PDA

View Full Version : Cricket



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Rincewind
01-01-2004, 11:51 PM
Zimbabwe win a tight one in Perth. Australia A's upper order let them down badly but the final three combined to add 84 runs between them.

Australia A's last wicket fell 8 runs short of a reasonably modest 240 on the sixth ball of the 49th over.

Hondo seemed to be having some problems with his run up and to me it looked like the ball that dismissed Thornely should have been called a no ball for overstepping. Did anyone else have a look at this? The television commentators did mention it but the side no replays they did show, his foot position looked highly suspect to me. I would have like to see the popping crease close-up no that delivery.

Anyway, good team performance by the tourists and of the Aust A batsmen Sean Marsh distinguished himself. Haddin also look good for a while but in the end was dismissed cheaply by Ervines first ball of the match.

Michael Clarke did not have a good day with the bat, along with most of the top order - 4 of the top 5 being dismissed in single fingures. Still the end result was close and AusrA is effectively an under-26 side so it is not fair to be too harsh on them I suppose.

skip to my lou
01-01-2004, 11:53 PM
When does the aus-ind decider start? Thats gonna be an interesting one!!

Rincewind
01-01-2004, 11:58 PM
Tomorrow!!!!

skip to my lou
01-01-2004, 11:59 PM
Is that tommorow (sat) or you mean today (fri)

Rincewind
02-01-2004, 12:08 AM
Friday, sorry. Today!!!

By tomorrow, I meant, "One sleep to go!"

Jan 2 - 6. SCG. Play starts daily at 11am (usually).

skip to my lou
02-01-2004, 12:11 AM
Yeah, I was suspecting that ;)

Anyway, cant wait..

chesslover
02-01-2004, 12:22 AM
latest wisden power rankings, had Ponting as thw world number 1 batsman, then lara, then hayden, and Dravids fourth

Other than Potning and hayden, our batsman have been having a pretty ordinary time - no one averaging more than 40

The world's nbumber 1 bowler is the chucker, Murali, who now has 485 test wickets. Shane warne has 491, and the race is between them two to break the 519 record of Walsh

skip to my lou
02-01-2004, 12:26 AM
Murali is a chucker eh :?

Rincewind
02-01-2004, 12:38 AM
Other than Potning and hayden, our batsman have been having a pretty ordinary time - no one averaging more than 40

Martyn is averaging 51.75 for the series thus far. Katich Waugh and Langer are averaging inthe thirties with reasonable scores against their names which isn't hopeless for a three test stat.

Langer's susceptability to Agakar is a worry though. Interesting o see how that goes.

Gilchrist has been disappointing but he did have the order moved about on him in one occasion and things doesn't always go as planned when you're a hard hitting number 7. Again 3 matches is too short to write anyone off.

Whatever happens the Sydney test match will be one to follow closely.


Anyway, regarding the Ponting topping the batting chart. It's amazing was a change of climate can do for your form. :rolleyes:

Kevin Bonham
02-01-2004, 01:08 AM
Anyway, regarding the Ponting topping the batting chart. It's amazing was a change of climate can do for your form. :rolleyes:

I mentioned this on another thread - Tassie press awareness of Ricky living outside the state is zero. What's the deal - does he live there full-time or is it just one of many strategic retreat bunkers for when his drinking abilities are unfavourably compared to Boonie's?

Boonie must be still spending some time down here, because we nearly ran him over at a suburban roundabout a few weeks ago. :shock:

chesslover
02-01-2004, 06:38 AM
Anyway, regarding the Ponting topping the batting chart. It's amazing was a change of climate can do for your form. :rolleyes:

I mentioned this on another thread - Tassie press awareness of Ricky living outside the state is zero. What's the deal - does he live there full-time or is it just one of many strategic retreat bunkers for when his drinking abilities are unfavourably compared to Boonie's?


it may have been because his wife was studying here.But she has graduated now, and our press showee him at his wife's graduation.

However she seems not to want to work fulltime, and more interested in charities. I think that Ponting has moved here permanantly, due to his wife, as there is more scope for her in NSW

skip to my lou
02-01-2004, 11:20 AM
Looks like Sehwag gave Lee a good bashing. Looking good for india *so far*.

Situation can quickly turn around I guess, especially against Australia.

Rincewind
02-01-2004, 11:30 AM
Yeah. India had a little luck in the first half hour but going along pretty comfortably now. Australia need a little luck sometime in the next 30 minutes or else lunch will be very bitter indeed. Especially for Simon Katich.

skip to my lou
02-01-2004, 12:01 PM
And Bowden calls Lunch!

poor katich :P

Rincewind
02-01-2004, 01:36 PM
Sehwag gone for 72 (c Gilchrist b Gillespie). Katich will at least enjoy his tea now.

Rincewind
02-01-2004, 01:56 PM
Now Chopra gone! Yorkered by Lee for 45.

India 2 for 128

Dravid 1*, Tendulkar the new man in.

skip to my lou
02-01-2004, 02:43 PM
Yeah, Shaky for IND at the moment.

Rincewind
02-01-2004, 02:57 PM
They settled down well with Dravid and Tendulkar surviving to tea. However a very different session fro the first.

First: 0/98
Middle: 2/53

Should be an enthralling last session today. McGill might see more of the ball. Then the new ball might be taken at around 5:30-6:00. Assuming the tourists last another 27 overs of course. :rolleyes:

chesslover
02-01-2004, 09:23 PM
i hope Steve does not end his test career as a loser.It would be a sad end for such a great career.

Steve also ended his one day career as a loser when we lost the tri-series to New Zealand

India is well placed tonight at 284/3, with Sachin finding ominious form and being just the 4th batsman in history to cross 9000 test runs.

How badly did we need McGrath and Warne?

Let us all hope that Lee and Gillespie and Bracken and McGill pull something out tommorrow, for if India is able to bat through the second day, all we can hope for is a draw..

Steve deserves a win, and winning series to get a fitting farewell. He has never lost a home series in his life as captain

skip to my lou
02-01-2004, 09:28 PM
Just to let you know, Sachin's favourite spinner is Shane Warne ;) ;)

A win for india would certainly start setting doubts in peoples minds :)

chesslover
02-01-2004, 09:37 PM
These are the all time top 10 test run scorers at the start of 2004

===============================================


1. Alan Border - 11174 runs at 51 average
2. Steve Waugh - 10807 runs at 51 average
3. Sunil Gavaskar - 10122 runs at 51 average
4, Sachin Tendulkar - 8964 runs at 55 average
5. Brian Lara - 8916 runs at 52 average
6. Graham Gooch - 8900 runs at 42 average
7. Javed Miandad - 8832 rusn at 52 average
8. Vivian Richards - 8540 runs at 50 average
9. Alec Stewart - 8463 runs at 39 average
10. David Gower - 8231 runs at 44 average

skip to my lou
02-01-2004, 09:39 PM
Aww :( One more season for steve and he could have beat Alan.

chesslover
02-01-2004, 09:44 PM
from the above

1. Steve waugh needs to score 368 runs to pass Border and become the all time highest test scorer in history. Very doubtful indeed, although he may score enough runs to become the second ever to cross 11,000 runs.

I believe that Steve should have said this is his last AUSTRALIAN series, got teh glory and farewell, then went to India and then he could have got the world record and retired in the knowledge that he got the all time world test run scoring record

2. Sachin is incredible. He just passed 9000 today, and his average at 55 is so much better than all other batsman in the top 10 list, If fit, there is no dount he will get the world test runs record, just like he had smashed the world one day runs record.

3. Most of the top 10 batman have averages over 50 - except for teh British batman Gooch, Stewart and Gower

4. Lara is number 5 and charging. His patch of bad form seems to be over for now

3.

skip to my lou
02-01-2004, 09:50 PM
Isn't it interesting. I never would have guessed that India would fire up here in Australia. Usually India lose here badly and Australia lose there badly. Sehwag and Dravid are in spectacular form.

The two consecutive yorkers from Lee also very impressive. I dont think anyone expected the second one, which was also much faster.

chesslover
02-01-2004, 09:52 PM
this is the world test wicket takers in cricket history. Seems to be a battle between our Warnie and Murali for the world record.

===============================================
1. Courtney Walsh - 519 wickets at 57 strike rate
2. Shane Warne - 491 wickets at 60 strike rate
3. Muttiah Muralitharan - 485 wickets at 59 strike rate
4, Kapil Dev - 434 wickets at 63 strike rate
5. Richard Hadlee - 431 wickets at 50 strike rate
6. Glen McGrath - 430 wickets at 52 strike rate
7. Wasim Akram - 414 wickets at 54 strike rate
8. CEL Ambrose - 405 wickets at 54 strike rate
9. Ian Botham - 383 wickets at 56 strike rate
10. Malcolm Marshall - 376 wickets at 46 strike rate

chesslover
02-01-2004, 09:56 PM
1. Kumble is currently number 12 all time wickettaker at 370 wickets.

Waquar Younis has 373 wickets, so if Kumble gets 4 wickets in this match he will be number 11 all time, and if he gets 7 wickets in this match he will beat marshall and be in the top 10 all time bowlers

2. If warne;s mother did not give him those tablets he would have broken the world record by now. As it is it will be a big battle bwteen Murali and Shane, with the tests in Sri Lanka and Australia determining who gets the world record first

3. If McGrath was fit he would have been number 4 all time wicket taker, smashing the records of Hadlee and Kapil Dev

chesslover
02-01-2004, 10:05 PM
this is the all time wicket keeper dismaissals at the start of 2004

Gilchrist has taken by far the most dismissals in 50 tests - taking 212 wickets to March's previous record of 194. How good is Adam huh?

===============================================

1. Ian Healy - 119 tests, 395 dismisalls
2. Rodney Marsh - 96 tests, 355 dismissals
3. Alec Stewart - 133 tests, 277 dismissals
4, Jeff Dujon - 81 tests, 272 dismissals
5. Alan Knott - 95 tests, 269 dismissals
6, M Boucher - 69 tests, 267 dismissals
7. Wasim Bari - 81 tests, 228 dismissals
8. TG Evans - 91 tests, 219 dismissals
9. Adam Gilchrist - 50 tests, 212 dismissals
10. AC Parore - 78 tests, 204 dismissals

skip to my lou
02-01-2004, 10:07 PM
The best? :P Without a doubt.

chesslover
02-01-2004, 10:16 PM
The best? :P Without a doubt.

very true

were it noty for Healey hanging around pasthis use by date, Gilchrist would have been further up the all time wicket keeper records by now

As it is he will now not reach the record set by Healey :(

but then who knows? wicketkeepers have a longer career than batsman or bowlers

Kevin Bonham
02-01-2004, 10:20 PM
Gilchrist has taken by far the most dismissals in 50 tests - taking 212 wickets to March's previous record of 194. How good is Adam huh?

Is that just his keeping ability though, or is it more the ability of that superb pace attack he keeps to (when they're all there) to get edges?

I don't follow these things closely enough to say, but I got the impression that while Gilchrist's reach helps him to pull in some great catches that other keepers wouldn't touch, he is also more untidy than some of the great keepers listed.

Of course, when you throw in Gilchrist's batting, he's one of the greatest freak talents the game has ever seen.

chesslover
02-01-2004, 10:26 PM
This is the Indian all time batting and bowling records, as at the start of 2004

India has 3 of it's all time bastman playing in this test, and laxman is 12th all time run scorer for India with 3282 runs at an average of 46.

For Indian bowling only Kumble is the current player anywhere near the Indian all time top wicket takers

===============================================

1. Sunil Gavaskar - 10122 runs at 51
2. Sachin Tendulkar - 8964 runs at 55
3. Dilip Vengsarkar - 6868 runs at 42
4. Rahul Dravid - 6417 runs at 57
5. Mohammed Azharuddin - 6215 runs at 45
6. Gundappa Viswanath - 6080 runs at 42
7. Kapil Dev - 5248 runs at 31
8. Sanath Ganguly - 4493 runs at 42
9. M Amarnath - 4378 runs at 42
10. Ravi Shastri - 3830 runs at 36

===============================================

1. Kapil Dev - 434 wickets
2. Anil Kumble - 370 wickets
3. BS Bedi - 266 wicjkets
4. BS Chandrasekhar - 242 wickets
5. J Srinath - 236 wickets

chesslover
02-01-2004, 10:43 PM
This is the all time highest Australian test wicket takers

With our all time number 1 (warne) and 2 (Mcgrath) injured we still have Gillepsie (all time number 12), McGill (all time number 17) and Lee (number 21) playing.

Incidently Gillespie;s 2 wickets today means that he has 187 wickets, passing Alan Davidson. He is on track to get 201 and beat Thompson to be in the all time top 10. Not bad for an injury stricken plodder is it? :P

But Lee is also chanrging up the ranks. He needs just 4 wickets to beat Max walker and be in the top 20,, and with his wicket today, he now just needs 3 more wickets

===============================================

1. Shane Warne - 491 wickets
2. Glen McGrath - 430 wickets
3. Denis Lillee - 355 wkts
4. Craig McDermott - 291 wkts
5. Richie Benaud - 248 wkts
6. Glen McKenzie - 246 wkts
7. Ray Lindwall - 228 wkts
8. Clarie Grimmett - 216 wkts
9. Merv Hughes - 212 wkts
10. Jeff Thomson - 200 wkts
11. Alan Davidson - 186 wkts
12. Jason Gillespie - 185 wkts
13. Geoff Lawson - 180 wkts
14. Terry Alderman - 170 wkts
15. Keith Miller - 170 wkts
16. Bill Johnston - 160 wkts
17. Stuart MacGill - 146 wkts
18. Bill O'Reilly - 144 wkts
19. H Trumble - 141 wkts
20. Max Walker - 138 wkts
21. Brett Lee - 135 wkts

Kevin Bonham
03-01-2004, 03:35 PM
This Indian team are batting like gods. Look at them: Sehwag, Ganguly, Dravid, Laxman, Tendulkar - five of the top six with big hundreds in a four-test series where one of the tests was trashed by rain, and this on Australian soil where India have often been useless in the past. Chopra must have a real inferiority complex surrounded by these guys. What was this the Aussies were coming out with about this Tendulkar guy being "down on confidence"? Yeah, right. :rolleyes: Just a shame we didn't get to see if McGrath would have blunted them or not. My guess: not.

skip to my lou
03-01-2004, 03:39 PM
Yeah I doubt mcgrath/warne would have made a difference.

chesslover
03-01-2004, 05:45 PM
Indians are such lousy actors :P

The script states that Steve Waugh in his final match leads the Australians to a victory in front of a packed SCG. Remember that Steve has never lost a series at home in his life as captain, and the last time we lost was 11 years ago

The indians seem not have followed this script, and with 650 runs so far they are at worst almost certain of a draw.

