Australia v New Zealand
Moderators: Randoman, Ernie Cooksey, Forum Admins
- God is an Englishman
- Board Member
- Posts: 51452
- Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 5:31 pm
- Has thanked: 24 times
- Been thanked: 85 times
Re: Australia v New Zealand
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.
- God is an Englishman
- Board Member
- Posts: 51452
- Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 5:31 pm
- Has thanked: 24 times
- Been thanked: 85 times
- Urgh! A Musíc War
- Promising Junior
- Posts: 288
- Joined: Thu Dec 19, 2013 6:04 am
Re: Australia v New Zealand
In retrospect it looked like some of ball made contact with the grass ao I was a little surprised they gave him out. Having said that, live it looked like it was out and I'd certainly prefer the referees to have the balls and make a decision based on what they saw instead of referring it to someone else.
I hate screaming kids
- God is an Englishman
- Board Member
- Posts: 51452
- Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 5:31 pm
- Has thanked: 24 times
- Been thanked: 85 times
Re: Australia v New Zealand
Catch, clear as day. One minute smith was standing there as it was a bump ball, then he decided he was out, then he changed his mind, then the umpire told him where the changing rooms were
-
- Star Player
- Posts: 3444
- Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 8:17 pm
- Has thanked: 11 times
- Been thanked: 68 times
Re: Australia v New Zealand
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.
Anyways like much of the rest of australia I didn't give the match much thought after the toss, has it been the thrilling, competitive see saw affair you hoped for.
- Nonami Maho
- Promising Junior
- Posts: 288
- Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2013 6:44 pm
Re: Australia v New Zealand
Will Australia knock off New Zealand today or is the rain going to save the kiwis?
Fed up with dating sites I came to football news
- God is an Englishman
- Board Member
- Posts: 51452
- Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 5:31 pm
- Has thanked: 24 times
- Been thanked: 85 times
Re: Australia v New Zealand
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?
Who's pitch "doctoring" now?
- Bomber
- Vice Chairman
- Posts: 60364
- Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 11:40 am
- Has thanked: 44 times
- Been thanked: 128 times
Re: Australia v New Zealand
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?
Ignore this signature
- God is an Englishman
- Board Member
- Posts: 51452
- Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 5:31 pm
- Has thanked: 24 times
- Been thanked: 85 times
Re: Australia v New Zealand
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?
- God is an Englishman
- Board Member
- Posts: 51452
- Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 5:31 pm
- Has thanked: 24 times
- Been thanked: 85 times
- Bomber
- Vice Chairman
- Posts: 60364
- Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 11:40 am
- Has thanked: 44 times
- Been thanked: 128 times
Re: Australia v New Zealand
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?
Ignore this signature
- God is an Englishman
- Board Member
- Posts: 51452
- Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 5:31 pm
- Has thanked: 24 times
- Been thanked: 85 times
Re: Australia v New Zealand
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.
- God is an Englishman
- Board Member
- Posts: 51452
- Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 5:31 pm
- Has thanked: 24 times
- Been thanked: 85 times
Re: Australia v New Zealand
Mark Taylor saying he has no sympathy for McCullum as they had used up all their reviews. Didn't seem to say that at Trent Bridge in 2013
- Bomber
- Vice Chairman
- Posts: 60364
- Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 11:40 am
- Has thanked: 44 times
- Been thanked: 128 times
Re: Australia v New Zealand
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.
Perhaps you'd like to explain these things then.
Was that Gabba wicket much different to any in recent history?
What type of player did the wicket suit that was Australian that NZ didn't have?
Was it made well known when pitches in England were ordered to be "amended" to suit the in-form English seamers (and previously flat tracks to suit the spinners)? Even the poms admitted it.
Anyway, 1-0 to us and my box of beer owed to a Kiwi is looking like staying at my house unless there is dramatic form reversal.
Ignore this signature
- God is an Englishman
- Board Member
- Posts: 51452
- Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 5:31 pm
- Has thanked: 24 times
- Been thanked: 85 times
Re: Australia v New Zealand
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.
