening. That will be a big test for him. He will cop a heap of shit. Lets see how he goes. May make it back into Australian contention but that will depend on if we find a good stable opening pair and their form. Time will tell.
Smith: Was a great player but the shittest Captain I can remember for Australia. I really did feel his presser was genuine. The guy finally understands what he has done by doing nothing to stop it. Will he play for Australia again? Possibly but not straight after 12 months. The team needs to move on from this, and if either he or Bancroft were to play the crap will just start over again. As a batsman it's a huge loss, but as a Captain, not a loss at all. As another posted said earlier as captain he wasn't fit to tie Steve Waughs shoe laces.
Warner: Just fuck off.
Been offline for a few days. Probably a good thing! So the penalties have been announced, and the pressers done.
Bancroft: Silly young lad. Needs to get his head down now and get on with playing as soon as he is able. Haven't heard if his county gig is still happening. That will be a big test for him. He will cop a heap of shit. Lets see how he goes. May make it back into Australian contention but that will depend on if we find a good stable opening pair and their form. Time will tell.
Smith: Was a great player but the shittest Captain I can remember for Australia. I really did feel his presser was genuine. The guy finally understands what he has done by doing nothing to stop it. Will he play for Australia again? Possibly but not straight after 12 months. The team needs to move on from this, and if either he or Bancroft were to play the crap will just start over again. As a batsman it's a huge loss, but as a Captain, not a loss at all. As another posted said earlier as captain he wasn't fit to tie Steve Waughs shoe laces.
Warner: Just fuck off.
It would be devastating to all Aussie's if it was more than three. The fact that any Australian cricketer chose to use of all things sandpaper is a shock. I personally think it was a one off brain fade from Warner (who clearly isn't the sharpest tool in the shed) and roped his opening partner into it. I think there were a number of factors involved, the wife sledge and Rabada playing along with his own relative poor form that drove him to it, although thats just my opinion. As for him not answering questions, I can only put that down to the fact he is expected to appeal and does not want to say anything before that process.Are you and people in general happy it was just these three? Are people not reading too much in Warner not answering direct questions about others being involved?
I still can't match the story we've been given with the reactions of the players and management - it just doesn't add up at all to this being both a one off event and limited to just the three players.
This test was always going to be a whitewash after what happened. No surprises at all.Mr Philander is bowling a bit well this morning. 6 for 3 so far!
This test was always going to be a whitewash after what happened. No surprises at all.
It would be devastating to all Aussie's if it was more than three. The fact that any Australian cricketer chose to use of all things sandpaper is a shock. I personally think it was a one off brain fade from Warner (who clearly isn't the sharpest tool in the shed) and roped his opening partner into it. I think there were a number of factors involved, the wife sledge and Rabada playing along with his own relative poor form that drove him to it, although thats just my opinion. As for him not answering questions, I can only put that down to the fact he is expected to appeal and does not want to say anything before that process.
Given the penalties that have been dished out, maybe, just maybe, it is not the first time. But thats something we will probably never know. To be honest I dont think we will ever know. Maybe I just dont want to know.
I do know this though. After the penalties, there is no way any Australian cricketer will ever contemplate doing something similar again. And thats a good thing.
Something else that could be a giveaway is going through to see how often Bancroft was given the ball to polish prior to being caught. This also applies to the 16 yards of strapping or bandages Warner puts on his hands. How often is he 'ball shiner' when the strapping is on and how often when its not.IMO of course. And, to be fair, if the above is true then you would think something would come up in ashes footage which I am sure some temp at the Sun has watched every second of over the last week.
Something else that could be a giveaway is going through to see how often Bancroft was given the ball to polish prior to being caught. This also applies to the 16 yards of strapping or bandages Warner puts on his hands. How often is he 'ball shiner' when the strapping is on and how often when its not.
Does he do this (wear strapping on his hands) for all cricket? A quick search shows plenty of footage where he isn't wearing it in the IPL.
IMO 'strappinggate', if followed up on, could bust him big time. If my theory is correct that is. Which, given that Warner is a ****............
Sounds like you're the man to follow up on this. I'll gladly chip in to get you the Ashes 2017/2018 box set - I know how much you'd relish rewatching that series.
Thats not even a blu ray!It wouldn’t take long to watch all the England innings tbf
It's just swing and hope brother, just swing and hope!Sorry for crashing the thread with what's presumably a completely moronic question, but as someone with only a very limited knowledge of cricket I've been wondering something lately.
You obviously can't help but notice the increasing popularity of T20 but I know that a lot of people are dead against it. I understand a lot of the arguments both for and against and the main argument against seems to be that there's less strategy because you're effectively just swinging for the boundaries on every ball. But I've also seen some arguments where people say that the bowler is at a massive disadvantage in T20/limited overs formats vs. Test matches and that's the part I wanted to ask about. What is it about limited overs that means the bowler has such a disadvantage? I know they have shorter boundaries and bigger bats in T20, which obviously favours the batsmen, but that has nothing to do with the number of overs so why does that matter?
Anyway, sorry again for the stupid question
Sorry for crashing the thread with what's presumably a completely moronic question, but as someone with only a very limited knowledge of cricket I've been wondering something lately.
You obviously can't help but notice the increasing popularity of T20 but I know that a lot of people are dead against it. I understand a lot of the arguments both for and against and the main argument against seems to be that there's less strategy because you're effectively just swinging for the boundaries on every ball. But I've also seen some arguments where people say that the bowler is at a massive disadvantage in T20/limited overs formats vs. Test matches and that's the part I wanted to ask about. What is it about limited overs that means the bowler has such a disadvantage? I know they have shorter boundaries and bigger bats in T20, which obviously favours the batsmen, but that has nothing to do with the number of overs so why does that matter?
Anyway, sorry again for the stupid question
In Test matches you can put the fielders pretty much wherever you want, so you can put 9 people on the boundary to cut down the 4's. In T20 you have to have most of them within a 30 yard ring, so hit the ball through the gaps and the chances are better that you'll get a boundary. And there aren't as many catchers waiting 'in the deep' for a mistimed attempt at a 6.
There is a greater premium on 'accuracy' as well. Anything down the leg side is a wide that has to be bowled again, and wides on the
off side aren't as generous in T20. In Test matches you can bowl pretty much out of the batsman's reach and it still won't be called wide.
There's more detail than that but that's pretty much it. Easier to bat, harder to bowl.
(The bats aren't actually any bigger.)
The ICC has actually decreased the size of the bats recently. They were getting out of control to be honest. The thickness of the edges have been reduced. I think the overall depth of the bat has been reduced as well.Ah I didn't realise they had restrictions on where the fielders have to stand, that does explain a lot. Interesting stuff, cheers Dunno where I got that the bats were bigger though. I could've sworn I read that somewhere but that's the trouble with trusting the internet I suppose
TalkSport take overseas cricket rights from BBC
Terrible decision. I tried to listen to the Joshua-Parker fight on TalkSport and ended up listening to the First Round at least five times. If they couldn't be bothered to sort out their broadcast for a heavyweight title fight then I have little hope for the WI and SL tours. It's going to be Selco/Van-a-ram/888 poker adverts interrupted by the odd piece of cricket coverage.