Al3 Posted June 25, 2005 Share Posted June 25, 2005 behold, now for the thumping being given england on tuesday Article about Batting Averages Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zvonimir Boban Posted June 25, 2005 Share Posted June 25, 2005 Al3 gets a thumbs up for the Afridi mention Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeafParrot Posted June 25, 2005 Share Posted June 25, 2005 So in Symonds and Collingwood, you have 2 guys who are no more than easy medium pacers. Between them they have 11 Bangladesh wickets in 2 innings Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al3 Posted June 25, 2005 Share Posted June 25, 2005 as much as i hate him, i love his hair, fantastic flowing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al3 Posted June 25, 2005 Share Posted June 25, 2005 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> DeafParrot So in Symonds and Collingwood, you have 2 guys who are no more than easy medium pacers. Between them they have 11 Bangladesh wickets in 2 innings </div></BLOCKQUOTE> yes but symonds has performed against england and collingwood has... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeafParrot Posted June 25, 2005 Share Posted June 25, 2005 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Al3: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> DeafParrot So in Symonds and Collingwood, you have 2 guys who are no more than easy medium pacers. Between them they have 11 Bangladesh wickets in 2 innings </div></BLOCKQUOTE> yes but symonds has performed against england and collingwood has... </div></BLOCKQUOTE> ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al3 Posted June 25, 2005 Share Posted June 25, 2005 i got the wrong idea, i thought you were comparing them both, you are not right Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zvonimir Boban Posted June 25, 2005 Share Posted June 25, 2005 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Al3: as much as i hate him, i love his hair, fantastic flowing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> I wish I had hair like his Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeafParrot Posted June 25, 2005 Share Posted June 25, 2005 Oh, no I was just commenting how the Bangladeshis seem to cope with everything but a gentle medium pacer. It seems to destroy them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zvonimir Boban Posted June 25, 2005 Share Posted June 25, 2005 Symonds was bowling spin today tbh Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeafParrot Posted June 25, 2005 Share Posted June 25, 2005 Oh was he Even so, they're no more than backup bowlers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al3 Posted June 25, 2005 Share Posted June 25, 2005 yes, a bit more application in the middle overs by bangladesh should sort them out, but me thinks thats asking to much. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Crumb Posted June 25, 2005 Share Posted June 25, 2005 With such a sparse population it is a testament to their coaching and youth development that Australia do so well. Pund for Pound China should be dominant in every sport! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zvonimir Boban Posted June 25, 2005 Share Posted June 25, 2005 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Al3: yes, a bit more application in the middle overs by bangladesh should sort them out, but me thinks thats asking to much. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> The way they played Hogg and co the day they beat Australia was perfect, just picking up ones and twos and waiting for the bad ball but the last couple of games have gone to their heads. You saw a lot of wickets fall because they thought they could smash the bowlers about in the middle of the innings even though they weren't particularly bad balls, overconfidence smoked them Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al3 Posted June 25, 2005 Share Posted June 25, 2005 true Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zvonimir Boban Posted June 26, 2005 Share Posted June 26, 2005 Bangladesh win the toss and Habibul Bashard decides to bat first at Headingley, bit of a strange decision Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zvonimir Boban Posted June 26, 2005 Share Posted June 26, 2005 Jones starts with 4 consecutive wides Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zvonimir Boban Posted June 26, 2005 Share Posted June 26, 2005 but after that he finds the edge and beats the bat with a couple of very good deliveries Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zvonimir Boban Posted June 26, 2005 Share Posted June 26, 2005 http://content.cricinfo.com/ci/content/story/211845.html <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> The ICC chief executives' committee (CEC) has approved the introduction of two innovations into all one-day internationals from July 30. The new regulations, which involve the fielding restrictions and the introduction of replacement players, will be trialled for 10 months after which they will be reviewed by the Cricket Committee - which made the initial recommendations - at its 2006 meeting. The primary change in ODI cricket will see an increase from 15 to 20 overs of fielding restrictions. These will apply for the first 10 overs of every innings, in addition to two blocks of five overs which must be selected by the fielding captain. The CEC decided that the additional 'close-catcher' field restrictions should only apply for the first 10 overs. The CEC also approved the introduction of football-style replacements which will permit sides to replace a player at any stage of a match. The replaced player will be ruled out of the rest of the match while the replacement will be entitled to assume any remaining batting or bowling duties. Both players will receive a cap. These two innovations may be trialled during the NatWest Challenge between England and Australia starting on July 7. The ECB and Cricket Australia will decide whether this is to be the case after consulting with their stakeholders to assess the feasibility of introducing the changes within the required timeframe. Technology trial As well as the changes to the ODI regulations, the CEC also endorsed the proposal to undertake a technology trial during the Super Series in Australia during October. This