south african cheating

south african cheating

Post by Craig Sutto » Sun, 30 Oct 2005 13:26:27


Making pitches to suit their bowlers

;-)

 
 
 

south african cheating

Post by Rob » Sun, 30 Oct 2005 17:20:24


Quote:
> Making pitches to suit their bowlers

> ;-)

This promised to be an interesting series and certainly seems so after two
games.   Surprised the South Africans (perennial under achievers) are
beating NZ (perennial over achievers) though.   I have a lot of time for
NZ - they're a limited bunch - but they do tend to play above themselves -
which is worth a lot more than talent IMHO.   And before anyone lights the
torch - I'm not saying NZ don't have talent, just that they don't have it in
abundance like other sides.

 
 
 

south african cheating

Post by Bob Duber » Sun, 30 Oct 2005 17:31:58

Quote:

> This promised to be an interesting series and certainly seems so after two
> games.   Surprised the South Africans (perennial under achievers) are
> beating NZ (perennial over achievers) though.   I have a lot of time for
> NZ - they're a limited bunch - but they do tend to play above themselves -
> which is worth a lot more than talent IMHO.   And before anyone lights the
> torch - I'm not saying NZ don't have talent, just that they don't have it in
> abundance like other sides.

One might say that SA have more talent with Gibbs, Kallis and Bollocks
in their side. NZ always seem to have a lot of grafters in their side,
artisans rather than artists. But they are very good at adapting to
different circumstances and at making the most of what they have in
terms of skills and situation - which is a talent.

 
 
 

south african cheating

Post by Andrew Dunfor » Sun, 30 Oct 2005 19:31:51


Quote:



> > Making pitches to suit their bowlers

> > ;-)

> This promised to be an interesting series and certainly seems so after two
> games.   Surprised the South Africans (perennial under achievers) are
> beating NZ (perennial over achievers) though.   I have a lot of time for
> NZ - they're a limited bunch - but they do tend to play above themselves -
> which is worth a lot more than talent IMHO.   And before anyone lights the
> torch - I'm not saying NZ don't have talent, just that they don't have it
in
> abundance like other sides.

I'm grumpy about being 2-0 down after having an even share of both matches.
A 1-1 scoreline would probably be fair, but NZ lost the first match all by
themselves, then today in an even contest got shafted by the umpiring.

Bad decisions even out over time etc. etc, but not today.

Andrew

 
 
 

south african cheating

Post by alve » Sun, 30 Oct 2005 19:41:42

Quote:

> I'm grumpy about being 2-0 down after having an even share of both matches.
> A 1-1 scoreline would probably be fair, but NZ lost the first match all by
> themselves, then today in an even contest got shafted by the umpiring.

> Bad decisions even out over time etc. etc, but not today.

The game had a Magic Moment in it for moi though.
Ashwell Prince's dismissal was seriously funny.

I only flicked through the game, ie heard hardly any comms, but I've yet to
hear the woman commontater use an actual cricketing term. Novel.

alvey

 
 
 

south african cheating

Post by Mike Holman » Sun, 30 Oct 2005 20:21:04

On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 23:31:51 +1300, "Andrew Dunford"

Quote:
>I'm grumpy about being 2-0 down after having an even share of both matches.
>A 1-1 scoreline would probably be fair, but NZ lost the first match all by
>themselves, then today in an even contest got shafted by the umpiring.

>Bad decisions even out over time etc. etc, but not today.

If you're including the McCullum stumping as a bad decision, I think
you're on fairly shaky ground. I tried to persuade myself that some
part of McCullum's foot was grounded behind the line when the wicket
was broken, but I was rather unsuccessful. I'd accept that a number of
umpires might have said it was too close to call and given not out,
but it would have been a cop-out.

We were a victim of another bad decision at our house, though. When
Vincent was out, we switched over to watch the new sitcom from the pen
of Ben Elton, which turned out to be even more depressingly awful than
Andre Adams's bowling.