So how do we win now? Get india out early in the first hour or so, then bat to the end of day 4 by scorimg fast, and then bowling india out in a couple of session?

If Australia loses it will be such a shame and a bad end to Steve Waugh's career

skip to my lou
03-01-2004, 05:50 PM
It wouldn't be a shame. He is the best ever captain for Australia, and the result of this game wouldn't affect that.

arosar
03-01-2004, 07:06 PM
If Australia loses it will be such a shame and a bad end to Steve Waugh's career

For once I actually agree with you. It will indeed be very humiliating for Steve Waugh and for the rest of his teammates if they lose.

AR

chesslover
03-01-2004, 07:50 PM
India vs Australia are going to be a very important part of the cricket scene in the future, and will one day rival the Ashes series.

The reason for this is pure economics and interest.

India has more than 1000 million people, about 2.5 times more than the populations of Pakistan, Bangladesh, England, South Africa, Australia, Sri Lanka, Zimbabwe, West Indies and New Zeland put together.

Also Cricket is far and away the number 1 sport in India - things that you cannot say for cricket in England (soccor), Australia (AFL, League, Union), New Zeland (Union), West Indies (Basketball), South Africa (Soccer), Bangladesh (soccer). Only Pakistand and Sri Lanka have cricker as their number one sport by a HUGE margin.

India also puts on 25 million new births a year - a population increase that is more than the other cricket nations combined, and only matched in percentage terms by the population growths of Pakistan and Bangaldesh.

India has one of the fastest growing economies in the world, and it's diaspora is second only to the chinese. Indian migrants are in the top 5 migrants to Sydeny.

India is responsbile for about 60% of all cricket revenue in the world, and a third of all the cricket signage in AUSTRALIA has been snapped up by Indian companies.

The Australian CXriucket Board also made the most money in it's history when it sold the overseas rights to the Indian tour to Star ESPN, which then beamed it to the 1 billion plus cricket fanatics in India.

The future of cricket, the money in cricket are all in India.

Over the coming years we will tour India more and more, and they tour here more frequantly. Note that India now play 4 tests with us, not teh usual 3 tests, while the windies will play 3 next time they get here - a far cry from the 5 and 6 tests they played against us in their glory day.

Only the Ashes tradition prevents India from being our primary and most played rival, but money will talk, and this will change.

The real surprise is that with their huge population (india is the seconmd most populas country on earth after China, and in it's current birth rate will over take China during this century), teh huge popularity of cricket, and the money that is thrown at their cricket, India simply has not dominated cricket like we have done

skip to my lou
03-01-2004, 08:33 PM
India has more than 1000 million people, about 2.5 times more than the populations of Pakistan, Bangladesh, England, South Africa, Australia, Sri Lanka, Zimbabwe, West Indies and New Zeland put together.

So?


Also Cricket is far and away the number 1 sport in India - things that you cannot say for cricket in England (soccor), Australia (AFL, League, Union), New Zeland (Union), West Indies (Basketball), South Africa (Soccer), Bangladesh (soccer). Only Pakistand and Sri Lanka have cricker as their number one sport by a HUGE margin. AFL is popular in Victoria im sure, but nowhere near as popular in NSW and QLD. But you are forgetting Chess in India.


India also puts on 25 million new births a year - a population increase that is more than the other cricket nations combined, and only matched in percentage terms by the population growths of Pakistan and Bangaldesh.

I dont know why you are giving population statistics.


India has one of the fastest growing economies in the world, and it's diaspora is second only to the chinese. Indian migrants are in the top 5 migrants to Sydeny.

Again, Do not see the point.


India is responsbile for about 60% of all cricket revenue in the world, and a third of all the cricket signage in AUSTRALIA has been snapped up by Indian companies.

Tendulkar earns more than all the Australian cricket team put together.


The Australian CXriucket Board also made the most money in it's history when it sold the overseas rights to the Indian tour to Star ESPN, which then beamed it to the 1 billion plus cricket fanatics in India.

There are only 1 billion people in India, and not all of them have cable, or even a TV, or even electricity for a TV.


The future of cricket, the money in cricket are all in India.

Possibly.


Over the coming years we will tour India more and more, and they tour here more frequantly. Note that India now play 4 tests with us, not teh usual 3 tests, while the windies will play 3 next time they get here - a far cry from the 5 and 6 tests they played against us in their glory day.

I dont know.


Only the Ashes tradition prevents India from being our primary and most played rival, but money will talk, and this will change.

Money will talk?


The real surprise is that with their huge population (india is the seconmd most populas country on earth after China, and in it's current birth rate will over take China during this century), teh huge popularity of cricket, and the money that is thrown at their cricket, India simply has not dominated cricket like we have done

Obviously you do not understand the importance of infrastructure, which is hopeless in India. And using population statistics does not help, since the 1 billion people in India, have the same ammount of money as the 19 million in Australia, with this statistic, There is no real suprise that India did not totally dominate cricket. The only suprise is that India, with so much politics, bribery and much less money, were able to prop up players such as the worlds best batsmen, Tendulkar, also Dravid, Laxman, Sehwag, Ganguly, and Im sure Parthiv Patel also has a promising future as a batsmen, he is only 17, and he looks like he is 10. And also, Agit agarker, the highest wicket taker in this season, over here in Australia. And if theres another suprise, its got to be the fact that Australia, with 19 million people, much less political influence than India, and much less bribery, has miserably lost most of the time in India itself.

Jeo.

chesslover
03-01-2004, 09:42 PM
AFL is popular in Victoria im sure, but nowhere near as popular in NSW and QLD. But you are forgetting Chess in India.

I dont know why you are giving population statistics.

Again, Do not see the point.


Tendulkar earns more than all the Australian cricket team put together.

There are only 1 billion people in India, and not all of them have cable, or even a TV, or even electricity for a TV.

[quote="chesslover"]The future of cricket, the money in cricket are all in India.

Possibly.


Only the Ashes tradition prevents India from being our primary and most played rival, but money will talk, and this will change.

Money will talk?


The real surprise is that with their huge population (india is the seconmd most populas country on earth after China, and in it's current birth rate will over take China during this century), teh huge popularity of cricket, and the money that is thrown at their cricket, India simply has not dominated cricket like we have done

Obviously you do not understand the importance of infrastructure, which is hopeless in India. And using population statistics does not help, since the 1 billion people in India, have the same ammount of money as the 19 million in Australia, with this statistic, There is no real suprise that India did not totally dominate cricket. The only suprise is that India, with so much politics, bribery and much less money, were able to prop up players such as the worlds best batsmen, Tendulkar, also Dravid, Laxman, Sehwag, Ganguly, and Im sure Parthiv Patel also has a promising future as a batsmen, he is only 17, and he looks like he is 10. And also, Agit agarker, the highest wicket taker in this season, over here in Australia. And if theres another suprise, its got to be the fact that Australia, with 19 million people, much less political influence than India, and much less bribery, has miserably lost most of the time in India itself.

Jeo.


I do understand the importance of infrasturcure and training in making a team number 1.

What I was stating, and which you seem to have missed the point of, is that India are the "natural" cricket superpower, and once they get their hpuse sorted out, they will be very very hard to beat.

That is because of their huge population, the enormous money that is thrown at cricket (sachin tendulkar makes more indeed than anyone by a very big margin), and the fact that cricket is accorded far greater relative siginificance in India than cricket in any other country

The relevence of population, is that if you expect a natural talent to come every 1 million people, then india with 1100 million can expect 1100 such natural talents, to our 19. But that is where training and infrastructure comes into it.

And yes money will talk

skip to my lou
03-01-2004, 09:51 PM
If you understand where infrastructure comes into it, why is it such a suprise?

I dont believe in talent. All success is a result of hard work, or in some cases, smart work, combined with a little luck.

chesslover
04-01-2004, 01:05 PM
Just to show you how impressive the 705 runs by India is;

The 705 score was India's highest ever test score in the history of Indian cricket.

That was also the highest ever score scored against Australia in our test history.

Who would ever have thought that India could do this to us? :(

I thought that with Lee (with his 3 wickets today, the 20th all time Australian test wicket taker) and Gillespie (the 11th all time wicket taker in Australian history) and McGill (the 17th all time test wicket taker in Austrealian hisory) we would have had India in trouble. But 705 runs against us - never would have thought that India would have doen that

skip to my lou
04-01-2004, 01:10 PM
Australia is fighting back, with much more fury than India showed.

chesslover
04-01-2004, 01:13 PM
This last test is Steve's 57th test match as captain. He just overtook Arjuna Ranatunge who has had 56 as captian, and only Alan Border with 93 tests as captain, and Clive Lloyd with 74 tests as captain have played more tests as captian than him.

Steve also has won more tests than any other captain in history - 41 tests, with Lloyd coming second with 36 victories and Border with 32. Waugh has also just lost 9 matches, far less than Border's 22.

Ganguly in contrast has captained India 36 times, for 14 wins and 11 losses

Steve also has played more test matches than any other player in test hisrory - 168 tests, which is more than the next most esperienced test player in history - Border's 156 tests

I hope that Steve does not go as a loser, and from what I am seeing this match looks like ending in a draw. I would have so loved to see Steve win, as would most of us Australians, but I think that is impossible now. However Gilchrist said that we can still win :)

skip to my lou
04-01-2004, 01:22 PM
I think that they can still win, the way things are looking.

chesslover
04-01-2004, 01:26 PM
This is Australia's all time test history as of today;

v Bangladesh: 2 tests - 2 wins
v England: 306 tests - 125 wins, 95 losses, 86 draws
v India: 63 tests - 30 wins, 14 losses, 18 draws, 1 tie
v New Zealand: 41 tests - 18 wins, 7 losses, 16 draws
v Pakistan: 49 tests - 21 wins, 11 losses, 17 draws
v South Africa: 71 tests - 39 wins, 15 losses, 17 draws
v Sri Lanka: 13 tests - 7 wins, 1 loss, 5 draws
v West Indies: 99 tests - 45 wins, 32 losses, 21 draws, 1 tie
v Zimbabwe: 3 tests, 3 wins

We have a plus score against all cricket countries. yaaaaaaay to us :D

Historically our toughest countries have been West Indies and England.

skip to my lou
04-01-2004, 01:27 PM
whats the difference between draw and tie?

chesslover
04-01-2004, 01:30 PM
I think that they can still win, the way things are looking.

You think that AUSTRALIA can WIN? :? :? :? :?

No side has scored over 700 and has lost...ever :D :D :D

WHy dont you put your money where your mouth is - I think it is a draw, and if the test is a draw, I win and then you got to give me the same admin rights that Kevin has on this BB, so that I can kickout a particular poster that I detest and loathe :P

skip to my lou
04-01-2004, 01:38 PM
you said money, not admin powers.

and admin powers aren't something to throw around.

well the way they are getting smashed yah, its possible. Im hearing fours every 3 balls bowled.

chesslover
04-01-2004, 01:54 PM
Therre have been 1679 tests played in history, and here is the test history results as of today. They have been ordered by win/loss percentage, so that we can seew who the "winningest" cricket nation is

Australia: 647 tests - 290 wins, 175 losses, 180 draws, 2 ties for 62% win
WestIndies: 403 tests - 147 wins, 117 losses, 138 draws, 1 tie for 55% win
Pakistan: 299 tests - 92 wins, 74 losses, 133 draws for 55% win
England: 816 tests - 277 wins, 239 losses, 300 draws for 53% win
South Africa: 283 tests - 92 wins, 101 losses, 90 draws for 47% win
Sri Lanka: 136 tests - 33 wins, 52 losses, 51 draws for 38% win
India: 370 tests - 75 wins, 123 losses, 171 draws, 1 tie for 37% win
New Zealand: 307 tests - 53 wins, 120 losses, 134 draws for 30% win
Zimbabwe: 71 tests - 7 wins, 40 losses, 24 draws for 14% win
Bangladesh: 26 tests - 0 wins, 25 losses, 1 draw for 0% win

Only 4 nations have a positive score. Am surprised at India's and Sri Lanka's poor record though, as I thought they may have been in the high 40%s. Bangaldesh is a disgrace, and should never have been admitted to test status until they were a little bit more competitive

skip to my lou
04-01-2004, 01:56 PM
Where are you getting all these stats..... ?

Also Hayden has been caught by Ganguly. Kumble is the bowler.

chesslover
04-01-2004, 01:59 PM
cricinfo

see, I told you we cannot win, and in fact the best we can hope for is a draw. Kumble will be even harder to face in the last day

skip to my lou
04-01-2004, 02:00 PM
Actually there are still alot of batsmen to come, that are quite capable of doing the job.

chesslover
04-01-2004, 02:53 PM
teh difference between a tie and a draw...hmmm

A tie like a draw ends with both teams sharing the honours, with no losers and winners. However a tie is a result that is decided on the field, while a draw is inconclusive can can be caused by other outside factors such as rain

hmmm..sounds confusing :)

maybe someone can articulate it better

skip to my lou
04-01-2004, 02:55 PM
So a draw occurs from natural forces such as rain etc?

Rincewind
04-01-2004, 02:56 PM
whats the difference between draw and tie?

Draw is basically a no result. Neither side dismissed in 2 innings inside the time allowed for the game.