will allow on-field umpires to consult with the TV umpire on any aspect of any decision with the final decision remaining with the on-field umpire. The only exceptions to this will be line decisions, which will be dealt with by the TV umpire in the same manner as at present, and clean catches, where the existing process will also be retained. The current practice for clean catches is that they are only referred where both umpires are unsighted as this is one area where TV replays have proved inconclusive. Cricket bats The CEC also approved the establishment of an expert panel to work with MCC and bat manufacturers to review the laws and regulations governing the manufacture of cricket bats. It approved the recommendation from the Cricket Committee that the following principles should be taken into account by the sub-committee in its deliberations: 1. That the dimensions of the bat should remain the same 2. That the bat should have a conventional shape 3. That the splice and handle be clearly defined 4. That the blade of bat should be made of a single piece of solid wood 5. That the practice of injecting substances such as cork is to be illegal 6. That any cover should be used to protect, strengthen and repair the bat and not improve the 'striking power' of the bat 7. Whether the bat should remain the colour of natural wood The CEC considered the specific case of the Kookaburra bat used by several international players and agreed that the bats should be allowed pending a final decision from MCC on their legality in relation to current regulations. All of these decisions followed recommendations from the Cricket Committee which comprises former international cricketers and is chaired by Sunil Gavaskar. Other key agenda items from the CEC have been referred to the executive board for its consideration on Monday. The outcomes of the executive board meeting will be announced at the ICC Cricket Business Forum on Tuesday. © ICC </div></BLOCKQUOTE> The fielding restrictions idea sounds like it could be quite good but not sure about the subs thing Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haz Posted June 26, 2005 Share Posted June 26, 2005 The sub idea stinks Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Posted June 26, 2005 Share Posted June 26, 2005 Yeah but it's unfair to see a Test Match spoilt by an injury Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zvonimir Boban Posted June 26, 2005 Share Posted June 26, 2005 The sub idea could be quite interesting in the ODI game but the main reason I'm not keen on it is a fear that in time it might find it's way into the test arena which would be a travesty. If I knew for certain that it would be limited just to ODI's then I wouldn't really mind Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zvonimir Boban Posted June 26, 2005 Share Posted June 26, 2005 Bangladesh 82/1 after 16 overs, some cracking shots being played but England's fielding has been pretty poor and Bangladesh should really be 2 or 3 down Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haz Posted June 26, 2005 Share Posted June 26, 2005 Subs take away one of the skills of selecting your line-up, i.e. the need for balance Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zvonimir Boban Posted June 26, 2005 Share Posted June 26, 2005 Yep, the need for good team selection and tactics is reduced but it should improve the overall quality of the ODI game because it means teams will probably play more specialists and get rid of some of the average bits and pieces players who masquerade as all rounders Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haz Posted June 26, 2005 Share Posted June 26, 2005 And ultimately lead to the death of the genuine all rounder from the game as a whole Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zvonimir Boban Posted June 26, 2005 Share Posted June 26, 2005 Not really because the true all rounder will get into the side on the strength of his batting or his bowling alone, there's no reason for a decent all rounder to worry abut his place in the team. It's the pappy ones who will hopefully be culled from ODI cricket. Anything which stops Mohammed Hafeez from playing for Pakistan ever again must be a good idea Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zvonimir Boban Posted June 26, 2005 Share Posted June 26, 2005 Tushar Imran plays on and Ashraful gone first ball, it's 92/3 now. Flintoff not realising that we want to watch Ashraful bat and not Fred bowl Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrankJJ Posted June 26, 2005 Share Posted June 26, 2005 No one noticed the, some would say overdue, separation of Shane Warne from his wife? Initially Hampshire said he was having a two week break at the request of the ACB, parhaps that is not now the case. He has obviously been a naughty boy but for his wife and kids to move here recently, sell his house in Oz, buy something large and grand on the south coast and then come to this decision seems rather strange and not well timed for the Australian cause. A shame though, not something one likes to read about no matter who is involved. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dixie Flatline Posted June 26, 2005 Share Posted June 26, 2005 We've had the substitute in domestic one day cricket in Australia for a while now. I don't think it's done much either way, though domestic cricket in Australia is treated with little interest by the average cricket supporter in Australia - though when I went to the Pura Cup final between Victoria and Queensland a couple of years ago, I was pleasantly surprised at the cost of entry ($5) and beer. Tbh, I'm surprised Simone lasted so long with Warney given the amount of naughtiness he has gotten himself into over the last 5 years. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