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
- Vice Chairman
- Posts: 60364
- Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 11:40 am
- Has thanked: 44 times
- Been thanked: 128 times
Re: Australia v New Zealand
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.
Ignore this signature
- God is an Englishman
- Board Member
- Posts: 51452
- Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 5:31 pm
- Has thanked: 24 times
- Been thanked: 85 times
Re: Australia v New Zealand
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.
- Bomber
- Vice Chairman
- Posts: 60364
- Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 11:40 am
- Has thanked: 44 times
- Been thanked: 128 times
Re: Australia v New Zealand
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.
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.
Ignore this signature
- God is an Englishman
- Board Member
- Posts: 51452
- Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 5:31 pm
- Has thanked: 24 times
- Been thanked: 85 times
Re: Australia v New Zealand
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.
- Bomber
- Vice Chairman
- Posts: 60364
- Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 11:40 am
- Has thanked: 44 times
- Been thanked: 128 times
Re: Australia v New Zealand
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.
Ignore this signature
- God is an Englishman
- Board Member
- Posts: 51452
- Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 5:31 pm
- Has thanked: 24 times
- Been thanked: 85 times
Re: Australia v New Zealand
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.
Clearly you have forgotten about the 2010 MCG test where they switched the wickets at the last moment to bring in a bouncier track.
What do you call making NZ play on that wicket the other day (where they refused to bat) if that isn't pitch doctoring?
- Bomber
- Vice Chairman
- Posts: 60364
- Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 11:40 am
- Has thanked: 44 times
- Been thanked: 128 times
Re: Australia v New Zealand
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 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?
Ignore this signature
- God is an Englishman
- Board Member
- Posts: 51452
- Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 5:31 pm
- Has thanked: 24 times
- Been thanked: 85 times
Re: Australia v New Zealand
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.
- Bomber
- Vice Chairman
- Posts: 60364
- Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 11:40 am
- Has thanked: 44 times
- Been thanked: 128 times
Re: Australia v New Zealand
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.
Ignore this signature
- God is an Englishman
- Board Member
- Posts: 51452
- Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 5:31 pm
- Has thanked: 24 times
- Been thanked: 85 times
Re: Australia v New Zealand
Why don't Australia produce wickets that take spin on day 1?
I don't think you understand the concept of producing a wicket.
I don't think you understand the concept of producing a wicket.
- Bomber
- Vice Chairman
- Posts: 60364
- Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 11:40 am
- Has thanked: 44 times
- Been thanked: 128 times
Re: Australia v New Zealand
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.
Each curator has his own concept of producing a wicket and have for many a year and they have at least been consistent (here). Its when others get in their ear about what they should or shouldn't do is what's the difference here. You'll pretty much always know what you'll get at each venue year in, year out. This summer looks to be no different (apart from maybe the problems at the SCG).
Ignore this signature
- God is an Englishman
- Board Member
- Posts: 51452
- Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 5:31 pm
- Has thanked: 24 times
- Been thanked: 85 times
Re: Australia v New Zealand
There we have it - each curator prepares the wicket to his own concept. So there's no such thing as the natural way a wicket acts. That's why the SCG doesn't take as much spin anymore, a decision was made to make it more pace friendly.
Facts are simple here - you've still not been able to provide this "admission" by the England captain of the ECB.
As always, just another excuse by the Aussies and claiming to be whiter than white when they're not.
Who made the decision at the MCG in 2010 to use the bouncier wicket? I have as much proof that Cricket Australia/Ponting did as you do about the last England series.
Facts are simple here - you've still not been able to provide this "admission" by the England captain of the ECB.
As always, just another excuse by the Aussies and claiming to be whiter than white when they're not.
Who made the decision at the MCG in 2010 to use the bouncier wicket? I have as much proof that Cricket Australia/Ponting did as you do about the last England series.
-
- Club Captain
- Posts: 6246
- Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 1:47 pm
- Been thanked: 6 times
-
- Club Captain
- Posts: 6246
- Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 1:47 pm
- Been thanked: 6 times