FootballNews

Bomber wrote:

Bomber wrote: Your case is dismissed

No new evidence to contrary or anything deemed admissible.

And you still haven't provided any evidence

Slinky_Pete wrote:http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-11/w ... it/6766900

I was expecting bomber to post this a while back. Anderson isn't part of the ECB or the captain

Why does it have to be the captain or the ECB?

MegaBonus wrote:Why does it have to be the captain or the ECB?

Because otherwise it's the equivalent of bomber admitting it, obviously.

God is an Englishman wrote:

MegaBonus wrote:Why does it have to be the captain or the ECB?

Because otherwise it's the equivalent of bomber admitting it, obviously.

I feel Anderson (being the front line bowler) has a closer association to the desires of the English captain/ECB than Bombre

Slinky_Pete wrote:

God is an Englishman wrote:

MegaBonus wrote:Why does it have to be the captain or the ECB?

Because otherwise it's the equivalent of bomber admitting it, obviously.

I feel Anderson (being the front line bowler) has a closer association to the desires of the English captain/ECB than Bombre

Any recommendation would come from the captain, not a bowler.

Hence, an "admission" would have to come from the captain or the ECB to be an admission. Otherwise it's not an admission.

So it happened or it didn't?

Bomber wrote:So it happened or it didn't?

I have said all along that I believe it did.

I hope someone changes the record before lunchtime tomorrow.

Stitch This wrote:I hope someone changes the record before lunchtime tomorrow.

+1 but me thinks they won't even discuss it.

Urgh! A Musíc War wrote:

Stitch This wrote:I hope someone changes the record before lunchtime tomorrow.

+1 but me thinks they won't even discuss it.

No point when you know I'm right, and plaintiff's case being dismissed

Bomber wrote:

Urgh! A Musíc War wrote:

Stitch This wrote:I hope someone changes the record before lunchtime tomorrow.

+1 but me thinks they won't even discuss it.

No point when you know I'm right, and plaintiff's case being dismissed

Plaintiff?

You're far from right and I think you know it.

Seeing as the cricket is on, my first words will be "do you think this pitch is doctored as well?"

God is an Englishman wrote:Seeing as the cricket is on, my first words will be "do you think this pitch is doctored as well?"

Is it already on? I woud have thought with it being a day/night game it would start late.

My White Devil wrote:

God is an Englishman wrote:Seeing as the cricket is on, my first words will be "do you think this pitch is doctored as well?"

Is it already on? I woud have thought with it being a day/night game it would start late.

It starts around 1pm, but that's because it's in Perth - not because it's a day/night game.

The D/N test isn't for another fortnight.

My White Devil wrote:

God is an Englishman wrote:Seeing as the cricket is on, my first words will be "do you think this pitch is doctored as well?"

Is it already on? I woud have thought with it being a day/night game it would start late.

Perth, time diff etc

Pitch isn't doctored - normal WACA pitch.

It's not the Adelaide game? I've got my wires crossed somewhere. It mght explain why when I look at the tv guide last week there was coverage for all sessions listed.

Will the Aussies now give the same treatment to Khawaja that they did to Broad?

God is an Englishman wrote:Will the Aussies now give the same treatment to Khawaja that they did to Broad?

Such a loud nick, I would have walked. Poor decision

Bad decision but you have to look at The captain now. Two poor decisions gone against them and both times they were out of reviews.

Bomber wrote:

God is an Englishman wrote:Will the Aussies now give the same treatment to Khawaja that they did to Broad?

Such a loud nick, I would have walked. Poor decision

Shocking umpiring decision, and agree should have walked.

The review that NZ used against Warner for the LBW - in my opinion it should have been given out in the first place.
I don't care if technology says it was just hitting the stumps, if the umpire isn't going to give that out LBW then he shouldn't be an umpire

Either way, looks like 550+ with declaration again. Will Warner make 300? Smith should declare when he's 299 no.

He won't make 300.

Commentators saying how this is not a normal waca wicket. It's not as green and a slower wicket than usual.

Makes bombers earlier comments redundant really.

God is an Englishman wrote:Commentators saying how this is not a normal waca wicket. It's not as green and a slower wicket than usual.

Makes bombers earlier comments redundant really.

If anything, it makes it even less imposing to the touring side, therefore pitch favours opposition! No other countries are so accommodating.

Bomber wrote:

God is an Englishman wrote:Commentators saying how this is not a normal waca wicket. It's not as green and a slower wicket than usual.

Makes bombers earlier comments redundant really.

If anything, it makes it even less imposing to the touring side, therefore pitch favours opposition! No other countries are so accommodating.

so if you deaden a pitch it's OK, but if anyone else does its doctoring. You couldn't make this up.


That last catch would have carried if they didn't doctor the pitch.

Australia have a tough day in the field so far today.

@ (tiresome) Hawksey

Has the WACA been prepared to counter a perceived strength of NZ?

Yes or no will suffice....

MegaBonus wrote:@ (tiresome) Hawksey

Has the WACA been prepared to counter a perceived strength of NZ?

Yes or no will suffice....

Yes

Actually No, it's been prepared to play to Australia's strengths.

It was OK when you went on about it but tiresome when I do.

God is an Englishman

MegaBonus wrote:

@ (tiresome) Hawksey

Has the WACA been prepared to counter a perceived strength of NZ?

Yes or no will suffice....

Yes

Actually No, it's been prepared to play to Australia's strengths

.


so which one is it????