1 little run...
King Arthur
winning margin of all time, surpassing the previous closest margin
set back in 1902 ( not including the two tied matches of course ).
Having watched most of the match I say that WI thoroughly deserved to
win although the match could have gone either way right up until the
very last ball. At first it looked as though Australia were in a
very good position having WI in trouble on the first day, but Murray
held the side together to get a very valuable 49no.
Then Australia lost the early wicket of Taylor just before stumps.
On the second day Boon received a nasty delivery to the elbow which
meant he had to leave the field which I think turned out to be the
most important factor in the game. Boon's strength is that he can
block up one end of the wicket and with him out of the way and some
excellent bowling from the Windies, Australia failed to reach the
WI's 1st innings score being bowled out for 213. There was a great
innings in there from Merv Hughes. He showed the way to some of the
more recognised batsmen in the side. He was finally out for 43 with
a slight glance down the legside off Hooper's bowling and was well
caught by Murray.
I must admit I didn't see much of the Windies second innings where
they were bowled out for 146. Richardson had a fine knock
of 70 odd. Arthurton got a pair! And Tim May bowled brilliantly
getting 5/9.
Australia started badly on Day 4 losing wickets quickly. Boon at
5, and Taylor at 13. Mark Waugh looked quite promising before he was
out for 26. At 7/74 Australia were all but gone but for fine performances
from the tail and Justin Langer on his debut test match.
Tim May was not out 42 when McDermott got a nick down legside to
Murray just one run short of tying and 2 from a win.
It was also Tim May's 31st birthday.
A great and well deserved victory to the Windies.
May in Adelaide is treated like a hero. A different story in Sydney last
month during the one-day series where he was howled and jeered at
because he made one small fielding mistake and they never let him foregt it.
Also contibuting is the fact that he was competing with Matthews for a spot
in the side and the NSW crowd love him.
Another thing, Langer was dead set plum lbw early in his innings.
Healy should not have been given out in the 1st innings when the ball
deflected off his arm, not the bat or glove.
The Windies now only need to draw the next match to retain the Frank Worrell
Trophy. At Perth, that looks almost assured.
Philip Shead
>
>Healy should not have been given out in the 1st innings when the ball
>deflected off his arm, not the bat or glove.
onto his stumps, or the one where he chased a wide ball and edge it halfway
up the bat to Hooper. I don't know who you were thinking of but it wasn't Healy.
Healy played two bad shots to balls that didn't warrant it, but heck he wasn't
on his lonesome in that respect.
Mohan Krishnamoorthy
> Actually the nick that McDermott got was clearly off his helmet visor. Not eve
> close to the bat or gloves. I guess the umpire was trying to make ammends for
> turning down Walsh's appeal for LBW against McDermott some time earlier. It
> looked pretty plumb....Anyhow, an exiting, controversial finish to a great tes
> match.
I like the oozing confidence above, when u say the "nick ... was clearly
off his helmet visor. Not even close to the bat or gloves".
Well, time to fall flat on your nose, for, by McDermott's own admission,
the ball nicked the back of his glove (after hitting the visor) on its
way to Murray. That foot in your mouth must hurt ;-)
Border, after the match, said to the press that the decision was a
brave (and correct) one by umpire Hair. One would assume that he said
this after consultation with McDermott, verifying that it was indeed
out.
Moreover, I don't think umpires "make amends" for previous follies. To
rectify one (unconscious) error with another (conscious) error is worse
than the first error! This is a lesson all good umpires learn (and are
taught) early on. Yes, the earlier not out decision was pretty poor.
Still, I am sure umpire Hair would have just got on with it, unconcerned
about previous follies.
[...stuff about an earlier dubious decison in the first innings
deleted...]
> I think you mean Tim May don't you? Just proves that perhaps Aussie umpires
> aren't so biased after all :-)
One hot day doesn't make an entire summer ;-)
[Except, of course, if one is in England ;-) where summer normally falls
on a Tuesday ;-)]
> Greg Noone gr...@oberon.dsto.gov.au
/Mohan
-------
Mohan Krishnamoorthy, CSIRO, Division of Maths and Stats,
Private Bag 10, Clayton, Melbourne, VIC 3168, Australia.