Cheers,

Mike

 
 
 

south african cheating

Post by Shishir S. Patha » Sun, 30 Oct 2005 21:12:57


Quote:





>> > Making pitches to suit their bowlers

>> > ;-)

>> This promised to be an interesting series and certainly seems so after
>> two
>> games.   Surprised the South Africans (perennial under achievers) are
>> beating NZ (perennial over achievers) though.   I have a lot of time for
>> NZ - they're a limited bunch - but they do tend to play above
>> themselves -
>> which is worth a lot more than talent IMHO.   And before anyone lights
>> the
>> torch - I'm not saying NZ don't have talent, just that they don't have it
> in
>> abundance like other sides.

> I'm grumpy about being 2-0 down after having an even share of both
> matches.
> A 1-1 scoreline would probably be fair, but NZ lost the first match all by
> themselves, then today in an even contest got shafted by the umpiring.

Your Indian passport is in the mail.

Seriously though, I'll grant you Vettori (not an Ashocka, but a wrong
decision nonetheless), but not McCullum.  A tight decision, but correctly
called by 3U IMO.  Methinks Coney was whingeing too much.

Someone needs to tell Kass Naidoo that it's not necessary to say "Here's
Shane Bond ..." every time he runs in to bowl.

Cheers, Shishir

 
 
 

south african cheating

Post by Rob » Mon, 31 Oct 2005 00:36:43


Quote:
> On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 23:31:51 +1300, "Andrew Dunford"

>>I'm grumpy about being 2-0 down after having an even share of both
>>matches.
>>A 1-1 scoreline would probably be fair, but NZ lost the first match all by
>>themselves, then today in an even contest got shafted by the umpiring.

>>Bad decisions even out over time etc. etc, but not today.

> If you're including the McCullum stumping as a bad decision, I think
> you're on fairly shaky ground. I tried to persuade myself that some
> part of McCullum's foot was grounded behind the line when the wicket
> was broken, but I was rather unsuccessful. I'd accept that a number of
> umpires might have said it was too close to call and given not out,
> but it would have been a cop-out.

> We were a victim of another bad decision at our house, though. When
> Vincent was out, we switched over to watch the new sitcom from the pen
> of Ben Elton, which turned out to be even more depressingly awful than
> Andre Adams's bowling.

> Cheers,

> Mike

What do you expect - he's been going downhill fast since Blackadder.
 
 
 

south african cheating

Post by shineythin » Mon, 31 Oct 2005 05:03:05

Quote:







> >> > Making pitches to suit their bowlers

> >> > ;-)

> >> This promised to be an interesting series and certainly seems so after
> >> two
> >> games.   Surprised the South Africans (perennial under achievers) are
> >> beating NZ (perennial over achievers) though.   I have a lot of time for
> >> NZ - they're a limited bunch - but they do tend to play above
> >> themselves -
> >> which is worth a lot more than talent IMHO.   And before anyone lights
> >> the
> >> torch - I'm not saying NZ don't have talent, just that they don't have it
> > in
> >> abundance like other sides.

> > I'm grumpy about being 2-0 down after having an even share of both
> > matches.
> > A 1-1 scoreline would probably be fair, but NZ lost the first match all by
> > themselves, then today in an even contest got shafted by the umpiring.

> Your Indian passport is in the mail.

> Seriously though, I'll grant you Vettori (not an Ashocka, but a wrong
> decision nonetheless), but not McCullum.  A tight decision, but correctly
> called by 3U IMO.  Methinks Coney was whingeing too much.

I didn't see either (being at the 12yo's cricket), but I'll make a
couple of uninformed comments anyway. First, it's not like Andrew to
moan about umpiring, so there must be something in it.  Second, Coney
was certainly not the only media jock 'whinging' about McCullum - the
SA radio commentators kept referring unfavourably to it as well.
 