theis Posted June 26, 2005 Share Posted June 26, 2005 <pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre"> Toss: Bangladesh Umpires: Aleem Dar (Pak) and MR Benson TV Umpire: NJ Llong Match Referee: JJ Crowe (NZ) Man of the Match: Bangladesh innings (50 overs maximum) R B 4 6 Javed Omar b Flintoff 81 150 5 0 Shahriar Nafees c Trescothick b SP Jones 11 15 2 0 Tushar Imran b Flintoff 32 34 4 0 Mohammad Ashraful c Trescothick b Flintoff 0 1 0 0 *Habibul Bashar run out (Collingwood) 10 24 0 0 Aftab Ahmed b Giles 15 27 1 0 +Khaled Mashud not out 42 43 4 0 Mashrafe Mortaza b Flintoff 1 3 0 0 Mohammad Rafique not out 2 5 0 0 Extras (lb 1, w 11, nb 2) 14 Total (7 wickets, 50 overs) 208 DNB: Manjural Islam Rana, Nazmul Hossain. FoW: 1-22 (Shahriar Nafees, 5.2 ov), 2-92 (Tushar Imran, 21.2 ov), 3-92 (Mohammad Ashraful, 21.3 ov), 4-112 (Habibul Bashar, 29.2 ov), 5-138 (Aftab Ahmed, 37.2 ov), 6-183 (Javed Omar, 45.6 ov), 7-189 (Mashrafe Mortaza, 47.3 ov). Bowling O M R W Gough 9 0 59 0 (1nb, 1w) SP Jones 9 0 44 1 (8w) Tremlett 7 0 26 0 Flintoff 9 1 29 4 (1nb) Collingwood 6 0 21 0 Giles 10 0 28 1 (1w) </pre> Flintoff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
only one keano (robbie) Posted June 26, 2005 Share Posted June 26, 2005 Does anyone else think Brad Hogg is that short guy from the Fosters advert who hides his Fosters behind the tall, beautiful woman? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sebs Posted June 26, 2005 Share Posted June 26, 2005 thank god they got rid of that awful golden over suggestion Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wycombe Posted June 26, 2005 Author Share Posted June 26, 2005 the sub idea is pretty sh*t really, cricket fans aren't calling for it and its not going to bring in new fans. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sebs Posted June 26, 2005 Share Posted June 26, 2005 if you'd have to name your team before the toss it'd be almost completely pointless too Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
theis Posted June 26, 2005 Share Posted June 26, 2005 Trescothick out but it brings Flintoff to the crease COME ONE FLINTOFF SCORING SOME RUNS Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
theis Posted June 26, 2005 Share Posted June 26, 2005 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ericcantona7 Posted June 26, 2005 Share Posted June 26, 2005 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by sebs: if you'd have to name your team before the toss it'd be almost completely pointless too </div></BLOCKQUOTE> yeah I think we'll see most teams naming a bowler as sub and only having 4 start. so if they bat first then they can bring on the bowler for the batter after their 50 overs, whereas if they bowl first they can get one of their bowlers to use up all 10 overs early on and then switch him for the other one. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
WLKRAS Posted June 26, 2005 Share Posted June 26, 2005 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ericcantona7: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by sebs: if you'd have to name your team before the toss it'd be almost completely pointless too </div></BLOCKQUOTE> yeah I think we'll see most teams naming a bowler as sub and only having 4 start. so if they bat first then they can bring on the bowler for the batter after their 50 overs, whereas if they bowl first they can get one of their bowlers to use up all 10 overs early on and then switch him for the other one. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> That won't work, cause the substitute can only bowl out the remaining overs (ie if the first bowler bowled 7, the sub can only bowl 3 more) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Posted June 26, 2005 Share Posted June 26, 2005 Strauss out for 98 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bcfcfanuk Posted June 26, 2005 Share Posted June 26, 2005 just got back from this game, fabulous fun sat next to all the drunken's who were seeing how high they could stack beer cups until the stewards stopped them one got to the length of 2 blocks unbroken was fantastic. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ericcantona7 Posted June 26, 2005 Share Posted June 26, 2005 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WLKRAS: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ericcantona7: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by sebs: if you'd have to name your team before the toss it'd be almost completely pointless too </div></BLOCKQUOTE> yeah I think we'll see most teams naming a bowler as sub and only having 4 start. so if they bat first then they can bring on the bowler for the batter after their 50 overs, whereas if they bowl first they can get one of their bowlers to use up all 10 overs early on and then switch him for the other one. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> That won't work, cause the substitute can only bowl out the remaining overs (ie if the first bowler bowled 7, the sub can only bowl 3 more) </div></BLOCKQUOTE> that's even more stupid, just gives the advantage to the team who bowls second. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Rockstar Posted June 26, 2005 Share Posted June 26, 2005 The sub idea sucks baws tbh. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fazpac Posted June 26, 2005 Share Posted June 26, 2005 I thought Gough was a little disappointing today, Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Posted June 26, 2005 Share Posted June 26, 2005 His place is seriously under threat now I think especially if Anderson hits form. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haz Posted June 26, 2005 Share Posted June 26, 2005 Like THAT will happen...... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
WLKRAS Posted June 26, 2005 Share Posted June 26, 2005 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Glenn: His place is seriously under threat now I think especially if Anderson hits form. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Gough's place isn't under threat, he's Englands best One-Day bowler as he has shown in the past year or so. And Anderson shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the team until he's had a couple of good seasons in County cricket Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Posted June 26, 2005 Share Posted June 26, 2005 Just the facts are he isn't blowing away the top orders anymore. He's got a bit of stick in last two ODIs Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Rockstar Posted June 26, 2005 Share Posted June 26, 2005 So two bad odi's after an ENTIRE CAREER of proving himself and you want to drop him? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Posted June 26, 2005 Share Posted June 26, 2005 No but even the commentators were saying it today Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.