A tie is a rare beast, both sides dismissed in both innings and scores level. (Theoretically it is also possible to draw if there are no more balls to bowl and scores are tied, but no ties have been recorded that way.)

There has only been 2 ties.

Australia v West Indies, Brisbane 1960. This match was described in good detail in the ABC documentary Carribean Summer.

Australia v India, Chennai 1986. In that match Australia batted first and Boon and Border made centuries and Dean Jones made 210. The Aussies finished 574/7d. After his innings Dean Jones was treated in hospital for exhaustion. India came back with 397 all out. Australia went back in and made 170/5d (run rate of around 3.4 which wouldhave been considered "whirlwind" ni that era). That set India the total of 348 to win. India were all out 347. Gaviskar made 90 but the real hero was Ravi Shastri who finished 48 not out. That is what India would describe as a "moral victory". :D

Rincewind
04-01-2004, 03:04 PM
So a draw occurs from natural forces such as rain etc?
Rain often leads to a draw as it can reduce the playing time available for the game. However, rain in not necessary. Very good batting by both sides will also generally lead to a draw without rain.

skip to my lou
04-01-2004, 03:09 PM
Thanks for the info.

Langer just dismissed by Kumble.

Rincewind
04-01-2004, 03:11 PM
Langer just dismissed by Kumble.

Yes. Now Ponting and Martyn have to put on a hundred each. :D

chesslover
04-01-2004, 03:16 PM
hopw waugh gets in today, as otherwise I will not see him as have to work tomorrow.

Sun Hearald carried stories on how a lot of spectators were upsetthat they did not get to watch Steve, as they only bought tickets for 2 days. Some had even booked group tours and come from the country - but all they got to see was Steve looking frustrated as Sachin and Laxman hammered us

skip to my lou
04-01-2004, 03:18 PM
Hmm, but The Aus team is hammering India worse than Sachin and Laxman did :D

chesslover
04-01-2004, 03:27 PM
WAUGH'S IN!! WAUGH'S IN!! WAUGH'S IN!!!

He has to score just 368 runs to over take Border , and be the highest runs scorer in history :D

skip to my lou
04-01-2004, 03:29 PM
Yep! Im not going to miss this opportunity. Im going to watch him rather than wasting my time arguing with bill on this board.

arosar
04-01-2004, 03:36 PM
. . . so that I can kickout a particular poster that I detest and loathe :P

Who? Can't be me despite our disagreements. Not that I care.

Anyway, to chess: it's amazing how much interest this current test is generating. I was just over at Town Hall train station and there were people from all walks of life looking at a public TV. For my money, I think Aus will lose bad in this game. And it will be good for world cricket.

AR

skip to my lou
04-01-2004, 03:38 PM
If Australia lose, certainly it will be good for World cricket, though it is too early to write anyone off.

I think its still going to be interesting.

chesslover
04-01-2004, 03:47 PM
Anyway, to chess: it's amazing how much interest this current test is generating. I was just over at Town Hall train station and there were people from all walks of life looking at a public TV. For my money, I think Aus will lose bad in this game. And it will be good for world cricket.

AR

Oh ye of little faith... :D

This is steve's last match, and the Daily Tele, John Howard and the Packers are all watching with us. We just have to beat the Indians

as previously noted Steve has never lost a home series in his life, and the last time this happened was 11 years ago with the windies

chesslover
04-01-2004, 04:15 PM
OH NO NO

4 down, and we are now in trouble, as it looks like we need to dig deep to avoid the follow on

Also if Kumblew is bowling so well now, imagine what he will be like in day 5 :(

Looks like Waugh has to save us with a miracle :)

skip to my lou
04-01-2004, 04:17 PM
Lets hope so!

chesslover
04-01-2004, 05:00 PM
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO :evil: :evil: :evil:

Waugh out for 40

no hundreds or 368 in thisinnings

we are in deep trouble now

skip to my lou
04-01-2004, 05:05 PM
oh well.

chesslover
04-01-2004, 05:55 PM
Australia 342/6 at close of play

Gilchrist out to Pathan for 6

We still need 164 runs to avoid follow on , with just the tail enders and katich left.

Follow on seems the most likely outcome. I wish I was at home ot SCG. for the first session will be so so crucial.

However even if we avoid the follow on, India will probably bat for 2 sessions and score about 15, and give us about 400 to chase the final day with a dangerous Kumble bowling so well

Looks like we will be flat out just to salvage a draw now

chesslover
05-01-2004, 06:04 PM
good decision by ganguly to bat rather than enforce a follow on

with kumble with 8 wickets and in such fine form, he will be mighty hard to keep out tomorrow.

If we win it will be the highest second innings score scored to win - a fitting tribute to Steve waugh if we do.

ursogr8
08-01-2004, 01:14 PM
Given that Gillespie averaged 36.7 in the recent series versus Gilchrist's 16.0 will Ponting recognise this and bat Gillespie higher in the order?

Rincewind
08-01-2004, 01:31 PM
Given that Gillespie averaged 36.7 in the recent series versus Gilchrist's 16.0 will Ponting recognise this and bat Gillespie higher in the order?

Given the long term average of Gillespie is around 1/4 of Gilchrist's, I don't think so. But they will obvious muck around with Dizzy and Bing's batting order depending on the situation.

Dizzy the slow and steady defender. Bing the big hitter who doesn't seem to know much about spin. ;)

chesslover
08-01-2004, 06:47 PM
Pitty that Steve did not finish his career with a win :(

or a hundred :(

but at least he did not lose the test series :)

Now for the one dayers :D

chesslover
08-01-2004, 06:53 PM
These are the top 5 one day run scorers in history as of today;

1. Sachin Tendulkar - 12685 runs at 45 average
2. Inzamam-ul-Haq - 9389 runs at 38 average
3. Mohammed Azharuddin - 9378 runs at 36 average
4. Aravinda de Silva - 9284 runs at 34 average
5. Sanath Jayasuriya - 9172 runs at 31 average

number 6 all time is Sourev Ganguly with 8967 runs at 43 average

Ganguly needs to score just 206 runs in this series to be in the all time top 5 for one dayers, and 423 runs to be the all time nymber 2 for ODI runs scored.

Sachin is so so far ahead it is not funny

The highest Australian in the all time list for ODI scorers is mark Waugh with 8500 runs, and he is ranked 9th

chesslover
08-01-2004, 06:59 PM
This is the all time One day International wicket takers

1. Wasim Akram - 502 wickets
2. Waqar Younis - 416 wickets
3. Muttiah Muralitharan - 343 wickets
4. J Srinath - 315 wickets
5. Anil Kumble - 313 wickets
6. Shane Warne - 291 wickets
7. Saqlain Mushtaq - 288 wickets
8. S Pollock - 287 wickets
9. WPUJC Vaas - 285 wickets
10. Glen McGrath - 284 wickets

Anil Kumble should take the 3 wickets needed to be the 4th in the all time ODI wicket list

Provided mcGrath is fit, he should overtake Shane warne and be the 6th bowler to pass 300 ODI

Murali is the only bowler who is in the top 3 all time wicket takers for test and one dayers

chesslover
08-01-2004, 07:03 PM
These are the most succesful wicket keepers in ODI history

1. Adam Gilchrist - 293 dismissals
2. Moin Khan - 262 dismissals
3. MV Boucher - 244 dismissals
4. Ian Healy - 233 dismissals
5. Rashid Latif - 220 dismissals

The fielder with the most catches in ODI hisotroy is Azarhuddin with 156 catches, followed by Border with 127 catches

Gilchrist is the most successful wicket keeper in ODI history and is poised to be the first ever to pass 300 dismissals. WOW

chesslover
08-01-2004, 07:08 PM
These are the most experienced players in ODI history;


1. Wasim Akram - 356 matches
2. Mohammed Azharuddin - 334 matches
3. Steve Waugh - 325 matches
4. Sachin Tendulkar - 321 matches
5. Aravinda de Silva - 308 matches

Sachin should be number 3 most experienced ODI player after this series

chesslover
08-01-2004, 07:13 PM
The are the most experienced captains in ODI history;


1. 193 ODI Arjuna Ranatunga
2. 178 ODI Alan Border
3. 173 ODI Mohammed Azharuddin
4. 149 ODI SP Fleming
5. 139 ODI Imran Khan
6. 138 ODI WJ Cronje
7. 118 ODI Sanath Jayasuriya
8. 109 ODI Wasim Akram
9. 106 ODI Saurev Ganguly
10. 106 ODI Steve Waugh


Ganguly should after this triseries, be the 8th most experienced ODI captain in history. By contrast Ponting has only led for 54 matches

chesslover
08-01-2004, 07:28 PM
There has been 2076 ODIs played in history, and these are the all time results. Shows thatSouth Africa is the most succesfuk team in hsitory, and we are second.

South Africa - 300 ODIs (187 win, 102 lost, 4 tie, 7 no result) for 63%win
Australia - 551 ODIs (328 wins, 203 lost, 7 tie, 13 no result) for 61% win
West Indies- 481 ODIs ( 276 wins, 189 lost, 5 tie, 11 no result) for 58%win
Pakistan - 578 ODIs (310 wins, 250 lost, 6 tie, 12 no result) for 54%win
England - 385 ODIs (191 wins, 181 lost, 2 tie, 11 no result) for 51%win
India - 546 ODI (255 win, 265 loss, 3 tie, 23 no result) for 48% win
Sri Lanka - 430 ODIs (184 win, 227 loss, 3 tie, 16 no result) for 44% win
NewZealand -447 ODIs (180 win, 243 loss, 4 tie, 20 no result) for 42% win
Zimbabwe - 245 ODIs (66 win, 168 loss, 4 tie, 7 no result) for 27% win
Kenya - 64 ODIs (12 win, 50 loss, 0 tie, 2 no result) for 19% win
United Arab Emirates - 7 ODIs ( 1 win, 6 loss) for 14% win
Canada - 9 ODIs (1 win, 8 losses) for 11% win
Netherlands - 13 ODIs (1 win, 12 loss) for 7% win
Bangladesh - 82 ODIs (3 win, 77 loss, 2 no result) for 3% win
East Africa - 3 ODIs for 3 losses
Namibia - 6 ODIs for 6 losses
Scotland - 5 ODIs for 5 losses


Surprising is that Australia together with India and pakistan have played the most one daymatches. Also surprising is how few ODIs England have played - the lowest of all the main nations.Banagladesh which is one of 10 testnations is simply woeful - and kenya, UAE. canada and netherlands have better ODI records than it

Rincewind
08-01-2004, 08:10 PM
Zimbabwe - 245 ODIs (66 win, 168 loss, 4 tie, 7 no result) for 27% win
Kenya - 64 ODIs (12 win, 50 loss, 0 tie, 2 no result) for 19% win
United Arab Emirates - 7 ODIs ( 1 win, 6 loss) for 14% win
Canada - 9 ODIs (1 win, 8 losses) for 11% win
Netherlands - 13 ODIs (1 win, 12 loss) for 7% win
Bangladesh - 82 ODIs (3 win, 77 loss, 2 no result) for 3% win
East Africa - 3 ODIs for 3 losses
Namibia - 6 ODIs for 6 losses
Scotland - 5 ODIs for 5 losses

Surprising is that Australia together with India and pakistan have played the most one daymatches. Also surprising is how few ODIs England have played - the lowest of all the main nations.Banagladesh which is one of 10 testnations is simply woeful - and kenya, UAE. canada and netherlands have better ODI records than it

With Kenya you have a point. Kenya at least have 64 ODIs under their belt (not sure of the opposition though). However, UAE, Canada and Netherlands are only above Bangladesh because they haven't played in as many games. All their matchs have been World Cup stage 1 games of which 1 or 2 games were against similarly low-ranked teams.

Bangladesh on the other hand have played ODI series at home and away to various fully fledged teams like Sri Lanka, England, Pakistan and Australia. So win percentages aren't the whole story.

The same with Sth Africa. They're several 100 games behind Australia and perhaps fortunate to be really strong for much of their international career. If they have an ordinary 5 years or so like Australia did in the eighties it might not do their average too much good. Also how many of those matches were against local minnows Kenya and Zimbabwe?

Cricket records are one thnig, but when you start comparing players or teams on a superficial level I think you can easily go astray. Just like those stats you pulled up on Lee and McGrath.

Lee's bowling has been pretty ordinary the last two test matches. He's become only the second Australian in test history to conceed 200 runs in an innings. He also "took a wicket" off a no-ball and had a catch dropped in the one over in both the first and second innings of the last test. That's got to be some kind of record.

But I will be mighty please when Pidge makes a return. Not to mention the Weatherman.

chesslover
08-01-2004, 08:52 PM
With Kenya you have a point. Kenya at least have 64 ODIs under their belt (not sure of the opposition though). However, UAE, Canada and Netherlands are only above Bangladesh because they haven't played in as many games. All their matchs have been World Cup stage 1 games of which 1 or 2 games were against similarly low-ranked teams.

Bangladesh on the other hand have played ODI series at home and away to various fully fledged teams like Sri Lanka, England, Pakistan and Australia. So win percentages aren't the whole story.

But I will be mighty please when Pidge makes a return. Not to mention the Weatherman.

Yes, true. Bangladesh is better than UAE, Netherlands and canada, although it has a worse win percentage. And the ICC is serioulsy looking at letting Kenya have test status on the back of it's last world cup form, and to face track it by the middle of this decade :x

It is just STUPID. I think letting kenya in will be a big mistake - and compound the problems that we had by letting Bangladesh and Zimbabwe in. Test and ODI records just become meaningless, and hard fought matches like Australia-India, carry no more weight than Australia-bangladesh matches.

Although I think Zimbabwe is weak, I thought thatthey had been competitive for some time now, and that it was okay for them to come to the test status.