Phone: (Off) +61 3 542 2263; (Res): +61 3 543 4248
Fax: +61 3 542 2474; email: mo...@mel.dms.CSIRO.AU
Brendan Mahony
>Tim May was not out 42 when McDermott got a nick down legside to
>Murray just one run short of tying and 2 from a win.
The ball went over the off stump, head high, in fact it hit the helmet
visor, it was certainly not a tickle down the leg side.
>Another thing, Langer was dead set plum lbw early in his innings.
Gooly when are people going to hear about the legside rule?
>Healy should not have been given out in the 1st innings when the ball
>deflected off his arm, not the bat or glove.
There where a couple of these on the last day too. One where Warne took
his hand off the bat just in time and one where McDermott was hit on the
helmet. The West Indies didn't bother to consult the umpire on either,
they just went into their familiar war dance of self adulation.
--
When soldiers form lines or hollow squares, you call it reason.
When wild geese in flight take the form of a letter V, you say instinct.
When the homogeneous atoms of a mineral arrange themselves into shapes
mathematically perfect you have nothing to say. You have not even invented a name to conceal your heroic unreason."
King Arthur
>>A great and well deserved victory to the Windies.
>Agreed. You always felt that they had a chance of bowling Australia out on the
>fourth day, even if they were chasing a modest total on a pretty good batting
>wicket.
I didn't really think it was all that good a batting wicket, the ball
was seaming around quite a bit out there.
>>Healy should not have been given out in the 1st innings when the ball
>>deflected off his arm, not the bat or glove.
>I think you mean Tim May don't you? Just proves that perhaps Aussie umpires
>aren't so biased after all :-)
Yeah, I think it was May actually. Oh well, clos enough. Just like the
decision!
>>The Windies now only need to draw the next match to retain the Frank Worrell
>>Trophy. At Perth, that looks almost assured.
>They say the pitch at Perth aint as fast as it used to be. The Windies batting
>hasn't been all that convincing anyway. Looks set to be a great finish to a great
>series.
Still think that? If the Aussies win this one it will be a major miracle.
All out for 126 I think and the Windies past that quite quickly.
I didn't see what happened to Haynes though, is it serious?
King Arthur
dcam...@neumann.une.edu.au
Brendan Mahony
>I like the oozing confidence above, when u say the "nick ... was clearly
>off his helmet visor. Not even close to the bat or gloves".
The "Magic Ball Theory"? :-)
Tune in to JFK.CONSPIRACY you are needed.
----| ball strickes helmet
|
|---------------------------- ball continues on to keeper
ball strikes gloves
Neeran M. Karnik
>In <C1Jxt...@syd.dms.CSIRO.AU> mo...@theta.mel.dms.CSIRO.AU (Mohan Krishnamoorthy) writes:
>>I like the oozing confidence above, when u say the "nick ... was clearly
>>off his helmet visor. Not even close to the bat or gloves".
>The "Magic Ball Theory"? :-)
>Tune in to JFK.CONSPIRACY you are needed.
[diagram deleted :-)]
Hey Brandan, wasn't McDermott trying to hook? In which case,
you wouldn't need a magic ball :-) Also, 'twas reported here on r.s.c.
that both Border and McD said that the ball brushed McD's glove, so
what's the argument about? :->
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+
| Neeran M. Karnik | #2 fan of Sachin Ramesh Tendulkar on r.s.c. :-> |
| Dept. of CompSci.| "I am Sachin's number one fan" - Sunil Gavaskar |
| U of Minnesota | "A jewel in India's crown" - Tony Cozier |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mohan Krishnamoorthy
> In <28...@grivel.une.edu.au> dcam...@neumann.une.edu.au (King Arthur) writes:
>> Tim May was not out 42 when McDermott got a nick down legside to
>> Murray just one run short of tying and 2 from a win.
> The ball went over the off stump, head high, in fact it hit the helmet
> visor, it was certainly not a tickle down the leg side.
Yup. You are correct. It was NOT a tickle down the leg side. It DID
travel high over the off stump. It DID hit the helmet visor. But then,
to say nothing else about the nature of the dismissal is wrong. After
all, a half door open is also a half door closed. What you should have
added (perhaps) is that it nicked the back of McDermott's gloves on the
way down to Murray. He was out. So said Border. FULL STOP.
>> Another thing, Langer was dead set plum lbw early in his innings.
> Gooly when are people going to hear about the legside rule?
