Cricket World Cup starts with controvesy on and off-pitch!"

Discussion in 'Off Topic [BG]' started by Bruce Lindfield, Feb 11, 2003.

  1. Bruce Lindfield

    Bruce Lindfield Unprofessional TalkBass Contributor Gold Supporting Member

    So a potentially enjoyable match today with the first between two real contenders - Pakistan and Australia, but:

    We have - Shane Warne suspended for taking drugs!

    We have protestors outside the ground complaining about Australia going to Zimbabwe!

    And if that's not enough controversy, we have the Pakistan captain removed from the bowling as Symonds charges up the pitch to seemingly take a swing at him!!

    What's going to happen in the next innings? :eek:
  2. Have you heard what 'drugs' they were, Bruce? They were to help him dehydrate in his efforts to lose weight. Simple diuretics. Unlike others in the past, he didn't make the mistake of using a form of steroid to hasten his return to the wicket. And, as Ian Healy said "(Shane's) only crime was trying to be thing".

    I haven't heard about the protestors, but I saw Younis' delivery and in no way was it unintentional. It was quite obviously a deliberate beamer and he is very lucky Symonds didn't whack him into oblivion like he had been the ball.

    Not hard to see my bias in all this.:rolleyes:
  3. Bruce Lindfield

    Bruce Lindfield Unprofessional TalkBass Contributor Gold Supporting Member

    Well I think Australia is very lucky that he didn't wack Younis (pun intended! ) as he might have been banned as well as Shane!!

    Seriously though - it is a great match - very enjoyable and the "niggle" adds to the excitment!!

    I don't think Pakistan can do it, unless Australia do self-destruct, due to taunting or sledging! Now that would be a turn-up!! ;)
  4. errr...I meant thin...:rolleyes:

    About the bloodtest, I agree that its wrong to use it and that he was right for standing down and that he shouldn't take any further part in cricket until he's had his hearing and has proven to be 'drug free'. I do feel for him because he has had done so well to recover. For the credibility of cricket, lets hope that he does prove to be innocent of masking other drugs, not that I spose we'll ever fully know.

    Just to add a side note - I'm actually half kiwi, half aussie, so I'm not the typical fanatic on the situation. You reckon England will put up a better performance than they did over here?:D :rolleyes:

    No matter, I'm just hanging out for the Rugby World Cup...
  5. Bruce Lindfield

    Bruce Lindfield Unprofessional TalkBass Contributor Gold Supporting Member

    Well England have no chance now do they - in Nasser Hussain's interviews he said that he had members of his team "in tears" about the death threats they have recieved - it's hardly the sort of atmosphere to play a game in is it??!!

    So - obviously they have wives and families back home saying to them - don't go!!

    I will just be happy to see some good games of cricket and for the "underdogs to turn over a few of the favourites!!

    So - what will the ICC do if players do get attacked in Zimbabwe - surely they will have to stop the tournament and admit they were wrong?
  6. Oh dear, I don't even know If I like to think about the possibilities. Zimbabwe players wearing arm bands to signify the death of their home...its really saddening as well as disturbing.

    I think the first action would be to throw Zimbabwe out of cricket and then they'll have the problem of explaining to the families why it was they that thought it was safe. I can't imagine that its going to rest there either.

    I know that NZ is very fearful after an attack they had in Pakistan (?) not that long ago. I sympathise with the families telling their players not to go and specifically in the England team's case, I think that they may as well tried some new players in there anyway.

    Heh, Afridi out for 1... kinda sad that we're discussing the possibility of disaster more than who we think is gonna win the cup. What a world we live in...
  7. Bruce Lindfield

    Bruce Lindfield Unprofessional TalkBass Contributor Gold Supporting Member

    Waheey - Result!

    The England match in Zimbabwe is off! Best all round for everybody - but it means the controvesy continues unabated, as Zimbabwe refuse to play anywhere else!! ;)

    It looks like Politics and controversy are going to follow this tournament all the way - does it mean that sporting governing bodies have to think again about holding major events like this in Africa?
  8. I think that sporting bodies need to realise that without the players, they really are nothing. Therefore, they should really listen to the realistic and rational points of view of the teams. In saying that, sports men and woman can get too big for their boots and become overly 'fragile', so I spose a happy medium is required.

    I think that playing any form of sport in a place that is unsafe is stupid. If tourists are asked to leave a country/region due to instability, why should a sporting team be immune?
  9. I watched some of the Australian Innings after i got home from rehearsal. They did a recap of the Symonds incident. Tsk Tsk. Waqar bowled two deliveries like that. What has this world cup become?

    So who won? I missed the result? Australia did set a blistering target and Gillespie was right on the money with his bowling as per usual.