Bangladesh, like Kenya, should have proven they were competitive for some time before being given full test nation status. There should be a category called "semi-test" statu, which is a middle ground between the establised test nations, and the developing cricket countries, with the matches the test nations play against the "semi-test" nations not counting as test records, but rather being treated as a first class record

chesslover
08-01-2004, 09:04 PM
These are teh 10 "official" members of the ICC (in chronological order)

England (1909)
Australia (1909)
South Africa (1909, expelled 1961, readmitted 1991)
New Zealand (1926)
India (1926)
West Indies (1926)
Pakistan (1953)
Sri lanka (1981)
Zimbabwe (1992)
Bangladesh (2000)


It took 17 years from 1909 for 3 nations to be admitted, another 27 years for Pakistan to be admitted, and 28 years for Sri lanka to be admitted. Then in "quick" succession it took just 11 and 8 years for Zimbabwe and Banladesh to be admitted, and the way things are going about 5 years for Kenya to be addmitted.

If this trend to have uncompetitive sides be given test status occurs, then the stronger nations will break away to form a "super test" status of their own.

chesslover
08-01-2004, 09:13 PM
These are the ranks from which the 11th test nation will come from. All these nations are "associate members" - where the ICC thinks cricket is firmly established and organised.

What a joke - cricket firmly established in USA, France and Germany? :D

Anyway these are the 27 associate cricket nations, that can qualify for the 4 yearly world cup, and when they got their associate status

ARGENTINA (1974)
BERMUDA (1966)
CANADA (1968)
CAYMAN ISLANDS (2002)
DENMARK (1966)
FIJI (1965)
FRANCE (1998)
GERMANY (1999)
GIBRALTAR (1969)
HONG KONG (1969)
IRELAND (1993)
ISRAEL (1974)
ITALY (1995)
KENYA (1981)
MALAYSIA (1967)
NAMIBIA (1992)
NIGERIA (2002)
THE NETHERLANDS (1966)
NEPAL (1996)
PAPUA NEW GUINEA (1973)
SCOTLAND (1994)
SINGAPORE (1974)
TANZANIA (2001)
UGANDA (1998)
UNITED ARAB EMIRATES (1990)
U.S.A. (1965)
ZAMBIA (2003)

chesslover
08-01-2004, 09:26 PM
In addition to the 10 Test countries, and 27 "associate" countries (where cricket is firmly established and orgnaised :D :D ), there are a further 52 affiliate member cricket countries where the ICC recognises that cricket is played in accordance with the Laws of Cricket.

This brings the total "cricket playing countries to 89" - far more than AFL (just played here) and League and Union. Also like Union, there are about 9 competitive nations in cricket, but unlike union, these nations have a classification to set them apart from the rest of the cricket world. Soccer is still the most played sport in the planet and is the number one sport on this planey by far - it is the number 1 sport in all countries in this world except a small handful (including USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand)

The Affiliate cricket countries are -

AFGHANISTAN, AUSTRIA, BAHAMAS, BAHRAIN, BELGIUM, BELIZE, BHUTAN, BOTSWANA, BRAZIL, BRUNEI, CHILE, COOK ISLANDS,
COSTA RICA, CROATIA, CUBA, CYPRUS, CZECH REPUBLIC, FINLAND, GAMBIA, GHANA, GREECE, INDONESIA, IRAN, JAPAN,
SOUTH KOREA, KUWAIT, LESOTHO, LUXEMBOURG, MALAWI, MALDIVES, MALTA, MOROCCO, MOZAMBIQUE, NORWAY, OMAN, PANAMA
PHILIPPINES, PORTUGAL, RWANDA, QATAR, SAMOA, SAUDI ARABIA
SIERRA LEONE, SPAIN, ST HELENA, SURINAME, SWEDEN, SWITZERLAND THAILAND, TONGA, TURKS AND CAICOS ISLANDS, VANUATU

chesslover
08-01-2004, 09:36 PM
This is the current OFFICIAL world test championship table, and the ratings points as of today

1 Australia 125 points
2 South Africa 111 points
3 Pakistan 102 points
4 England 101 points
5 India 100 points
6 New Zealand 100 points
7 Sri Lanka 96 points
8 West Indies 83 points
9 Zimbabwe 56 points
10 Bangladesh 0

Yeah to us.....the offical number 1 test team in the planet

India is within striking distance of coming third, if they continue their fine form that they showed against us, but the ranking of the Windies is just pathetic - how the mighty have fallen

chesslover
08-01-2004, 09:43 PM
And these are the OFFICIAL cricket One day international rankings and team ratings

1 Australia 136 rating points
2 South Africa 118 rating points
3 Pakistan 111 rating points
4 Sri Lanka 107 rating points
5 England 106 rating points
6 India 105 rating points
7 West Indies 101 rating points
8 New Zealand 98 rating points
9 Zimbabwe 68 rating points
10 Kenya 28 rating points
11 Bangladesh 0 rating points

Yaaay to us - the official number one ODI team in the planet. Just how great and marvellous are we - number 1 in test, and number 1 in ODI in this whole planet

Interestingly South Africa and Pkaistan are number 2 and 3 in tests as well, so the top teams in tests, hold the same rankins in ODI

Biggest improver is Sri Lanka, who whilst number 4 in ODI, are just number 7 in tests.

ursogr8
09-01-2004, 08:12 AM
This is the current OFFICIAL ..........today



Here is another test for your record-searching CL.
Steve Waugh is classed as the 42nd captain of Auatralia.
Does this correctly account for the matches that Gilchrist stood in when Waugh was injured (multiple occasions)?
And just who was the Captain of the Australian team in this statistic last week; Waugh or Ponting?

starter

Garvinator
09-01-2004, 10:41 AM
starter,

without checking the records, i would say that steve waugh would be the 42nd captain of australia as he started his captaincy before gilchrist.

chesslover
09-01-2004, 10:32 PM
What a wonderful match today :D

Until ganguly got run out, India were looking like winning

India with it's very very stromng batting line up are looking like might foes for us. An interesting and very entertaining start ot the one day series

arosar
12-01-2004, 12:25 PM
Boys . . . check out today's 'Sports' section in the SMH - page 19. What a fantastic photo that is!! Tim Clayton's a bloody genius.

AR

antichrist
12-01-2004, 02:24 PM
Cricket is only worth watching when the top players are playing and are in form.

skip to my lou
12-01-2004, 02:25 PM
Well the top players are playing, and ARE in form.

chesslover
14-01-2004, 06:14 PM
Zimbabwe just seems to be making up the numbers, as today's crushing win by India shows. In a tri series final, it is really exciting when there are 3 very competitive teams, and when there are just 2 competitive teams, 8 of the 12 tri series matches just become meaningless - as you know Australia and India will beat Zimbabwe in these matches. Also the Australia- India matches also beome meaningless, as these 2 teams will meet each other in the final no matter what the results are

chesslover
15-01-2004, 05:54 PM
Steve waugh states that teh future of cricket is India vs Australia matches! In the last 14 tests, India and Australia have won 6 each, and for the first time Australia will play a 4 test series in India next year. Soon India vs Australia will be just as important and common as Australia vs India matches

http://in.sports.yahoo.com/040108/149/2asci.html

Rincewind
16-01-2004, 03:39 PM
Will Zimbabwe beat Gilchrist's score?

chesslover
16-01-2004, 09:37 PM
Will Zimbabwe beat Gilchrist's score?

Yes they will. My guess at this stage is that Zimbabwe will beat Gilchrist's score but just fall short of the 200 mark - if pressed I would say 196 runs :D

Kevin Bonham
17-01-2004, 12:29 AM
How much longer before someone gets the first double century in a (gender-open) ODI? With so much one-day cricket and a number of weakish nations playing it seems only a matter of time - I wonder who will get there first? That man would seem as likely a candidate as any. Out of form? Naaaaah.

chesslover
17-01-2004, 04:51 PM
How much longer before someone gets the first double century in a (gender-open) ODI? With so much one-day cricket and a number of weakish nations playing it seems only a matter of time .

you are so correct...

the 200 in ODI is simply a matter of time, especially as strong teams like Australia, India, Pakistan play Zimbabwe and Bangaladesh more and more regulalrly.

Also note that World Cup matches, against Namibia, Canada, Holand etc also count for the ODI records..

chesslover
17-01-2004, 04:55 PM
also for the same reasons stated above, Matt hayden's 380 world record against Zimbabwe will soon be overtaken as well, and the first test match 400 will be scored - probably by a subcontinental team against Bangaladesh

Also the current world record of 952 runs, will also be beated, and we will soon see for the first time a 1000+ test score

The idiots who let in Zimabawe. Bangaladesh, and who are now trying to get Kenya test status, have destroyed the integrity of cricket records - both ODI and Test

Indeed Zimbabwe has less than 2000 crickters - much less than a state like tasmania, yet they are a test nation :shock:

chesslover
22-01-2004, 05:26 PM
I was upset with Channel 9 for going to news after Laxman's 100 :x

Why cant they show the entire match to 50 overs? :x

Either show the full 50 overs or go to the News/ Current Affairs at 1800

This half way solution does not please anyone :x :evil:

ANyway after we went to the News, Singh hit a 6, 4, 4, 6 off the next 4 balls - which we all missed

Channel 9 is a disgrace :x

F#$@ Channel 9 :x :evil:

Bill Gletsos
22-01-2004, 05:37 PM
I was upset with Channel 9 for going to news after Laxman's 100 :x

Why cant they show the entire match to 50 overs? :x

Either show the full 50 overs or go to the News/ Current Affairs at 1800

This half way solution does not please anyone :x :evil:

ANyway after we went to the News, Singh hit a 6, 4, 4, 6 off the next 4 balls - which we all missed

Channel 9 is a disgrace :x

F#$@ Channel 9 :x :evil:
Is this the way for a good christian to express themselves. [-X

chesslover
22-01-2004, 05:42 PM
Is this the way for a good christian to express themselves. [-X

sorry..
:oops:
i was just frustrated at Channel 9, and their selfish coverage of sports - not just cricket.

ursogr8
22-01-2004, 09:44 PM
Is this the way for a good christian to express themselves. [-X

sorry..
:oops:
i was just frustrated at Channel 9, and their selfish coverage of sports - not just cricket.

hi CL

Here is a task for you that might get you back into a good frame of mind.
You know that wonderful search engine on cricket statistics that you operate; is it tuned in at the moment. How about doing a search on how many times 1-day internationals (day/nighters) at the SCG, have lost time due to rain. And second question >>> how often has the D_L method been used at the SCG to re-set the second teams target.

starter

skip to my lou
22-01-2004, 11:45 PM
GG today!

arosar
23-01-2004, 07:26 AM
It's a real pity that Dr Z and jase don't post here. Those dudes know everything about cricket - including stats, etc.

Btw, good idea to move the non-chess under another section.

AR

Rincewind
23-01-2004, 01:26 PM
GG today!

Not a big fan of rain affected matches but certainly was an exciting finish. 6 of the third last ball to tie the scores! It doesn't come much better than that. Then of course a single of second last (makin it the last, actually).

It's been a reasonably good series so far. Zimbabwe and India even had a close tussle. I have the feeling though that most people are switched off a little until the final three games between Australia and India. Then we should really see some fireworks.

chesslover
23-01-2004, 04:44 PM
hi CL

Here is a task for you that might get you back into a good frame of mind.
You know that wonderful search engine on cricket statistics that you operate; is it tuned in at the moment. How about doing a search on how many times 1-day internationals (day/nighters) at the SCG, have lost time due to rain. And second question >>> how often has the D_L method been used at the SCG to re-set the second teams target.

starter

I am calmer now, after the great game yesterday night. WOW what a game :)

As for stats, I am not obsessed with cricket statistical trivia. I normally only care about the test/ one day overall results, and the most runs, wickets, catches, appearences, captainship in ODI and Tests.

That is about it for me. I find sometiems the trivia and detail of cricket detracts from the overall holistic enjoyment of the game

chesslover
23-01-2004, 04:50 PM
GG today!

Not a big fan of rain affected matches but certainly was an exciting finish. 6 of the third last ball to tie the scores! It doesn't come much better than that. Then of course a single of second last (makin it the last, actually).

It's been a reasonably good series so far. Zimbabwe and India even had a close tussle. I have the feeling though that most people are switched off a little until the final three games between Australia and India. Then we should really see some fireworks.

Yes actually a good game. India were unlucky that it rained and shortened the game, and that Lee scored the 6 on the third last ball...

India are certainly the tough foes for us, and it is good that there is some competition for us now in the world stage. They held us in the test, and may well beat us in the ODI

Vindicates my belief posted elsewhere in this thread, that India will be the super power of the Cricket

But Zimbabwe are uncomeptitive, and these matches are meaingless, as we all know it is us and India in the final. If we had a competitive third team (ie any of the 10 Test countries except Bangaladesh and Zimbabwe) it would be so very exciting

chesslover
23-01-2004, 05:12 PM
THis is the OFFICIAL world one day championship table for the 11 ODI countries in the world.The rating points follow to show how close (or not close) the teams are

1 Australia 135
2 South Africa 118
3 Pakistan 107
4 Sri Lanka 107
5 India 106
6 England 106
7 New Zealand 102
8 West Indies 101
9 Zimbabwe 67
10 Kenya 28
11 Bangladesh 0


Other than Australia and South Africa, the next 6 teams are fairly close, and then there is a big gap down to Zimbabwe

chesslover
23-01-2004, 05:28 PM
This is the OFFICIAL test championship table for the world

ICC Test Championship Table
[ as at 20th January 2004 ]

1 Australia 125
2 South Africa 113
3 Pakistan 102
4 England 101
5 India 100
6 New Zealand 100
7 Sri Lanka 96
8 West Indies 82
9 Zimbabwe 56
10 Bangladesh 0

Like the ODI we are first (aussie aussie aussie!!) and SOuth Africa second, and there is a gap between these 2 and the rest.