Gee, I suppose you'd better start shouting it out then dad. But be sure
to educate yourself first right?
>> Healy should not have been given out in the 1st innings when the ball
>> deflected off his arm, not the bat or glove.
> There where a couple of these on the last day too. One where Warne took
> his hand off the bat just in time and one where McDermott was hit on the
> helmet. The West Indies didn't bother to consult the umpire on either,
> they just went into their familiar war dance of self adulation.
Dear, oh dear! This man is mad! The implication in the above is that
the Windies get some of their wickets by going on a "war dance of self
adulation". That's utter crap. They don't need deception and pressure
tactics on umpires to get their wickets. They get it through their
class and the total incompetencies of the opposition. (Btw, if you look
past the end of your nose, I think you will be surprised to find that
there is a whole world out there).
Anyway, I suppose such (blindly and visciously parochial) posters will go
into deep speechless hibernation after the Windies splat a totallly and
utterly convincing defeat at Perth. Not much doubt about that, huh! A
match over in a little over two days. A fantastic, convincing victory.
No war dance this. More like a superb victory dance...
/Mohan
-------
The probability of someone laughing at you is proportional to the
stupidity of your statements.
John Miller
>In article <11...@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au> bre...@cs.uq.oz.au writes:
>
>> In <28...@grivel.une.edu.au> dcam...@neumann.une.edu.au (King Arthur) writes:
>
>>> Tim May was not out 42 when McDermott got a nick down legside to
>>> Murray just one run short of tying and 2 from a win.
>
>> The ball went over the off stump, head high, in fact it hit the helmet
>> visor, it was certainly not a tickle down the leg side.
>
>Yup. You are correct. It was NOT a tickle down the leg side. It DID
>travel high over the off stump. It DID hit the helmet visor. But then,
>to say nothing else about the nature of the dismissal is wrong. After
>all, a half door open is also a half door closed. What you should have
>added (perhaps) is that it nicked the back of McDermott's gloves on the
>way down to Murray. He was out. So said Border. FULL STOP.
>
Not that Brendan needs my help in defending his remarks on r.s.c
but what noone seems to have taken into account on this point is
that even if it did touch McDermott's glove after striking the
helmet, and it can only have been the faintest of nicks, there is
no way the umpire could have known that IMHO from seeing the
incident and a number of replays. Shades of the Lara incident in
Brisbane.
Australia was definitely very unlucky to have lost the 4th test in
that way. Of course there remains the interesting question,
would McDermott have walked if the umpire gave him not out?
By the look on his face when he was given out, I doubt it.
>>> Another thing, Langer was dead set plum lbw early in his innings.
>
>> Gooly when are people going to hear about the legside rule?
>
>Gee, I suppose you'd better start shouting it out then dad. But be sure
>to educate yourself first right?
>
From my reading of Brendan's postings on r.s.c I've never gained the
impression he didn't know what the lbw was unlike many others on this
group which was his point as I see it.
>>> Healy should not have been given out in the 1st innings when the ball
>>> deflected off his arm, not the bat or glove.
>
>> There where a couple of these on the last day too. One where Warne took
>> his hand off the bat just in time and one where McDermott was hit on the
>> helmet. The West Indies didn't bother to consult the umpire on either,
>> they just went into their familiar war dance of self adulation.
>
>Dear, oh dear! This man is mad! The implication in the above is that
>the Windies get some of their wickets by going on a "war dance of self
>adulation". That's utter crap. They don't need deception and pressure
>tactics on umpires to get their wickets. They get it through their
>class and the total incompetencies of the opposition. (Btw, if you look
>past the end of your nose, I think you will be surprised to find that
>there is a whole world out there).
>
Brendan wasn't the only one who wasn't impressed with some of the WI
"appealing" antics, and the incident he relates above wasn't the only
occassion. Did you see how they carried on in the first innings of
the fifth test when Steve Waugh (I think) was given not out caught
behind off Courtney Walsh when it was obvious he didn't get near the
ball? No sour grapes here, Brendan's just telling it how it was IMHO.
>Anyway, I suppose such (blindly and visciously parochial) posters will go
>into deep speechless hibernation after the Windies splat a totallly and
>utterly convincing defeat at Perth. Not much doubt about that, huh! A
>match over in a little over two days. A fantastic, convincing victory.
