|
Post by fraudster on May 31, 2014 17:57:00 GMT
England have just gone 21 overs between scoring boundaries according to Lord Gower. This while chasing 300 to win. We're an odd team right now. Even odder, to go 21 overs and be reported on a thread about T20 Hey! This thread evolved on to the ODIs and you know it - through pure laziness. So anyway, my viewing of what should have been the best England one-day win I've seen has been ruined by complete idiocy from Tredwell. Nine from three needed, Buttler can't score off the fourth ball and Tredwell just sprints down the other end, and Buttler reacts by running too. He shouldn't have but it looked like a reaction to Tredwell. Surely they had a conversation about not taking a single at that stage, while Malinga took an age to set his field. What would you rather have; nine off two with Buttler facing or eight off two and Tredwell on strike? Frigging stupid. Great from Buttler, what an innings but what a stupid cock-up either from Tredwell or between the two of them. I'm really p****d at this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2014 10:03:07 GMT
From the sage of cricinfo:- "You could argue that victory against Sri Lanka at Edgbaston would be the worst thing that could happen to England as they prepare for a world cup in a few months time."
Apparently a series victory might "delude" Peter Moores into thinking we're better than we are. So what we really need is another series defeat just to show Peter Moores how far England still have to travel.
Unbelievable twaddle.
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Jun 3, 2014 10:14:44 GMT
From the sage of cricinfo:- "You could argue that victory against Sri Lanka at Edgbaston would be the worst thing that could happen to England as they prepare for a world cup in a few months time." Apparently a series victory might "delude" Peter Moores into thinking we're better than we are. So what we really need is another series defeat just to show Peter Moores how far England still have to travel. Unbelievable twaddle. Knowing how sensitive he can be, I'd stick a few "allegedly"s in there if I were you.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2014 17:50:13 GMT
Oh dear, Graeme Swann has tweeted that the run out of Buttler was "just wrong even though it's not illegal. Like cuddling your sister whilst watching a film."
It's rather quaint that he should use the archaic 'whilst' rather than 'while'. But in the realms of allegedly unbelievable twaddle, I think he's out-done even the Sage of Cricinfo with that one.
This ODI should make the Wisden records section under a new category called 'Highest Number of Idiotic Comments Recorded In The Course Of A Single Match'.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2014 21:52:28 GMT
And another one tonight from the Great Sage of Cricinfo: "Cricket needs to move on from the nebulous concept of 'gentlemanly' play and 'spirit'."
I happen to agree with him that Sri Lanka were more than entitled to run Buttler out and it was dumb play on his part. But from that specific incident to the total abandonment of any ethical code as advocated above is a leap way too far and is to be deplored.
Still, he will be pleased that England lost the series!
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Jun 3, 2014 22:27:36 GMT
A storm in a teacup.
Buttler had been warned twice before by Senanayake. So, Mathews had every right not to withdraw the appeal. No warning then one can understand the rumpus. The ensuing booing is an embarrassment for England supporters and the on-field words with Mathews a stain on the English players.
Sri Lanka were by far the better side throughout the series apart from their bizarre 67 which in the cold light of the present match-fixing allegations, surely asks a few uncomfortable questions.
England's 2-3 loss only highlights how much work that needs to be done by Moores and Co before the National side has any chance of reaching their previous dizzy heights of success.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2014 8:58:13 GMT
Well said, s&f. And I'm perturbed by Cook's moaning over this. It recalls England's reaction after defeat in the first Test v Australia in the winter, when instead of trying to sort out the manifest problems in their own team, Cook and Flower chose to concentrate on complaining about Aussie sledging, which was a bit of a non-issue in comparison to England's awful cricket.
I had hoped a new regime might have banished the arrogant culture of entitlement that characterised England under Flower and which at every reverse led them to moan that they had somehow been cheated out of what was rightfully theirs. But I fear that last night shows it is deeply rooted.
Buttler was apparently warned twice in this game and the issue had reportedly been raised by SL in the last ODI - and yet he still went and did it again. That's just plain dumb and if I was Cook I'd be venting my fury on Buttler for being so stupid rather than accusing Sri Lanka of "crossing a line" and "poor" behaviour.
Cook is developing a reputation as a bit of a moaner who is too ready to blame someone else when things go wrong, whether it is Aussie sledging, David Warner, KP or Senanayake and Matthews. Moores needs to tell him to shut up.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2014 9:45:34 GMT
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Jun 4, 2014 10:12:15 GMT
The trouble with Mankading is that it's unusual, and when it happens it causes controversy. For some reason it creates an emotional (and irrational) response.When I watched it last night, I was instinctively upset. Now I've had time to think about it, I think the Sri Lankans did the right thing.
The ECB needs to state quite clearly that the Laws/Rules are quite clear, and that there is nothing unsporting about playing to the rules. If a batsman is stumped, the umpire doesn't ask the fielding captain if he wants to go through with the appeal!
Memo to all batsmen: "if you keep your bat in the crease you can't be run out."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2014 11:31:05 GMT
Cracking comment by someone called "Ian" on the BBC Sport website:
"Could Mr Cook and the England management please specify which of the laws of cricket they wish to be applied to these matches and which ignored?"