There is just 2 points between Pakistan, England, India and New Zealand, with a slight gap to Sri Lanka, and a huge gap to the hapless windies. Zimbabewe and Bangaladesh are last, with Bangaladesh's 0 points showing how stupid the ICC was to ever give this pathetic "cricket" nation test status

chesslover
23-01-2004, 05:35 PM
This is the Australian cricket team's fixtures for the rest of 2004;

January 2004:
Australia host India and Zimbabwe (currently happening)

February 2004:
Sri Lanka host Australia

May 2004:
Zimbabwe host Australia

June 2004:
Australia host Sri Lanka

October 2004:
India host Australia

December 2004:
Australia host West Indies and Pakistan


Will be exciting season, except for the tour to Zimbabwe which will be a cakewalk for us

Also there will be 3 competitive teams in the triseries this time next year - us, West Indies and Pakistan :)

chesslover
26-01-2004, 10:27 AM
congrats to Steve Waugh on being AUstralian of the Year :D

Great recognition for his wonderful career, and a great moment for cricket as well. SHows that Cricket truely is Australia's national sport

Waugh joins mark taylor and alan border, who all got named Australian of the Year after they retired from cricket

What is the bet that Gilchrist and Ponting will not get these honours when they too retire

Rincewind
26-01-2004, 10:44 AM
If Howard is still PM when Ponting retires (which I doubt) then Ponting will be a cert for AoY.

Kevin Bonham
26-01-2004, 02:34 PM
Great recognition for his wonderful career, and a great moment for cricket as well. SHows that Cricket truely is Australia's national sport

Or how sadly obsessed Australia is not just with cricket but with sport generally. Four of the past seven AotYs have been sportspeople. :rolleyes:

Rincewind
26-01-2004, 10:59 PM
Or how sadly obsessed Australia is not just with cricket but with sport generally. Four of the past seven AotYs have been sportspeople. :rolleyes:

It's the only think Australia is good at. :eek:

Rahul
26-01-2004, 11:14 PM
lol.

on ratings. i like the pwc ratings actually. the only thing is that it they are indicvidual ratings, rather than by countries. www.cricketratings.com

there is also a good site on geocities for test nation ratings. http://www.geocities.com/gwozok/index.html

Bill Gletsos
26-01-2004, 11:16 PM
If Howard is still PM when Ponting retires (which I doubt) then Ponting will be a cert for AoY.
I thought the AoY was selected by a selection committee.
Is the PM even on that committee?

Can the non selected contenders appeal?

Perhaps CL should write to the PM demanding the democratic right to appeal. :rolleyes:

Rincewind
26-01-2004, 11:21 PM
I thought the AoY was selected by a selection committee.
Is the PM even on that committee?

Can the non selected contenders appeal?

Perhaps CL should wtite to the PM demanding the democratic right to appeal. :rolleyes:

There are more ways for the PM to influence the outcome of a committee then by sitting on it. ;)

CL should exercise his democratic right and appeal him not making the short list. :)

arosar
27-01-2004, 09:34 AM
I'm not happy that we have another jock as AoY. Waugh is a respectable and high-achieving bloke but this just makes me upset. I mean how's about Hookesey - they might as well give him the 21 gun salute for crying out loud.

AR

chesslover
27-01-2004, 07:41 PM
I thought the AoY was selected by a selection committee.
Is the PM even on that committee?

Can the non selected contenders appeal?

Perhaps CL should write to the PM demanding the democratic right to appeal. :rolleyes:

stop being silly :mad:

The PM is not in the selection commitee

And no the non selected people cannot appeal. The decision to make Steve AOY was 100% correct, and Latham joined Howard in agreeing with this decision. As did Costello and the Victorian PM....

So stop trying to confuse the appeal issue, as a chess selection appeal and a AOY appeal are completly different, and you know it - so stop being a smart alec, and make fun of something that I feel passionate about :mad:

chesslover
27-01-2004, 07:49 PM
I'm not happy that we have another jock as AoY. Waugh is a respectable and high-achieving bloke but this just makes me upset. I mean how's about Hookesey - they might as well give him the 21 gun salute for crying out loud.

AR

stop being an elitist snob

The AOY is supposed to be someone who we can look up to, and be inspired and I cannot think of anyone better than Steve waugh for this. His detrmination, courage under fire, and hard work are an inspiration for all of us.

Everyone in Australia, know Steve waugh, and young, old, migrants, long established people all will be inspired by him.

Compare that to teh person we had as AOY for 2003. How many people even know his name? I don't and that is the situation with most people in Australia. What good can an AOY do, when people do nbot even recognise his name?

The only AOYs I remember at the moment are Waugh, Taylor, Border, Freeman, Bond, Rafter and Dick Smith

As a cricketlover (get it :D :p ) I am happy Waugh got the AOY as it is a fine tribute to our sport. Waugh's win is a win for the common man, and is universely welcomed by all our political leaders

Kevin Bonham
27-01-2004, 08:40 PM
stop being an elitist snob

Hang on, is he being any more elitist than you? You're just supporting the sporting elite rather than whatever elite he supports.


Compare that to teh person we had as AOY for 2003. How many people even know his name?

Her name as it happens. Professor Fiona Stanley.


I don't and that is the situation with most people in Australia. What good can an AOY do, when people do nbot even recognise his name?

Well of course they don't, because the newspapers print dozens of pages of Aussie sport for every page of Aussie science or arts - so is that the fault of the people giving the award or the way the media report issues in this country?


The only AOYs I remember at the moment are Waugh, Taylor, Border, Freeman, Bond, Rafter and Dick Smith

Yes, and while I don't have a problem with Waugh specifically, except that he's another sportsman for an award that has had too many of them already, what about Pat Rafter? OK, he won a couple of majors, but his record didn't stamp him as fit to be a ballboy on the same court as a true great like Pete Sampras and the only other things he seemed to do were flit around overseas for tax reasons and promote the odd trendy environmentalist cause.


and is universely welcomed by all our political leaders

Which just shows you that they don't want the right-wing tabloids calling them "elitists". (As if the verdict of politicians was any sign of a good award or a bad one.) Have you had a look at responses (if any) from the minor party leaders?

Garvinator
27-01-2004, 10:55 PM
Hang on, is he being any more elitist than you? You're just supporting the sporting elite rather than whatever elite he supports.



Her name as it happens. Professor Fiona Stanley.



Well of course they don't, because the newspapers print dozens of pages of Aussie sport for every page of Aussie science or arts - so is that the fault of the people giving the award or the way the media report issues in this country?



Yes, and while I don't have a problem with Waugh specifically, except that he's another sportsman for an award that has had too many of them already, what about Pat Rafter? OK, he won a couple of majors, but his record didn't stamp him as fit to be a ballboy on the same court as a true great like Pete Sampras and the only other things he seemed to do were flit around overseas for tax reasons and promote the odd trendy environmentalist cause.



Which just shows you that they don't want the right-wing tabloids calling them "elitists". (As if the verdict of politicians was any sign of a good award or a bad one.) Have you had a look at responses (if any) from the minor party leaders?
Kevin, did you just copy this post from one of your previous posts on the old thread becuase I think I have read this type of post from you before ;)

Kevin Bonham
27-01-2004, 11:53 PM
Maybe so (though the anti-Rafter rant would be a TN if it had actually been original), but at least I don't quote 18 lines of text for 2 lines of reply. :D

Remember, everyone (or at least a lot of you), the delete button is your friend. :cool:

Garvinator
27-01-2004, 11:56 PM
Maybe so (though the anti-Rafter rant would be a TN if it had actually been original), but at least I don't quote 18 lines of text for 2 lines of reply. :D

and who is that jab directed at? :p

skip to my lou
27-01-2004, 11:57 PM
:rolleyes:

skip to my lou
01-02-2004, 05:02 PM
2/16...... im guessing its because pitch is so flat and fast.

Alan Shore
02-02-2004, 05:55 AM
I might just add that Pat Rafter set up the 'Cherish the Children' foundation, a major charity helping underpriveleged children, so perhaps it was this philanthropic contribution that added weight to his cause to go with his sporting achievements (which I might add I think were not befitting of the caustic comments of Mr Bonham, despite twice winning the US Open he also held the #1 ranking and twice made it to the Wimbledon final).

Steve Waugh too has been a crusader for the underpriveleged in India as well as leading Australia to be the most successful cricket team in history and personally amassing over 10,000 Test runs. Perhaps it is Mark Taylor that had done the least in receiving his AoY award, although I may not be aware of his other such achievements.

I would still hope that the AoY awards were judged without bias, but I can't think of anyone in the australian chess community who would deserve the award more (which might just be what all this is really about) :)

Rincewind
02-02-2004, 07:17 AM
Good points, Bruce.


I might just add that Pat Rafter set up the 'Cherish the Children' foundation, a major charity helping underpriveleged children, so perhaps it was this philanthropic contribution that added weight to his cause to go with his sporting achievements (which I might add I think were not befitting of the caustic comments of Mr Bonham, despite twice winning the US Open he also held the #1 ranking and twice made it to the Wimbledon final).

Making fun of Pat Rafter, that's a paddlin'.


Steve Waugh too has been a crusader for the underpriveleged in India as well as leading Australia to be the most successful cricket team in history and personally amassing over 10,000 Test runs. Perhaps it is Mark Taylor that had done the least in receiving his AoY award, although I may not be aware of his other such achievements.

Making fun of Steve Waugh, you better believe that's a paddlin'.

:lol:

Kevin Bonham
02-02-2004, 12:45 PM
I might just add that Pat Rafter set up the 'Cherish the Children' foundation, a major charity helping underpriveleged children, so perhaps it was this philanthropic contribution that added weight to his cause

OK, I stand corrected on this. Though I am betting that he could have established 5 major charities and without being a sporting star still would not have been deemed fit to be Australian of the Year.


to go with his sporting achievements (which I might add I think were not befitting of the caustic comments of Mr Bonham, despite twice winning the US Open he also held the #1 ranking and twice made it to the Wimbledon final).

Losing Wimbledon finals is hardly any evidence of all-time greatness, all kinds of mediocre donkeys have done that. And sure he made the #1 ranking, but that's no evidence of all-time greatness either. Waugh at least actually is an all-time great captain with an exceptional batting record over a very long career and will still be being remembered and talked about in 50 years' time, can't say the same for Rafter (or, as you point out, Taylor).


I would still hope that the AoY awards were judged without bias, but I can't think of anyone in the australian chess community who would deserve the award more (which might just be what all this is really about) :)

What, you don't reckon Jose Escribano is worthy? :lol:

Rincewind
02-02-2004, 01:37 PM
OK, I stand corrected on this. Though I am betting that he could have established 5 major charities and without being a sporting star still would not have been deemed fit to be Australian of the Year.

Is setting up charities the primary selection criteria for AoY? Is it the only criteria?

Usually these people are people in the public eye which means some form of celebrity. Sporting stars have the advantage over most other sorts of celebrity that some of them are reasonably down to earth. Note I said some and reasonably.


Losing Wimbledon finals is hardly any evidence of all-time greatness, all kinds of mediocre donkeys have done that. And sure he made the #1 ranking, but that's no evidence of all-time greatness either. Waugh at least actually is an all-time great captain with an exceptional batting record over a very long career and will still be being remembered and talked about in 50 years' time, can't say the same for Rafter (or, as you point out, Taylor).

Rafter is just the best of the post-Cash pre-Scud era.


What, you don't reckon Jose Escribano is worthy? :lol:

Fritz should be the next nomination for GG. :wink:

chesslover
02-02-2004, 02:37 PM
Fritz should be the next nomination for GG. :wink:

Since everything these days are decided by our PM, John "the man of steel" Howard, a GG nomination will only succeed if John wants it. Since John does not to my knowledge have a fondness for chess, it is impossible that a chess player will win the GG award or AOY award

John Howards favourite sports from what I read in the Tele, seems to be cricket and rugby union. Indeed they call him a "cricket tragic"

skip to my lou
03-02-2004, 04:10 PM
:eek:

Zim is 3/11?? :uhoh:

chesslover
04-02-2004, 08:19 PM
not a good career move by Bichel, blasting the selectors for dropping him

http://http://www.cricinfo.com/link_to_database/ARCHIVE/CRICKET_NEWS/2004/FEB/060231_VBS2003-04_04FEB2004.html

Alan Shore
05-02-2004, 07:57 PM
Damn, that link doesn't seem to work any more CL. Sounds pretty uncharacteristic of Bichel to do that :(

chesslover
05-02-2004, 09:00 PM
Damn, that link doesn't seem to work any more CL. Sounds pretty uncharacteristic of Bichel to do that :(

I assure you that it was working when I posted

and Bischel was probably frustrated that martyn is still there, and Lee back after being hit for more than 80 runs, yet he is dropped

He may have a point there, but still not a good career move

Atomic Pawn
05-02-2004, 09:06 PM
The link is

http://www.cricinfo.com/link_to_database/ARCHIVE/CRICKET_NEWS/2004/FEB/060231_VBS2003-04_04FEB2004.html

Your link has double http, and the second http has no colon. :owned:

chesslover
05-02-2004, 09:17 PM
The link is

http://www.cricinfo.com/link_to_database/ARCHIVE/CRICKET_NEWS/2004/FEB/060231_VBS2003-04_04FEB2004.html

Your link has double http, and the second http has no colon. :owned:

oops thanks

Tommorrow the first final is going to be so good....

Aussie Aussie Aussie!!!!!

Rincewind
05-02-2004, 10:05 PM
I assure you that it was working when I posted

and Bischel was probably frustrated that martyn is still there, and Lee back after being hit for more than 80 runs, yet he is dropped

He may have a point there, but still not a good career move

Bichel is a tryer but is never going to be a top 10 bowler. Lee has that potential. Yes he had some problems coming back from injury, but they may not have been entirely of his own making. Australia were hurting in the bowling area. Gillespie uncertain, McGrath injured and Warne out the pressure was no to get wicket takers in the side. Williams has looked good (for a boof headed sand groper) in the games I've seen.

I think Lee has shown he is pretty much back into his best form and hopefully will be able to fire for the final series.

You can't really compare Martyn's situation with Bichel's as middle order batting is a tricky business in ODI and with Bevan out there are no doubt looking to retain some experience in the middle without stuffing around with the top 3.

