1. Please take 30 seconds to register your free account to remove most ads, post topics, make friends, earn reward points at our store, and more!  

The Ashes 06/07. 18 years to win them, 18 months to lose them!

Discussion in 'Off Topic [BG]' started by Petebass, Nov 20, 2006.

  1. Petebass


    Dec 22, 2002
    QLD Australia
    Only 2 more sleeps before The Ashes series start. I can't wait!

    Can England Regain the Ashes? Can they reproduce the good cricket of 18 months ago without the likes of Trescothic and Vaughan? Australia's lapse of 18 months ago seems to have righted itself in that we've won everything we've played since, including the champions Trophy a few weeks ago.

    Let the Hostilities Commence!
  2. Petebass


    Dec 22, 2002
    QLD Australia
    Oh C'mon, only a few hours before it starts and not one show of interest? I would have thought at least one Englishman would have defended their team's honour? Where's Bruce?
  3. I am born in England, speak fluent English, and have lived in England all my life, yet I find the English game of cricket the most incredibly boring game ever invented.

    I only ever played it once, and it was crap, but Jesus Christ, who the hell wants to do it professionaly?

    No offence Petebass, I know this has little to do with the topic, but I REALLY hate cricket.

    I will support Australia, so like that everyone over here will shutup and never speak of that abysmal game ever again!
  4. Petebass


    Dec 22, 2002
    QLD Australia
    There's your problem right there :)

    I played it competatively for many years. It's a brilliant game!
  5. I wouldn't hate it nearly as much if the players didn't have those ridiculous jumpers, which they don't even wear. Instead, they give them to the umpire who has to wear about six layers of white cotton jumpers, four hats and three pairs of sunglasses.

    It's not even called a game!!! It's a test or something silly.

    And I also hate how they get excited: some idiot ALMOST catches a ball, everybody jumps and shouts "Wahey". The umpire than sticks his leg out, and the smiles are wiped off of their faces. It's ridiculous!!!

    I also hate how the players put on loads of suncream, but just on the nose.

    I also hate the fact that cricket is aired on Channel 4 (in the UK) from about 1pm til 6pm. That's five fours of crap on an otherwise brilliant channel.

    Anyway, rant over.
  6. Clearly you've never seen baseball :D
  7. You're out of touch.

    1. Cricket isn't on channel 4 any more.
    2. Only test matches last 4 or 5 days and they're the minority of matches. Most matches last just the one day (6 hours really)
    3. The players only give their jumper to the umpire when they (as an individual) are about to bowl because it restricts movement and they'd get pretty hot running up like that with a jumper on.
    4. They put sun cream on their arms and faces, but the sun-BLOCK is on the areas most at risk of burning.
    5. The quirks of cricket are what make it interesting.

    The impression that I get is that you've never really given it a chance and therefore you simply don't understand it.

    And in reply to the OP, I'm looking forward to it even though it looks like we're going to get a good dicking based on recent performances. Still, I live in hope. Perhaps we can rise to the occasion. I'm pretty pissed off that it's only on sky though - having said that it won't start til midnight our time anyway so I'd only see a few overs.
  8. The_D

    The_D Well, thats like your opinion. Man...

    Mar 20, 2004
    Fife, Scotland
    Sorry Pete, Another person who cant cope with the long-winded game of cricket :(

    I have been brought up on Football (Soccer).

    It was really strange when I was in NSW when I read a paper and it took like the back 4 pages to see any mention of it!

    Anyway good luck Australia!

    At least if you win us in Scotland wont have to put up with endless victory parades and knighthoods if England win haha :)
  9. Typical bloody Scot! ;)

    Though it really pisses me off that sportspeople (of any sport) get knighthoods and other honours and get referred to as heroes. That pisses me off. David Beckham is not a hero, nor Michael Vaughan or Andrew Flintoff or Ellen (waste of space) MacArthur. Douglas Bader (lost both legs and still flew in the battle of Britain) was a hero, likewise William Wilburforce (protested the slave trade) or firefighters, policemen, doctors and nurses who risk their lives for the sake of others' daily.

    OK, enough of that rant!
  10. Baryonyx

    Baryonyx Inactive

    Jul 11, 2005
    Marathon Man
    Granted, England might suck at sport but we're tidy in a swedge.
  11. Petebass


    Dec 22, 2002
    QLD Australia
    ..tidy in a what?

