Re: Australia v New Zealand
Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2015 5:50 pm
Shows the psyche of both sets of media and supporters. If someone like KP had got out playing that shot he would have been crucified.
Kiwis being upbeat about their team’s prospects is to be expected but I find it difficult to believe a pom would take a cheap shot.Steve#4 wrote: I saw kiwis at the start of the game thinking they had a great shot bowling.
I see also a pom that waited till after lunch because he didnt have the conviction, then take a cheap shot.
Not the groundsman, that's for sure.God is an Englishman wrote:Nathan Lyon interviewed today saying that he'd be looking to take a lot of wickets today and Mitchell had the long spikes in.
Who's pitch "doctoring" now?
Didn't he do any work on the pitch at all then?Bomber wrote:Not the groundsman, that's for sure.God is an Englishman wrote:Nathan Lyon interviewed today saying that he'd be looking to take a lot of wickets today and Mitchell had the long spikes in.
Who's pitch "doctoring" now?
To make it playable to test standard yes. That's obvious. Did he do something specific to it on order of the ACB or Steve Smith? No.God is an Englishman wrote:Didn't he do any work on the pitch at all then?Bomber wrote:Not the groundsman, that's for sure.God is an Englishman wrote:Nathan Lyon interviewed today saying that he'd be looking to take a lot of wickets today and Mitchell had the long spikes in.
Who's pitch "doctoring" now?
Do you know for a fact he didn't? Are you privvy to conversations between the three parties?Bomber wrote:
To make it playable to test standard yes. That's obvious. Did he do something specific to it on order of the ACB or Steve Smith? No.
God is an Englishman wrote:Do you know for a fact he didn't? Are you privvy to conversations between the three parties?Bomber wrote:
To make it playable to test standard yes. That's obvious. Did he do something specific to it on order of the ACB or Steve Smith? No.
No, so you're just assuming then.
So the Kiwis don't have batsmen that can bat on roads? They don't have bowlers who can swing it, spin it? Looks a very fair pitch to me and one which could have been different in NZ won the toss and batted first.God is an Englishman wrote:It was well known was it? Who decided it had happened? The only part of it being "well known" was the media claims.
Who in England admitted it?
The pitch was almost exactly the same as every other year up there, the same pitch every year that is suited to the Aussies.
Bomber wrote:So the Kiwis don't have batsmen that can bat on roads? They don't have bowlers who can swing it, spin it? Looks a very fair pitch to me and one which could have been different in NZ won the toss and batted first.God is an Englishman wrote:It was well known was it? Who decided it had happened? The only part of it being "well known" was the media claims.
Who in England admitted it?
The pitch was almost exactly the same as every other year up there, the same pitch every year that is suited to the Aussies.
Admissions were made by the commentators at the time (Hussain, Atherton from memory). Even captain Cook had wry smiles when questioned about it.
Like I said, its fair enough as home team to do that if they choose, only that some countries go the extra mile to ensure its 100% clear and we clearly don't. Simple.
Do we try and stop the SCG from taking spin when we play India on it? Nup.
When the Windies dominated cricket with pace, did we try and change the WACA wicket? Nup.
Your case is dismissed.
Oh dear, to you unless someone stands on a platform and says "I did this or I did that" it probably didn't happen.God is an Englishman wrote:Bomber wrote:So the Kiwis don't have batsmen that can bat on roads? They don't have bowlers who can swing it, spin it? Looks a very fair pitch to me and one which could have been different in NZ won the toss and batted first.God is an Englishman wrote:It was well known was it? Who decided it had happened? The only part of it being "well known" was the media claims.
Who in England admitted it?
The pitch was almost exactly the same as every other year up there, the same pitch every year that is suited to the Aussies.
Admissions were made by the commentators at the time (Hussain, Atherton from memory). Even captain Cook had wry smiles when questioned about it.
Like I said, its fair enough as home team to do that if they choose, only that some countries go the extra mile to ensure its 100% clear and we clearly don't. Simple.
Do we try and stop the SCG from taking spin when we play India on it? Nup.
When the Windies dominated cricket with pace, did we try and change the WACA wicket? Nup.
Your case is dismissed.