Of the all rounders I've preferred Symonds to Harvey this summer.

chesslover
05-02-2004, 11:17 PM
Bichel is a tryer but is never going to be a top 10 bowler. Lee has that potential. Yes he had some problems coming back from injury, but they may not have been entirely of his own making. Australia were hurting in the bowling area. Gillespie uncertain, McGrath injured and Warne out the pressure was no to get wicket takers in the side. Williams has looked good (for a boof headed sand groper) in the games I've seen.

I think Lee has shown he is pretty much back into his best form and hopefully will be able to fire for the final series.

You can't really compare Martyn's situation with Bichel's as middle order batting is a tricky business in ODI and with Bevan out there are no doubt looking to retain some experience in the middle without stuffing around with the top 3.

Of the all rounders I've preferred Symonds to Harvey this summer.

Yes I agree with your post above

Lee is our fastest bowler, and after the thrashing the Indians gave him has actually come back better and stronger. His willingness to learn from that, the coaching by Lilee and the new found focus all mean that he is a better bowler than before. His speed also intimidates the batsman, and aids the other bowlers when they bowl to take wickets

And our full strength bowling line up must be the strongest in the world - Mcgrath, Lee, Gillespie and Warne....WOW WOW

And yes Symonds is better than harvey, and we also need to show some loyalty for what Symonds did in South Africa to win the world cup 2003

But I guess Bichel felt hard doen by for even though he has done made any remarkable fireworks, he also has not made any big blunders - like lee and Martyn with his run of poor form.

Martyn really is in a very bad form slump, and whilst I take your point about Bevan., I do think they should blood someone else in his place. Maybe the final series is not the time to do it, but if Martyn flops in the series we need to replace him. How many chances does he get before he gets dropped?

ursogr8
17-02-2004, 08:00 AM
And yes Symonds is better than harvey,


hi CL
You are uually a good judge of cricket issues. Here is a question.

Given that the VICS are 12 points clear of the second team in the PURA Cup, and they are 1/312 yesterday, then how much of their success is due to team spirit. And a follow-up question; how many VICS in the Test team?

starter

ursogr8
20-02-2004, 12:08 PM
Matthew Elliott currently has an average of 78.9 and has made 1184 first class runs for the season.
Any chance of a tour to Sri Lanka.

Or will they pick Simon Katich?

Rincewind
20-02-2004, 01:01 PM
Matthew Elliott currently has an average of 78.9 and has made 1184 first class runs for the season.
Any chance of a tour to Sri Lanka.

Or will they pick Simon Katich?

Elliott had his chance and failed against West Indies and Sth Africa before being dropped. Katich is three years his junior and seems at least as good a player. He is a very promising batsman in both forms of the game (scoring >200 runs in his last test) so I don't think his spot on the tour is under threat from a has been who never was. :eek:

arosar
20-02-2004, 01:46 PM
What's this I hear about Paul Rifle having become an umpire?

AR

skip to my lou
20-02-2004, 04:22 PM
Yeah I saw him umpire an ING match

ursogr8
21-02-2004, 02:27 PM
Elliott had his chance and failed against West Indies and Sth Africa before being dropped. Katich is three years his junior and seems at least as good a player. He is a very promising batsman in both forms of the game (scoring >200 runs in his last test) so I don't think his spot on the tour is under threat from a has been who never was. :eek:

Baz,
Help me understand this.
Symons has done bxggxr_all in serious cricket. How come he gets picked ahead of the run-making machine Elliott? For Test Cricket!
starter

Garvinator
21-02-2004, 03:01 PM
Baz,
Help me understand this.
Symons has done bxggxr_all in serious cricket. How come he gets picked ahead of the run-making machine Elliott? For Test Cricket!
starter
because they are competing for different roles in the test team. Elliott is an opener or number three. Those positions are already filled. Symonds is competing for number seven and can bowl spin which is needed in sri lanka. remember the aussie selectors went with colin miller for the indian series and he did well. the current thinking is that an off spinner is useful with warne or macgill playing.

PHAT
21-02-2004, 03:22 PM
...the current thinking is that an off spinner is useful with warne or macgill playing.

Why?

Rincewind
21-02-2004, 04:08 PM
Why?

Winning test matches is all about taking 20 wickets. The greater the variation at your disposal, the best chance you have of doing that. Playing off and leg from opposite ends can cause the batsmen to miscalculate more then if you have two leggies on (other things being equal).

Rincewind
21-02-2004, 04:12 PM
Baz,
Help me understand this.
Symons has done bxggxr_all in serious cricket. How come he gets picked ahead of the run-making machine Elliott? For Test Cricket!
starter

What Richo said. Elliott is basically in the running for Langer's spot. Hayden has his spot cemented pretty much for good, Ponting too, only leaves Langer as the weakest link in the top order.

So it is a West Aussie, Queenslander and Taswegian keeping your blue-eyed boy out of test cricket, nothing to do with NSW. ;)

PHAT
21-02-2004, 04:31 PM
Playing off and leg from opposite ends can cause the batsmen to miscalculate more than if you have two leggies on.

Is this statistically true or is it a bullsh.t paradigm grounded in cricket lore?

Garvinator
21-02-2004, 04:45 PM
Is this statistically true or is it a bullsh.t paradigm grounded in cricket lore?
difficult to say because two leggies rarely are played together as there is rarely two leggies of test match standard playing for the same country. Also countries dont often play two spinners because the pitches favour fast bowling.

Rincewind
21-02-2004, 04:55 PM
Is this statistically true or is it a bullsh.t paradigm grounded in cricket lore?

Opinion is divided on the matter - everyone else thinks that it does, you think it might just be cricket-lore. :)

arosar
23-02-2004, 08:35 AM
Whaddya blokes reckon of that umpire who reversed his decision? Good? Bad?

AR

Kevin Bonham
23-02-2004, 05:03 PM
Which one was this? Generally, as in chess, I'm of the view that the most important thing is to get it right. If a wrong decision can be reversed without obstructing the game too much, do it ... but don't make a habit of needing to.

I understand that Chaminda Vaas managed to keep Bevan and Symonds of all people to only six runs off the last over when Australia needed eight for victory in the second SL vs Aus one-dayer. These are two guys who have a proven ability to whack twenty off the last over. How good a piece of bowling must that have been? :clap:

Rincewind
23-02-2004, 06:38 PM
Yes, I didn't see the match but yes, That's right. They needed 8 of the last over to win, they got 6. Charminda named man of the match.

Regarding the umpiring decision, I couldn't dig up much details but it sounded like Symons was given out lbw and after the decision was given, the unpire had a change of heart and he was recalled. Quite bizarre.

chesslover
23-02-2004, 06:59 PM
Yes, I didn't see the match but yes, That's right. They needed 8 of the last over to win, they got 6. Charminda named man of the match.

Regarding the umpiring decision, I couldn't dig up much details but it sounded like Symons was given out lbw and after the decision was given, the unpire had a change of heart and he was recalled. Quite bizarre.

Yes true.It is 1 all now, with 3 games to go

If ponting manages to win in Srilanka and India, he will have broken the last frontier of Australian cricket - something that even Steve Waugh has never done

And yes, umpire's decision was strange. Umpire gave the decision, and then changed his mind and called the batsman back - no overrule from the third umpire, no fieldsman telling the umpire that it was not a catch. Just a simple change of mind - after he have the batsman out

Kevin Bonham
23-02-2004, 08:14 PM
Regarding the umpiring decision, I couldn't dig up much details but it sounded like Symons was given out lbw and after the decision was given, the unpire had a change of heart and he was recalled. Quite bizarre.

It was on the news tonight. He edged the ball onto his pads. The umpire gave him out and both batsmen made their disgust obvious; the umpire then realised he'd made an error and recalled the batsman as the batsman was walking off the ground and the fielding side were celebrating.

A problem I have with this is that remonstrating against umpiring decisions is (normally) strictly disallowed. If the umpires are going to reverse decisions in cases like this then there should be some kind of allowance for the batsman to complain if incorrectly given out. It looked like had he simply left quietly, the decision would not have been reversed.

Alan Shore
23-02-2004, 09:07 PM
Regarding the Symonds incident, I think the Sri Lankan captain Atapattu concurred that the batsman was not out, in a nice display of sportsmanship - maybe it was karma that got his side over the line, hehe

ursogr8
23-02-2004, 09:20 PM
It was on the news tonight. He edged the ball onto his pads. The umpire gave him out and both batsmen made their disgust obvious; the umpire then realised he'd made an error and recalled the batsman as the batsman was walking off the ground and the fielding side were celebrating.

A problem I have with this is that remonstrating against umpiring decisions is (normally) strictly disallowed. If the umpires are going to reverse decisions in cases like this then there should be some kind of allowance for the batsman to complain if incorrectly given out. It looked like had he simply left quietly, the decision would not have been reversed.

I watched the game live and thought that Symons left as quietly as could be expected. There was an involuntary "But I hit it" when the finger went up, but not near a Steve Waugh intransigence. It was Gilchrist at the non-strikers end who went closer to crossing the line on dissent; and we all know Gilchrist is a gentleman because he 'walked'. The commentator, Dean Jones, said that he thought Symons accepted it well.
The person to come out with most credit was Marvin Attupatu. Full marks at the time, and full marks on sportsmanship later (when admittedly he was a 1-run winner/grinner).
Would have been different with Ranatunga.

starter

chesslover
23-02-2004, 09:45 PM
Channel 7 news just now said, that Symonds has been charged with dissent over the incident

ursogr8
24-02-2004, 06:59 AM
Channel 7 news just now said, that Symonds has been charged with dissent over the incident

CL
And Gilchrist is charged too.

It will be interesting to see if my judgements in post #162 are on the right side of the line or the wrong side of the line.

At this stage my betting would be Symonds 10% chance of losing match payments; Gilchrist 51%.

starter

chesslover
07-03-2004, 06:28 PM
tommorrow the first test vs Sri Lanka starts

We may not have Lee due to his injury, but it will be interesting to see how Warne and McGilll both bowl together and how their duel vs the "chucker" goes.

I think that with our 3-2 win over Sri Lanka, we have the psychological edge, and Warne will be rearing to go after his break

So farwarne has 491 wickets and is the alltime number 2 bowler, and Murali has 485 wickets and is the alltime number 3. Courtny walsh has the alltime wickets in test hsitory at 519, and it does seem inevitable that one of these 2 spinners will break that record this year

This mark of walsh will not be broken thsi test series, but it will be interesting to see who will make it to 500 first - warne or murali. Warne has 6 more wickets going into the series, but is not match fit like Muarali, and is playing away from home

The bookmakers have Australia at $2.10 and Sri Lanka at $5.15 for the first test - with a draw at $2.30. I think Australia is good odds - especially with Ponting so keen to win in Sri Lanka, which even Waugh could not manage

chesslover
08-03-2004, 09:52 PM
we are in such dep trouble after the first day

We were bowled out for just 220 with the Chucker taking 6 wickets. In reply Sri lanka is 1/81 with warne taking one wicket

Murali now has 491 wickets, with warne on 492

Unless we can figure out Murali we look set to lose the first test

$5.15 for Sri lanka before this test looks like very good odds now :doh:

Kevin Bonham
09-03-2004, 11:59 AM
We were bowled out for just 220 with the Chucker taking 6 wickets.

If he is a chucker, he's a great chucker. I thought he wasn't supposed to do that until the fourth innings, not the first. :eek:

chesslover
09-03-2004, 06:24 PM
If he is a chucker, he's a great chucker. I thought he wasn't supposed to do that until the fourth innings, not the first. :eek:

sri lanka are 224/4, already having a first innings lead with day 2 tea yet to come

warne is 1/49 and mcGill 0/31

PS - since we batted first, chucker would only be a threat in the third innings. He would only be a threat in the fourth innings if we asked Sri Lanka to followon

skip to my lou
09-03-2004, 06:36 PM
You're an idiot for calling Murali a chucker. If he was chucking, dont you think he would have been lifted a long time ago???

Kevin Bonham
09-03-2004, 10:51 PM
PS - since we batted first, chucker would only be a threat in the third innings. He would only be a threat in the fourth innings if we asked Sri Lanka to followon

What I meant was that the idea was that it would be an absolute godsend if Australia won the toss so they would not have to face Murali in the fourth innings. Bzzzzt. Wrong.

PS I am not an expert, or even an especially avid fan, but I'm not convinced the guy's a chucker. I have a lot of sympathy for him actually.

chesslover
09-03-2004, 11:06 PM
Sri Lanka 350/6 - a lead of 130 over us, and with 3 more days still to go.

Warne was 2/103, while McGill was 0/62. Obviously Murali is having the better of it in the battle against our spinners

Unless something dramatic happens we are heading for defeat in the first test - especially if Murali bowls as well as he did in the 1st innings

skip to my lou
09-03-2004, 11:08 PM
What I meant was that the idea was that it would be an absolute godsend if Australia won the toss so they would not have to face Murali in the fourth innings. Bzzzzt. Wrong.

PS I am not an expert, or even an especially avid fan, but I'm not convinced the guy's a chucker. I have a lot of sympathy for him actually.

Its quite obvious. If he was a REAL chucker, he wouldn't be around for so long.

shaun
10-03-2004, 11:28 AM
Its quite obvious. If he was a REAL chucker, he wouldn't be around for so long.

or if he was a REAL chucker, the ICC would change the rules on throwing.

chesslover
10-03-2004, 07:24 PM
Srilanlka allout for 381. A first inning lead of 161

In return we are 128/1, with about 30 overs till end of day 3

warne took 5/116 and mcGill took 1/69.

It is obvious that playing warne was a great decision, and he has proved once again that he is the greatest bowler we have ever had. Bravo bravo bravo warnie

It is now warne 496 test wickets and Murali 491 wickets

Interesting now to see how Murali performs this second innings. Match seems even bearing in mind Sri Lanka will now have to face warne and mcgill in the last innings

skip to my lou
10-03-2004, 08:15 PM
or if he was a REAL chucker, the ICC would change the rules on throwing.