 
 

south african cheating

Post by Andrew Dunfor » Mon, 31 Oct 2005 21:13:31


Quote:








> > >> > Making pitches to suit their bowlers

> > >> > ;-)

> > >> This promised to be an interesting series and certainly seems so
after
> > >> two
> > >> games.   Surprised the South Africans (perennial under achievers) are
> > >> beating NZ (perennial over achievers) though.   I have a lot of time
for
> > >> NZ - they're a limited bunch - but they do tend to play above
> > >> themselves -
> > >> which is worth a lot more than talent IMHO.   And before anyone
lights
> > >> the
> > >> torch - I'm not saying NZ don't have talent, just that they don't
have it
> > > in
> > >> abundance like other sides.

> > > I'm grumpy about being 2-0 down after having an even share of both
> > > matches.
> > > A 1-1 scoreline would probably be fair, but NZ lost the first match
all by
> > > themselves, then today in an even contest got shafted by the umpiring.

> > Your Indian passport is in the mail.

> > Seriously though, I'll grant you Vettori (not an Ashocka, but a wrong
> > decision nonetheless), but not McCullum.  A tight decision, but
correctly
> > called by 3U IMO.  Methinks Coney was whingeing too much.

> I didn't see either (being at the 12yo's cricket), but I'll make a
> couple of uninformed comments anyway. First, it's not like Andrew to
> moan about umpiring, so there must be something in it.  Second, Coney
> was certainly not the only media jock 'whinging' about McCullum - the
> SA radio commentators kept referring unfavourably to it as well.

Grumpy here.

It was not wrong of the third umpire to give McCullum out.  I have said on
many occasions that I think a line call which is so tight after being viewed
from several angles should be given not out, but at the same time accept the
viewpoint that the batsman needs to have something clearly grounded inside
the crease line to be truly safe, and McCullum didn't.

The combination of Vettori's dismissal so soon after McCullum was given out
just seemed to pull the rug out from under NZ's feet.  Perhaps they didn't
play well enough to win, but it just seemed to me at the time that in a game
largely free of incident (apart from Kyle Mills reciting the complete works
of Shakespeare in Graeme Smith's ear for some reason that wasn't immediately
obvious to those of us not on the pitch), NZ's admittedly rather timid
challenge suffered a fatal blow.  I thought the Vettori decision awful (it
never looked like he hit it watching live at full speed, yet the finger was
up almost before the appeal), but no more of less so than dozens one might
see over a period of time.

It's no excuse, really.  An innings in which one batsman contributed was a
tame effort.

Andrew

 
 
 

south african cheating

Post by Mike Holman » Mon, 31 Oct 2005 21:45:18

On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 01:13:31 +1300, "Andrew Dunford"

Quote:
>Grumpy here.

>It was not wrong of the third umpire to give McCullum out.  I have said on
>many occasions that I think a line call which is so tight after being viewed
>from several angles should be given not out, but at the same time accept the
>viewpoint that the batsman needs to have something clearly grounded inside
>the crease line to be truly safe, and McCullum didn't.

>The combination of Vettori's dismissal so soon after McCullum was given out
>just seemed to pull the rug out from under NZ's feet.  Perhaps they didn't
>play well enough to win, but it just seemed to me at the time that in a game
>largely free of incident (apart from Kyle Mills reciting the complete works
>of Shakespeare in Graeme Smith's ear for some reason that wasn't immediately
>obvious to those of us not on the pitch), NZ's admittedly rather timid
>challenge suffered a fatal blow.  I thought the Vettori decision awful (it
>never looked like he hit it watching live at full speed, yet the finger was
>up almost before the appeal), but no more of less so than dozens one might
>see over a period of time.

I think you're right that the Vettori dismissal removed such stuffing
as remained in the NZ effort. Coming after the way the first game
slipped out of their hands, the suspicion must be that they're going
to get into "Oh, hell, here we go again" syndrome. Fleming has quite a
job to do to remotivate his team - and on today's showing, it looks
like it's even more urgent.

Cheers,

Mike