So the commentators are now privvy to conversations between the captain, the ECB and the groundsman. Cook smiled. IS THAT IT?
Come on, surely you can do better than that.
Windies dominating cricket, you're going back 30 years now to grasp at that straw.
You said "even the poms admitted it" - so where are these admissions?Bomber wrote: Oh dear, to you unless someone stands on a platform and says "I did this or I did that" it probably didn't happen.
Your case is already dismissed, so you can harp on as much as you like, but its clear that your whingeing about anything Aussie is falling on deaf ears. Be thankful that I am at least trying to educate you.
I don't keep transcripts, I just recall conversations made in public (tv).God is an Englishman wrote:You said "even the poms admitted it" - so where are these admissions?Bomber wrote: Oh dear, to you unless someone stands on a platform and says "I did this or I did that" it probably didn't happen.
Your case is already dismissed, so you can harp on as much as you like, but its clear that your whingeing about anything Aussie is falling on deaf ears. Be thankful that I am at least trying to educate you.
I recall no such conversations happening. If they were made in public then I'm sure it would be documented on the world wide web somewhere.Bomber wrote:I don't keep transcripts, I just recall conversations made in public (tv).God is an Englishman wrote:You said "even the poms admitted it" - so where are these admissions?Bomber wrote: Oh dear, to you unless someone stands on a platform and says "I did this or I did that" it probably didn't happen.
Your case is already dismissed, so you can harp on as much as you like, but its clear that your whingeing about anything Aussie is falling on deaf ears. Be thankful that I am at least trying to educate you.
I went back 5 years, you went back 30. You claim the aussies don't doctor yet I provided an example of them doing exactly that.Bomber wrote:The pitch was deemed unplayable due to safety reasons but even you know that. Strange that the Aus XI still were 1/500 odd? You can call it doctoring, I'd call it curator stuffing up big time.
You think NSW (the now stuffed SCG wicket) handing over 6 points to Victoria in the abandoned shield match has a bigger picture attached to it I suppose?
And I notice now you're going back into history to find examples, yet my Windies one was scoffed at. Can't have it both ways. If the MCG was deemed unfit, it stands to reason they'd get a new pitch put in. The ACB couldn't afford to re-schedule a boxing day test, but again, you would understand that.
If/when Steyn and Morkel tour next, you think we'll change the pitch to "thwart" their attack?
You can call it what you like, doesn't concern me. One day you might get what the difference between home advantage is with the added benefit of manipulating wickets, purely to suit a certain attack (or weakness in opposition).God is an Englishman wrote:I went back 5 years, you went back 30. You claim the aussies don't doctor yet I provided an example of them doing exactly that.Bomber wrote:The pitch was deemed unplayable due to safety reasons but even you know that. Strange that the Aus XI still were 1/500 odd? You can call it doctoring, I'd call it curator stuffing up big time.
You think NSW (the now stuffed SCG wicket) handing over 6 points to Victoria in the abandoned shield match has a bigger picture attached to it I suppose?
And I notice now you're going back into history to find examples, yet my Windies one was scoffed at. Can't have it both ways. If the MCG was deemed unfit, it stands to reason they'd get a new pitch put in. The ACB couldn't afford to re-schedule a boxing day test, but again, you would understand that.
If/when Steyn and Morkel tour next, you think we'll change the pitch to "thwart" their attack?
Once again, this is pure example of how you cons think you can do no wrong. Reminds me of the chinese swimmers and drugs. Yet when it's your people, they're all innocent.
Why would you want to thwart Steyn when you have a similar attack, you'd be mugging yourselves off as much as them.
Now, i'm still waiting for the England captain or the ECB to admit to giving the curator orders. Incidentally, i'm of the opinion as the England board were in 2010 when australia doctored the MCG wicket that it's not doctoring it's home advantage.
Which grounds don't take spin on day 1? Warney had little trouble taking wickets on all local test pitches on the first day of a test.God is an Englishman wrote:Why don't Australia produce wickets that take spin on day 1?
I don't think you understand the concept of producing a wicket.
No new evidence to contrary or anything deemed admissible.Bomber wrote: Your case is dismissed