Ummm, no

ursogr8
10-03-2004, 08:30 PM
You're an idiot for calling Murali a chucker. If he was chucking, dont you think he would have been lifted a long time ago???

Warney bowls at about 85mph on average. At that speed it would not matter if he chucked would it?
Would it matter at 100mph? At what speed is it an advantage to be able to chuck?

skip to my lou
10-03-2004, 08:36 PM
Um, if you can chuck, then you can spin the ball ALOT more.

ursogr8
10-03-2004, 08:51 PM
Um, if you can chuck, then you can spin the ball ALOT more.

I wonder if anyone has ever spun the ball more than Stewart McGill (leggies) and Derek Underwood (top-spinners); and yet there was never a hint of throwing from these two. Would anyone want to spin the ball more than these two? So, why not let anyone who bowls slower than 98.6mph be a chucker.

skip to my lou
10-03-2004, 09:03 PM
ergh... well its a bit more complicated than that.

If you chuck, you can not only spin more, you can also spin in all sorts of ways and directions.

ursogr8
10-03-2004, 09:43 PM
ergh... well its a bit more complicated than that.

If you chuck, you can not only spin more, you can also spin in all sorts of ways and directions.

Warney in his prime could come from the leg, had a wrong-un, had a shooter, and had a jumping top-spinner. How many directions do you want K.? And Warney doesn't throw; and he bowls les that 90mph.

Try again. Find a reason why we should not allows chuckers under 98.6mph?

shaun
11-03-2004, 08:20 AM
Ummm, no

Are you saying the ICC didn't change the rules to make it impossible for the Umpires to call Murali for throwing?

shaun
11-03-2004, 08:33 AM
Warney in his prime could come from the leg, had a wrong-un, had a shooter, and had a jumping top-spinner. How many directions do you want K.? And Warney doesn't throw; and he bowls les that 90mph.

Try again. Find a reason why we should not allows chuckers under 98.6mph?

Because he, and all other legal bowlers, were able to produce these balls through developing their own legal skills.
I used to bowl leg-spin as a junior cricketer, but I could never get the ball to turn the other way. Consequently I wasn't a great bowler (the batsmen had no problems picking my bowling) and I stopped playeing at about 20. Recently I practiced bowling the "Sri Lankan off-spinner", which is simply a throw, and I managed to get the ball to turn sharply from off to leg, something I'd never been able to do before. If I had known when I was 20 years old that not only would the ICC turn a blind-eye to such a delivery, and would even go so far as to change the rules to stop umpires calling such a delivery a throw, then I would have had a far more succesful cricketing career. I might have even taken 491 test wickets.

ursogr8
11-03-2004, 11:13 AM
Because he, and all other legal bowlers, were able to produce these balls through developing their own legal skills.
I used to bowl leg-spin as a junior cricketer, but I could never get the ball to turn the other way. Consequently I wasn't a great bowler (the batsmen had no problems picking my bowling) and I stopped playeing at about 20. Recently I practiced bowling the "Sri Lankan off-spinner", which is simply a throw, and I managed to get the ball to turn sharply from off to leg, something I'd never been able to do before. If I had known when I was 20 years old that not only would the ICC turn a blind-eye to such a delivery, and would even go so far as to change the rules to stop umpires calling such a delivery a throw, then I would have had a far more succesful cricketing career. I might have even taken 491 test wickets.

Shaun

Good.
But you would not have been unplayable would you. And cricket is far more interesting with the slows on. So, I think you are just arguing my case.

starter

arosar
11-03-2004, 11:54 AM
Look, I'm not really into cricket OK. But what's a chucker anyways? Isn't that guy who bends his elbow? And so did that Murali-whateverthehellhisnameis bend his elbow? If he did so, did the ICC change the rules to let him get away with it? If so, FMD!!

AR

skip to my lou
11-03-2004, 12:41 PM
Murali is physically disabled and cannot fully straighten his arm. I think tony did a demo when SL was over here.

shaun
11-03-2004, 02:22 PM
Murali is physically disabled and cannot fully straighten his arm. I think tony did a demo when SL was over here.
And here we have another problem with this debate, people not knowing the rules. (I'm not picking on you Jeo, many other people and possibly Murali himself, are in the same boat).
Bowlers can bowl with a straight arm, and bowlers can bowl with a bent arm. What they are not allowed to do is straighten their arm while bowling. Murali isn't a chucker because he can't make his arm straight, Murali is a chucker because his arm goes from bent to less bent. What Tony Greig showed when Murali was first called had absolutely no bearing on why Murali was called.
If Murali kept his arm as straight as possible all through his bowling action he would be fine. Unfortunatley he doesn't. And tests he underwent to clear his action showed showed that he did straighten when bowling.
Prediction: When Murali retires the ICC will revise their rules on throwing to become more stringent again.

shaun
11-03-2004, 02:26 PM
Shaun

Good.
But you would not have been unplayable would you. And cricket is far more interesting with the slows on. So, I think you are just arguing my case.

starter

At the level of cricket I played at I would have been. And this would have been wrong given my "legal" talent level.
If you want to make cricket more interesting by allowing throwing here is a suggestion. Build a mound for the bowler to throw from. Only have one batsmen, and he is only allowed 3 swings to hit the ball. Make the bat smaller and rounder ......

Bill Gletsos
11-03-2004, 02:28 PM
At the level of cricket I played at I would have been. And this would have been wrong given my "legal" talent level.
If you want to make cricket more interesting by allowing throwing here is a suggestion. Build a mound for the bowler to throw from. Only have one batsmen, and he is only allowed 3 swings to hit the ball. Make the bat smaller and rounder ......
:lol: :lol: :whistle:

ursogr8
11-03-2004, 02:29 PM
At the level of cricket I played at I would have been. And this would have been wrong given my "legal" talent level.
If you want to make cricket more interesting by allowing throwing here is a suggestion. Build a mound for the bowler to throw from. Only have one batsmen, and he is only allowed 3 swings to hit the ball. Make the bat smaller and rounder ......

Shaun
Your strawman. You can knock it over. It is no challenge to me to refute your post.
starter

arosar
11-03-2004, 03:24 PM
If you want to make cricket more interesting by allowing throwing here is a suggestion. Build a mound for the bowler to throw from. Only have one batsmen, and he is only allowed 3 swings to hit the ball. Make the bat smaller and rounder ......

That sounds like the sport I used to play way back in high school! It was a lot of fun and definitely superior to cricket.

AR

skip to my lou
11-03-2004, 03:42 PM
So if he does do this, why only for murali.. and if its that easy to do, then why doesn't everyone start doing it? :hmm:

shaun
11-03-2004, 03:53 PM
[QUOTE=Jeo]So if he does do this, why only for murali.. and if its that easy to do, then why doesn't everyone start doing it% He^q[2FQUOTE]

Because when he first did it Sri Lanka threw a huge tantrum. Up until that time countries dealt with their own throwers (eg Ian Meckiff in Australia) and the system operated on the principal that countries would put the game ahead of their own self interest. Sri Lanka, faced with losing the only guy who could take plenty of wickets, played the race/victim card with the ICC. They thretened to boycott umpires who called Murali, and the ICC caved in. They changed the rules so as to make it impossible to call Murali, and in doing so sent a clear message to all their umpires that a) Murali was a protected man, and b) don't expect us to support you if you do enforce the rules.
The ICC is now in a bind, in that they can't do anything about Murali, but that hasn't stopped them dealing with other bowlers with suspect actions. And that number is increasing (Akhtar, Lee etc amongst the quicks, Singh, Wisemen etc amongst the spinners).They set up the bowling review panel as a sort of half-measure to deal with the issue. But as I said in my previous post, the day Murali retires is the day the ICC launches a crackdown.

Garvinator
11-03-2004, 04:23 PM
Because when he first did it Sri Lanka threw a huge tantrum. Up until that time countries dealt with their own throwers (eg Ian Meckiff in Australia) and the system operated on the principal that countries would put the game ahead of their own self interest. Sri Lanka, faced with losing the only guy who could take plenty of wickets, played the race/victim card with the ICC. They thretened to boycott umpires who called Murali, and the ICC caved in. They changed the rules so as to make it impossible to call Murali, and in doing so sent a clear message to all their umpires that a) Murali was a protected man, and b) don't expect us to support you if you do enforce the rules.
The ICC is now in a bind, in that they can't do anything about Murali, but that hasn't stopped them dealing with other bowlers with suspect actions. And that number is increasing (Akhtar, Lee etc amongst the quicks, Singh, Wisemen etc amongst the spinners).They set up the bowling review panel as a sort of half-measure to deal with the issue. But as I said in my previous post, the day Murali retires is the day the ICC launches a crackdown.[/
dont forget at that time when hair first called murali, dalymai(spell check ;) was president of the icc(indian cricket board president). At the same time of his presidency, allegations of match fixing and result manipulations was rife in the sub continent, but because it was happening in india and an indian was president of icc, they didnt do much. Allegations of match fixing was taken much more seriously when malcolm grey took over as icc president.

Another player to look at for potential throwing is dharmasena from sri lanka.

chesslover
11-03-2004, 08:09 PM
That sounds like the sport I used to play way back in high school! It was a lot of fun and definitely superior to cricket.

AR

cricket is much mmore superior to baseball, or for that matter any sport in existence

baseball was born from cricket

chesslover
11-03-2004, 08:12 PM
no matter how many chuckers they have we are too good for them

Lehaman and martyn are both 100 not out, and Australia is 440/3 with 20 overs to go for end of day 4

when the going gets tough the aussies get going :)

chucker has so far just taken 1 wicker (492 in all). Warne has 496 and will be very good odds to be the 2nd bowler in history to hit the 500 mark

skip to my lou
11-03-2004, 08:49 PM
Then why dont you play cricket instead of chess?

And cricket is a good sport, but does not compare with sports such as baseball basketball soccer.

chesslover
11-03-2004, 11:31 PM
Then why dont you play cricket instead of chess?

And cricket is a good sport, but does not compare with sports such as baseball basketball soccer.

what makes these sports better than cricket?

is it because cricket is too long? then what about 1day cricket

skip to my lou
11-03-2004, 11:35 PM
Have you played cricket before?

Have you played ALL of the sports I have mentioned?

chesslover
11-03-2004, 11:43 PM
Have you played cricket before?

Have you played ALL of the sports I have mentioned?

have played most sports except for AFL and soccer and still prefer cricket to other sports

skip to my lou
11-03-2004, 11:46 PM
have played most sports except for AFL and soccer and still prefer cricket to other sports

:wall:

Have you really played basketball or you think you have played it?

If you could spend an hour in the nets bowling/batting or an hour playing Basketball, you would choose cricket? :eh:

Alan Shore
11-03-2004, 11:59 PM
:wall:

Have you really played basketball or you think you have played it?

If you could spend an hour in the nets bowling/batting or an hour playing Basketball, you would choose cricket? :eh:

I sure would choose cricket - can't stand basketball. My cousin plays in the NBL though, ironically :)

Rincewind
12-03-2004, 12:59 AM
Stumps on Day 4

Australia 220 & 512/8d
Sri Lanka 381 & 3/0 (3.0 ov)

Sri Lanka require another 349 runs. Australia require 10 wickets. 1 day remaining.

Murali took 5 wickets in Australia's second dig lifting his career total to 496, equal with Warnie. Regardless of who gets to 500 first, I think there is little doubt that, short of an injury, Murali with finish the series with more wickets than Warnie.

Trent Parker
12-03-2004, 08:45 AM
Murali, the masterchucker! Note that this amount of runs required is a record for this ground!!

Rincewind
12-03-2004, 05:49 PM
Murali, the masterchucker! Note that this amount of runs required is a record for this ground!!

:D

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

Tillakaratne was Warnie's 500th!!!

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

arosar
12-03-2004, 06:42 PM
how many more wickets is Warne off the world record for most wkts taken?

AR

Rincewind
12-03-2004, 07:02 PM
how many more wickets is Warne off the world record for most wkts taken?

The record is 519 Courtney Walsh
Next is Warne on 501 now I think
Next is Muralitharan on 496 (again from memory)..

I suspect Murali will be the first to crack 520 and will go on to take many, many more. Warniw will also crack 520 but won't be able to keep up with Murali.

ursogr8
13-03-2004, 02:08 PM
All is well
A VIC is back in the Test team.
We give them (the SLs) 100 runs start and beat them by 190.
Go Warney. The records are near at hand.

starter

chesslover
14-03-2004, 05:36 PM
second test starts on monday

Warne is in such great form that it is hard to see us lose. Walsh said that warne can get 700 wickets, and the chucker was also saying that warne may beat him to the all time record

Alan Shore
16-03-2004, 12:06 AM
Hehe, Murali's a champ, look at this action :)

http://aus.cricinfo.com/perl/picture.cgi/048022/inline

Rincewind
16-03-2004, 12:12 AM
Hehe, Murali's a champ, look at this action :)

You can't assess a bowling action from a still.

arosar
16-03-2004, 07:52 AM
It sounds like this bloke's a freakin' cheat. John Howard should send in the SAS and take him out. It must be an Australian to hold the all-time unbeatable record.

AR

skip to my lou
16-03-2004, 08:21 AM
HAHA Good luck living in this country then.

Kevin Bonham
16-03-2004, 01:38 PM
It would be amusing if the two of them traded the record backwards and forwards between them for a while - has that ever happened before?

I noticed some of the Aussies were getting shirty about Sri Lanka preparing wickets tailored to suit their spinners. What's the issue? They did that for the first test too and it didn't do them much good, did it? :eek:

arosar
16-03-2004, 01:43 PM
Aussie cricketers are a bunch of two-faced whining cheats themselves mate. They are the most over-rated sporting heroes anywhere in the world.