  12. 1. Thank God! I didn't know.
    2. Six hours is still too much.
    3. If they got hot, surely they would wear shorts etc... Not those long white trousers. Before you rebut this claim, I do realise that cricket players occasionally wear shorts, but almost every match I've "seen" (i.e. walked past), the players have been wearing clothes that would make someone really hot!
    4. Still looks stupid, whatever you want to call it!:p
    5. I can't really discredit an argument like that! All I can say is that I play sports that aren't defended by the phrase "quirks are what make it interesting".

    I've played cricket once before. I was open-minded about playing it, I was surrounded by friends, I was feeling good. But I just hated the game, no matter how hard I tried not to!

    And trust me, I understand cricket plenty enough. My dad is absolutely fanatical about it.
  13. Baryonyx

    Baryonyx Inactive

    Jul 11, 2005
    Marathon Man
    Tidy in a swedge=good in a fight.

    As for my 2p on Cricket, it's diabolically boring.
  14. Petebass


    Dec 22, 2002
    QLD Australia
    Only when England play like they usually do! :)

    Take yesterday as an example. They decided to play 2 swing bowlers in Hoggard and Anderson, plus two strike bowlers in Flintoff and Harmison. Problem was, neither swing bowler could get the seam straight and as a result the ball wasn't swinging. And Harmison had the yips - he looked very nervous. His First ball went straight to second slip (I've never seen anything like it).

    So the only bowler we had to see off was Flintoff. The rest were easy pickings. Austr 3/346 with Hussey looking good for yet another century (that bloke is a run scoring machine!), and Ponting staring down the barrel of a Double Hundred if England bowl today like they did yesterday.

    Still, it's early days and England are more than capable of striking back.
  15. from new zealand, i guess ill back aussie for this one, kind of would like to see them lose tho :) and as to cricket being boring.. al i can do is a lindfield. :meh:
  16. I think the team selection is poor, it was almost like they were scared of trying something a bit new.

    1. Harmison is not ready. Just because the Aussies struggled with his pace last time is no reason to put him in when he's not hitting the target.
    2. Ashley Giles might take the occasional wicket, he might keep the run rate down, but he's not a match winner. Monty Panesar might give more runs away but he will take more wickets (I realise it's not quite time in this match for spinners yet, but I'm thinking ahead)
    3. Geraint Jones couldn't catch a cold. Chris Read should be playing. Jones is a liability.

    I think we'll miss Vaughan in the batting line up. He hit some good innings. If Bell is in form he could make a difference, but with this selection and with Simon Jones injured I think we'll struggle to take wickets.
  17. Petebass


    Dec 22, 2002
    QLD Australia
    1. Not ready? I guess that means he's been out injured or something? That certainly explains yesterday's performance. If that's the case, he'll come good at some point in the tour. The question is when? If he can come good, the whole complexion of the English side will change!

    2 and 3. I think both points are related. I think that by picking Jones as the keeper, the selectors were then forced into picking Giles as the spinner to strengthen the batting line up a little. Personally I don't think Giles' 20-30 runs per innings is worth more than the 3-4 wickets Panessar would likely take.

    That said, Giles didn't bowl too badly yesterday. He seems to have been working on his bowling. He usually looks flat and predictable. Yesterday he had a lot more flight and used the bouncy pitch well. That said, I reckon shane Warne would have been watching Giles and Pieterson with interest and licking his lips. Lots of turn, lots of bounce, and we should be bowling last. Warney's gonna love it out there........
  18. yep I really don't like baseball, and how long is their season 11 months or something???

  19. Well...I was right really - I said I couldn't see where we were going to take wickets and we really struggled.

    Yeah, Giles bowled OK, particularly as he's been out for a year, but I still don't rate him as much as Panesar. I think Panesar can worry opposition the way that Shane Warne or Anil Kumble could.

    I hope they change the selection for the second test. If we lose that as well then it's all over, we won't recover psychologically, although if ever a captain could inspire his team then it's Flintoff.
  20. Vorago

    Vorago (((o)))

    Jul 17, 2003
    Antwerp, Belgium
    ffs, can someone PLEASE explain me how this game works?

    Stephdawe tried it once and failed horribly :D

    An over is a ball over that little bump that surrounds the field, and the point is to hit the sticks with the ball. The batter has to prevent that from happening.

    Ok, so far my Cricket knowledge :D

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.