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Jun 4, 2014 12:24:30 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2014 12:51:56 GMT
I like his trenchant comments about the Mankading and his withering remarks about England's pathetic and reactionary attitude to mystery spinners. When the Pakistanis first discovered reverse swing , England said they must be cheating. Now we accuse every mystery spinner from the sub-continent of throwing. So this line I thought was particularly perceptive: "England's mistrust of reverse swing eventually turned into acceptance and even affection, the same will happen with mystery spin." I hope the prediction is right. I also agree with his devastating critique of England's hypocrisy: "It would be nice, too, if England simply stopped talking about the spirit of cricket. It is not relevant when their batsmen decline to walk. It is not relevant when their batsmen, in fighting for a draw, change their gloves and ask for drinks in order to use up time. It is not relevant when their bowlers sledge or try to persuade the umpire to change a ball that is not swinging. And it is not relevant when they lure coaches from opposition teams weeks before they face them in a series...to talk of spirit only when they lose leaves them looking weak, graceless and hypocritical." But the England camp will be irritated by what they will see as the carping negativity of the piece - and there does seem to be a degree of revelling in England's defeat and a faintly vindictive desire to rub the noses of certain people in it. And of course, there is the obligatory reference to how much England need his chum Trott. I read a comment yesterday on another messageboard by an Essex supporter who goes by the name of "Grant Flower Is God" which said that Dobell is now persona non grata at Chelmsford due to his endless knocking - presumably of Cook, although it didn't specify. Another poster in the same thread also repeated the now notorious allegation against Panesar , the first time anyone has dared to repeat it since its lone mention on cricinfo last August, and even rashly claimed that it has since been "confirmed". I forwarded a link to it to MP c/o Essex CCC to see if he wishes to do anything about it, given that he denied it to at least two national newspapers, who decided not to run the story on the advice of their lawyers.
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on Jun 4, 2014 13:47:17 GMT
What a paltry, petty man Jonathan Agnew on Buttler-Senanayake run out incident Agnew is. Because he's unhappy that the law was applied fairly and accurately in the case of Buttler he wants the law changed: to "... avoid any more incidents like this, I would rather see such decisions taken out of the hands of the bowler.....A bowler should be allowed to point out to an umpire that a batsman is backing up, leaving the officials to watch what is going on. If, in the umpire's opinion, a batsman is trying to steal an extra run - and I strongly believe Tuesday's incident was not an example of a batsman trying to steal a run - then he gets a clear and obvious warning, like a bowler would for running down the pitch." He then goes on to suggest that there should be yet another 5-run penalty for any infringement on that warning. I can't think of anything more calculated to cause confusion, argument and ill-feeling. This is one case where the umpire's duty is quite simple and clear-cut, to observe what happens, to apply the Laws, and to ask the fielding captain if he wishes to sustain the appeal. Nothing else, no reference to any other official, no agonising over whether it was intentional. It seems that Agnew is much happier to play the populist vote when England feel their rights infringed. At all other times he's happy to uphold the application of the Laws.
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Jun 4, 2014 14:02:09 GMT
What a paltry, petty man Jonathan Agnew on Buttler-Senanayake run out incident Agnew is. Because he's unhappy that the law was applied fairly and accurately in the case of Buttler he wants the law changed: to "... avoid any more incidents like this, I would rather see such decisions taken out of the hands of the bowler.....A bowler should be allowed to point out to an umpire that a batsman is backing up, leaving the officials to watch what is going on. If, in the umpire's opinion, a batsman is trying to steal an extra run - and I strongly believe Tuesday's incident was not an example of a batsman trying to steal a run - then he gets a clear and obvious warning, like a bowler would for running down the pitch." He then goes on to suggest that there should be yet another 5-run penalty for any infringement on that warning. I can't think of anything more calculated to cause confusion, argument and ill-feeling. This is one case where the umpire's duty is quite simple and clear-cut, to observe what happens, to apply the Laws, and to ask the fielding captain if he wishes to sustain the appeal. Nothing else, no reference to any other official, no agonising over whether it was intentional. It seems that Agnew is much happier to play the populist vote when England feel their rights infringed. At all other times he's happy to uphold the application of the Laws. Yes, this is poor stuff from Agnew. He's tying himself in knots in an attempt not to criticise the England camp. The problem is that Mankading is so rare, and Agnew says he has never seen it happen. For some reason, it has, over the years, become a cricketing taboo, despite what it clearly states in the Laws/Playing conditions. Agnew is reacting as if he's afraid that incest is about to become acceptable.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2014 14:08:01 GMT
What a paltry, petty man Jonathan Agnew on Buttler-Senanayake run out incident Agnew is. Because he's unhappy that the law was applied fairly and accurately in the case of Buttler he wants the law changed: to "... avoid any more incidents like this, I would rather see such decisions taken out of the hands of the bowler.....A bowler should be allowed to point out to an umpire that a batsman is backing up, leaving the officials to watch what is going on. If, in the umpire's opinion, a batsman is trying to steal an extra run - and I strongly believe Tuesday's incident was not an example of a batsman trying to steal a run - then he gets a clear and obvious warning, like a bowler would for running down the pitch." He then goes on to suggest that there should be yet another 5-run penalty for any infringement on that warning. I can't think of anything more calculated to cause confusion, argument and ill-feeling. This is one case where the umpire's duty is quite simple and clear-cut, to observe what happens, to apply the Laws, and to ask the fielding captain if he wishes to sustain the appeal. Nothing else, no reference to any other official, no agonising over whether it was intentional. It seems that Agnew is much happier to play the populist vote when England feel their rights infringed. At all other times he's happy to uphold the application of the Laws. Is that the same officials who the TV replays show us repeatedly miss bowlers over-stepping and are now going to get even more confused by having to watch the non-stiker as well?
|
|