AR

chesslover
16-03-2004, 10:03 PM
Murali has now joined the 500 club too

This means that Warne has 501 wickets and Murali ahs chucked his way to 500 wickets :p

We may have been dismmissed cheaply for 120 by the Chucker and his team mates but remember what happened in the first test?????? :)

Aussie Aussie Aussie

Going to be interesting to see how we manage to win from this position

The OFFICIAL world rankings were released by Wisden and hayden is teh number 1 batsman in the world and Murali is number 1 bowler in the world

The race between Murali chucking and warne bowling is going to be very interesting. Who will get to 520 first and break the wll time bowling record???

My bet is Murali becuase his country prepares wickets just for him, while here we have to cater for Lee, Mcgrath and others

chesslover
16-03-2004, 10:44 PM
end of day 1 - Australia 120 with Murali having 4 wickets. Sri Laka are 92/7 with warnie having 3/15 and McGill 0/5

Australia's 120 was lowest ever score vs Sri Lanka but we have recovered to once again be in a good position. Without Lee and Mcgrath and still we have a slight edge after being bundled out fo r120. When the going gets tough the Aussies get going

Warne now has 504 test wickets to Murali's 500 and is just 15 behind Walsh's 519 wickets. He has 3 wickets in this innings and a second innings of Sri Lanka to bowl at and then there is the third test. If he cannot take the 16 wickets from the possible 33 this series then Murali will beat him to the world record

Warnieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
warnieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
Warnieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

If he was not suspended for taking his mother's pills byaccident he would have smashed the 519 test wickets by now

skip to my lou
16-03-2004, 10:48 PM
I dont think his mother would give him 'roids. Its not really hard to get 'roids either. Its quite easy actually. Too easy.

Chesslover, how many years has warnie been playing and how many years has murali played for? (first class)

Kevin Bonham
17-03-2004, 02:01 AM
This means that Warne has 501 wickets and Murali ahs chucked his way to 500 wickets :p

A bit harsh. Surely most of those deliveries were legal. :p

chesslover
17-03-2004, 08:25 PM
I dont think his mother would give him 'roids. Its not really hard to get 'roids either. Its quite easy actually. Too easy.

Chesslover, how many years has warnie been playing and how many years has murali played for? (first class)

and how many pitches have been specially prepeared for Murali?

how many times has Murali played Zimbabwe and bangaladesh?

How many wickets has Murali got by chucking?

skip to my lou
17-03-2004, 09:32 PM
chesslover you retarded goose,

What about specially prepared for warne? Check out the fast bowlers to damage the pitch so warne gets that patch.

Look at how warne appeals. He gets on his knees and begs. Sort of like, you better give me this wicket or your family is gonna die. Something like that.

I asked you a question first chesslover, answer it or accept you are a retarded goose.

Alan Shore
19-03-2004, 12:38 PM
I asked you a question first chesslover, answer it or accept you are a retarded goose.

Grow up you patz, you're supposed to be a moderator, using language like that makes you look like the idiot.

Kevin Bonham
19-03-2004, 04:50 PM
Grow up you patz, you're supposed to be a moderator

Actually all the moderation is done by Barry, Paul and I - Jeo is site admin.

Rincewind
19-03-2004, 05:28 PM
Australia positioned nicely now. 334 run lead and 9 wickets to get in 1.5 days or so. :D

Garvinator
19-03-2004, 05:30 PM
Australia positioned nicely now. 334 run lead and 9 wickets to get in 1.5 days or so. :D
isnt today day 4 :eek:

Rincewind
19-03-2004, 05:36 PM
isnt today day 4 :eek:

What's your point ;)

Garvinator
19-03-2004, 05:54 PM
What's your point ;)
that unless they are playing a six day test match you might want to change your maths calculations :lol: :hmm:

skip to my lou
19-03-2004, 05:56 PM
Grow up you patz, you're supposed to be a moderator, using language like that makes you look like the idiot.
As Kevin already pointed out, I am not responsible for how the BB is moderated. I am only admin of tech stuff like the coding ;)

I called him a retarded goose because he is one. Plain and simple. I could much easily use harsher words but that would be going too far. :)

Actually, he would only be a goose if he didn't reply to my question, which he didn't.

Rincewind
19-03-2004, 06:23 PM
that unless they are playing a six day test match you might want to change your maths calculations :lol: :hmm:

You obviously did understand why I added the: ;) You'd better check your math. :lol:

Rincewind
20-03-2004, 12:35 AM
Well only 1 day remaining, SL require 51 more runs with 3 wickets remaining. If Vaas and Murali (or some other pair of the tail enders) can play like they did in the first innings it is quite achieveable.

Alan Shore
20-03-2004, 06:10 PM
Aussie Aussie Aussie, we won! Warnie's a champ.. full marks to Damien Martyn and Gilly too for great knocks when they've been under pressure.

chesslover
20-03-2004, 08:45 PM
Aussie Aussie Aussie, we won! Warnie's a champ.. full marks to Damien Martyn and Gilly too for great knocks when they've been under pressure.

How good are we :clap: :clap:

2-0 and all over. Ponting is a champ and now we have had Border, taylor, waugh and Ponting. 4 great captains

And Warne....warnie warnie warnie

he has taken 20 wickets so far. This brings him to 511 test wickets with the world record being 519

Warnie needs to take 9 wickets out of the maximun 20 available in the last test. If he does not do that I fear that Murali who is 5 wickets behind willl chuck chuck chuck his way to the record before our Warnie

chesslover
21-03-2004, 05:48 PM
This is the world Test championship table

1 Australia 125
2 South Africa 113
3 Pakistan 102
4 England 101
5 India 100
6 New Zealand 100
7 Sri Lanka 96
8 West Indies 82
9 Zimbabwe 55
10 Bangladesh 1

Australia has a clear dominance over the resto of the world

There are 4 world matches being played at the moment
Australia v Sri Lanka during March
New Zealand v South Africa during March
England v West Indies during March, April
India v Pakistan during March, April

Current Australia v Sri Lanka rating has Australia 0n 125 points and Sri Lanka on 96

If Australia win 1-0 by Sri Lanka winning third test, Australia will get 125 points and there will be no chnages to our points

If Australia win 2-0 with third test drawn, we will get 126 points and Australia will get an additional point in the Test Table and go to 126 points

If Australia win 3-0 with third test won by us, we will get 127 points, and go to 127 points in the test table

chesslover
21-03-2004, 05:54 PM
This is the worlfd One day International table

1 Australia 135
2 South Africa 113
3 Sri Lanka 109
4 New Zealand 109
5 Pakistan 108
6 England 106
7 India 105
8 West Indies 100
9 Zimbabwe 64
10 Kenya 28
11 Bangladesh 3

Australia again shows a crushing dominance of teh rest of teh world

chesslover
21-03-2004, 06:02 PM
These are the remainder of test matches for 2004 for Australia after the Sri Lanlkan tour. We will be playing 3 test series during the winter months before we host West Indies and Pakistan for the summer

We should crush Zimbabwe in May and crush Sri Lanka in June. But the match against India in India will be tough,

Exciting September championshiop One day international series where all 10 cricket playing countries and Kenya and USA will participate. It will be a defacto world cup

May 2004:
Zimbabwe host Australia

June 2004:
Australia host Sri Lanka

September 2004:
Champions Trophy in England

October 2004:
India host Australia

December 2004:
Australia host West Indies
Australia host Pakistan

Rhubarb
22-03-2004, 03:16 PM
Hey chesslover, if Warne doesn't get to 520 wickets in the 3rd Test, he surely will against Zimbabwe in May. The question is, what upcoming Test series does Murilitharan have (assuming he doesn't get 14 wickets in the 3rd test)?

Originally I thought that if Warne doesn't beat Murali to 520 he'll probably never hold the record, as Murali has a higher wickets/test match rate, and possibly has more years left than Warne.

But with Australia having such a packed schedule this year, it seems Warne has every chance.

Garvinator
22-03-2004, 06:16 PM
Originally I thought that if Warne doesn't beat Murali to 520 he'll probably never hold the record, as Murali has a higher wickets/test match rate, and possibly has more years left than Warne.
something that was pointed out during the first test in galle. even though warne has played some 20 odd more tests, he has only bowled 70 overs more than muttaih, which equates to about two tests matches. I think that is rather interesting and surprising.

Also warne plays out here in australia where our pitches are less spin friendly than sri lankas. Also our main opposition is usually england, west indies or south africa. those countries dont provide pitches good for spin bowling normally.

ursogr8
22-03-2004, 07:09 PM
I will watching tonights interview with Dick Pound with interest to see if he makes any attempt to outline the competitive advantage that Shane Warne is supposed to have received from a slimming tablet. If Dick lives down to his present knee-jerk comments then we cannot expect to be enlightened. Warney does not bowl any faster, for longer, with more spin. So what else is there?

chesslover
23-03-2004, 06:21 PM
Hey chesslover, if Warne doesn't get to 520 wickets in the 3rd Test, he surely will against Zimbabwe in May. The question is, what upcoming Test series does Murilitharan have (assuming he doesn't get 14 wickets in the 3rd test)?

Originally I thought that if Warne doesn't beat Murali to 520 he'll probably never hold the record, as Murali has a higher wickets/test match rate, and possibly has more years left than Warne.

But with Australia having such a packed schedule this year, it seems Warne has every chance.

barring any injury warne will get to 520. There is no doubt about that mate

But he has to get 9 in the third test tommorow to get teh world record. If he does not do that he will have to wait till we tour Zimbabwe in May to get the record

The chucker goes to Zimbabwe in April and May for 2 tests. This means he will have 2 tests before Warnie comes to Zimbabwe. Murali has 506 wickets and has taken 20 wickets in this series liek warne and is just 5 wickets behind him.

So if warne does not get 9 in Sri Lanka, Murali will go to Zimbabwe and chuck chuck chuck till he gets the world record. Warne may then break the record in Zimbabwe and it will be a straigh out shoot out till one person retires. Since Murali is younger and he plays in pitches that are specially prepared for him and he also plays against weak countries often, Murlali has the edge over Shawn

Also a bowler who chucks has a greater chance of taking wickets than a bowler who bowls :p :p But chuckers will never prosper :p

Bill Gletsos
23-03-2004, 06:33 PM
Isn't there a possability Australia may not tour Zimbabwe at all, due to security concerns?

Rhubarb
23-03-2004, 06:42 PM
OK, time for some predictions:

Warnie will get less than 9 wickets in the 3rd test, despite the pitch being spin-friendly.

Muttiah will beat Courtney's record in the Zimbabwe series, but only by a handful of wickets.

Shane will then beat Muttiah's record in Zimbabwe (but only by a few wickets).

The two of them will exchange the record a couple of times in the next year before Muttiah eventually pulls away from Warne who will retire first.

When assessing the two great spinners, historians will take into account that Muttiah bowled many more overs per match than Warne, and on many more spin-friendly pitches, and against demonstrably weaker opposition than Warne. These historians will only mention the chucking controversy in passing as the International Cricket Board has ruled Muralitharan's action to be legal. Similarly, historians will mention that Warne was suspended for a year for taking a banned diuretic that can mask the use of steroids, but will not claim that Warne had in fact taken steroids.

Machiavelli
23-03-2004, 10:10 PM
Some interesting suggestions, Greg. It seems very plausible that some, if not all those predictions could come to fruition.

I'm not sure who said it, but some former Test player predicted that Warne could eventually take 700 wickets, which seems at the moment, a fair way off. This would obviously depend upon when Warne retires, whether of his own volition, or pushed out the door by the selectors. So, when does everyone think that Warne's "use-by date" could be?

jase
24-03-2004, 12:44 AM
The former test cricketer who suggested Warne could get to 700 was a West Indian bloke by the name of Courtney Walsh. He was a good bowler too.

I concur with all of greg's predictions, save for the notion that the chucking controversy will be an aside in cricketing annals. The stigma will remain with Murali long after he retires from his breathing habit.

I also use recent cricketing history as a template in suggesting that Sri Lanka will win the 3rd test...now where's that betfair link gone...

chesslover
25-03-2004, 08:26 PM
the bitter battle continues between the Lord of the Spin (warnie) and the Lord of the Chuck (murali) :p

Murali took 5 wickets to now go to 511 test wickets. He has taken 25 wickets in this series. Shows that in specially prepared wickets a chucker can go a long long way :p

But now Murali has to take 9 wickts in the last innings to break the record this series. This si almost impossible and he will have to wait till the Zimbabwe tour next month to break the 520 mark.

Warnie started with 511 wickets and is still not taken any of teh 2 wickets to fall. Unless warnie does something he will not break the world record this series. If we cannot tour Zimbabwe due to the security situation then wanre has to wait till July before going for 520. By that time Murali will have gone past 520 and had about 550.

please please warnie take 9 wickets this match and break the world record

skip to my lou
25-03-2004, 08:34 PM
please please chesslover stfu

arosar
26-03-2004, 11:41 AM
Hey Tian, how come you go for SL?

AR

skip to my lou
26-03-2004, 02:01 PM
Hey Tian, how come you go for SL?

AR

I dont. CL annoys me like anything, the way he posts, the way he assumes and the way he sucks up to some people.

Rincewind
27-03-2004, 06:43 PM
Langer and Katich getting the job done at the moment. If this keeps up I suspect a declaration late in the final session today with the Sri Lankans left a target somewhere around 350-375 to chase.

Rincewind
27-03-2004, 10:18 PM
Langer and Katich getting the job done at the moment. If this keeps up I suspect a declaration late in the final session today with the Sri Lankans left a target somewhere around 350-375 to chase.
:owned:

chesslover
28-03-2004, 04:08 PM
:owned:

Maria my darling pinoy nobya

do what I said and paste this to the who is chesslover section

salamat my sweetheart

The cricket has been so exciting now. What a bold declaration and who would have thought that it could be like this. WOW

Murali has falled short of 519 and Warne had to take 6 wickts this innings

If Warne does not get the record then Murali will as he is touring Zimbabwe before Warne does. So close yet so far

Rincewind
28-03-2004, 07:23 PM
6 wickets to get, 32 overs to get them in.

Very interesting indeed. At this stage a draw is looking slightly more likely than an Aussie win. But you never know. If the keep Lehmann on, we might just do it. ;)