  10. Petebass


    Dec 22, 2002
    QLD Australia
    Austr. won Merls. Pak were all out for 220ish chasing 315.

    Oh and Canada (180) beat Bangladesh (120).

    There's been nothing in today's press about the Symonds/Younis incident. I've always worried that our "go hard or go home" approach would lead to temper tantrums on the field. I hope this doesn't happen again.

    Warne WILL be punished and deserves whatever they throw at him plus some IMO!
  11. Woohoo! hehehee

    Ahh Aussies, we're easy going people who have this habit of baiting people just a little, then they snap.. *cough* dennis Lillee *cough* ;)


  12. Marlat


    Sep 17, 2002
    London UK
    For what its worth, David Hooks was on the radio today saying that he would be very surprised if Shane Warne had taken steriods and then used the diuretic as a masking agent as Shane is not that kind of guy. (David is both a friend, and the coach of Shane (when he plays for Victoria)).

    Further, Shane is (reputadley) very vein and it is highly likely that he took the pill to simply shed some weight before going out in front of the cameras for his "comeback" game (ie 22nd January).

    It seems that Shane has just been stupid (rather than intentionally taking a masking agent) - and in David's opinion a lesser penalty should apply (I tend to agree), but some suspension is called for.

    On another note, did anyone catch the Pakistani keeper mouthing the reverse of what Darren Lehmann said to the Sri Lankins last night? Alegedly it was reported to the match umpire and investigations are underway.
  13. They showed the sledging incident on the news. But they arent showing what was said initially (by the pakistani). Probably because of the investigation.

    All they showed was Gilchrist taking the ball then coming and saying "what did you say?" the guy repeated it and Adam ran over to the umpire and had it reported.


  14. Bruce Lindfield

    Bruce Lindfield Unprofessional TalkBass Contributor Gold Supporting Member

    Yeah - I watched quite a lot of the game on TV - it was an interesting game fro a neutral and dominance switched between the teams - so when Symonds came in it looked like the Pakistani fast bowlers were going to bowl all of Australia out and the commentators were pointing out Symonds bad form and that he shouldn't be in the team - but Ponting had insisted! Then of course he took the game away from Pakistan single-handedly! ;)

    But it was obvious there was a lot of "niggle" throughout - so the Paksitanis wer obviously trying to put Symonds off and then there was a period, when Latif and Akram were at the crease, where it looked like Pakistan could pull of the most incredible of victories - both batsmen were hitting 6s at will off Australia's "lesser" bowlers and getting like 18-19 per over - but I think the sledging got to them and I saw a point where the umpire called Gilchrist away and it seemed like he won the "war of words" with Latif. ;)
  15. Mind if an ugly American asks a few questions here?:confused:

    My total experience with cricket is about 45 seconds of fastcut scenes advertising a pay-per-view TV package on the satellite. Could you give me a (simple) rundown of the object of the game and some of the pertinent rules?

    BTW, the best of the scenes I mentioned above was one where the batsman (I think that's right) was swinging like Reggie Jackson in Fenway Park. If that was legal, it looks like fun!
  16. Marlat


    Sep 17, 2002
    London UK
    Cricket comes in two varieties:

    One Day Matches (each side plays 50 overs (6 balls per over).

    Test Matches (lasts for 5 days where each side is supposed to play two innings (ie turns at batting / fielding).

    The object of the game is to outscore the other team. In a limited over match (one day) or a test match, the Teams innings comes to an end when either:

    a) 10 Batsmen are out; or
    b) the team declares (they feel they have made a sufficient number of runs)

    A run is scored by the batsman running the length of the pitch. If the ball is hit to the boundary it is 4 runs, if it is hit over the boundary, it is 6 runs.

    A batman can be made out by being, bowled, caught, run out or "caught" leg before wicket (LBW) which is where the batsman's leg stops the ball from hitting the wicket.

    I hope this helps (its a pretty complex game from a rules point of view), but this is it in simple form.
  17. Bruce Lindfield

    Bruce Lindfield Unprofessional TalkBass Contributor Gold Supporting Member

    Yeah - I heard Latif was going to sue for slander and defamation of character!

    I was surprised about an Aussie team complaining about sledging, as they have always been the acknowledged masters of this, in the past!! ;)

    I think Latif lost out, as he was really hitting the ball for 6, with ease, but after the "incident" he was out.
  18. Petebass


    Dec 22, 2002
    QLD Australia
    The opposite of what Lehmann said huh. That means he called Gilchrist a "White C**T". How the hell did he get away with that? Lehmann got a 5 match suspension and rightly so. Apparently Clive Lloyd was the match referee and he dismissed it on lack of evidence. It was Gilchrist's word over Latiff"s. My question is why they didn't bother to listen to the audio from the mic in the stumps?