>No war dance this. More like a superb victory dance...
>
No doubt about that.
>/Mohan
>
>-------
>The probability of someone laughing at you is proportional to the
>stupidity of your statements.
>-------
Hmmm ...
>Mohan Krishnamoorthy, CSIRO, Division of Maths and Stats,
>Private Bag 10, Clayton, Melbourne, VIC 3168, Australia.
>Phone: (Off) +61 3 542 2263; (Res): +61 3 543 4248
>Fax: +61 3 542 2474; email: mo...@mel.dms.CSIRO.AU
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
| John Miller | Internet Mail - cc...@jcu.edu.au |
| Computer Centre | PSI Mail - PSI%050527372000051::J_MILLER |
| James Cook University of North Queensland | Phone: +61 77 815447 |
| Townsville, 4811, AUSTRALIA | Fax: +61 77 796371 |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
ABBAS, MUSTAFA
>is easier to scan thru the articles and sift out the junk !!!
Abey Chandio......look at your own subject line.........
Uday Rajan
writer on cricket ever), and mentioned his essay on Ranji. Since I own a
Cardus book (easily my most prized possession) which carries that essay, I
thought I would provide some excerpts for your enjoyment. Bear in mind that
this essay was written in the early 1930s, some 20 years after Ranji's
retirement.
(This is not the whole essay, just selected bits)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cricketers will never see the like of Ranjitsinhji; he was entirely original,
and there is nothing in all the history and development of batsmanship with
which we can compare him. His style was a remarkable instance of the way a
man can express personal genius in a game -- nay, not only a personal genius
but the genius of a whole race.
......
In the 'nineties the game was absolutely English; it was even Victorian...
It was the age of simple first principles, of the stout respectability of
straight bat and good length ball... And then suddenly this visitation of
dusky, supple legerdemain happened; a man was seen playing cricket as nobody
born in England could possibly have played it. The honest length ball was
not met by the honest straight bat, but there was a flick of the wrist, and
lo! the straight ball was charmed away to the leg boundary. And nobody quite
saw or understood how it all happened. Bowlers stood transfixed, and possibly
crossed themselves. I once asked Ted Wainwright, the Yorkshire cricketer,
what he thought of Ranji, and Wainwright said, `Ranji, he never made a
Christian stroke in his life.'
...
... Happy the man who today can close his eyes and see again the vision
of Ranji, his rippling shirt of silk, his bat like a yielding cane making
swift movements which circled around those incomparable wrists. He saw the
ball quicker than any other batsman; he made his strokes later, so late,
indeed, that Lockwood almost saw his great breakback crashing on the leg
stump while Ranji remained there at his crease, apparently immobile. Then,
at the last fraction of the last second, Ranji's body leaned gently over his
front leg, the bat glinted in the sun, and we saw Lockwood throw his hands to
heaven as the ball went to the boundary, exquisitely fine to leg, with the
speed of thought. ...
...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
R. Bharat Rao
|> I request the netters on rsc to include meaningful subject lines so that it
|> is easier to scan thru the articles and sift out the junk !!!
|>
Like this article, no doubt :-) ..
Fairly appropriate subject line wouldn;t you say :-)
No offense intended, couldn't resist..
Bharat
--
R. Bharat Rao E-mail: bha...@cs.uiuc.edu
AI Group, Beckman Institute for Advanced Science and Technology
405 N. Mathews, Urbana, IL 61801 (217)-333-5978 (O), 337-6498(H)
Electrical & Computer Engineering, University of Illinois, Urbana
Gopu
>Well, gopal on irc last night brought up the subject of Cardus (IMHO the best
>writer on cricket ever), and mentioned his essay on Ranji. Since I own a
>Cardus book (easily my most prized possession) which carries that essay, I
>thought I would provide some excerpts for your enjoyment. Bear in mind that
>this essay was written in the early 1930s, some 20 years after Ranji's
>retirement.
>
Thanks Uday for that nice extract on Ranji. The first time I read this was
when I was 12 years old not in any book on cricket or sports but in a English
reader for the 1st year degree class( a non-detailed text). I still remember
how the description of Ranji's batting gripped my imagination.Everytime I
read the article I used to imagine the scenario and the plight of the bowlers.
Ranji and Fry as a pair used to be a treat to watch according to the cricketers
of that period each so different in style.
It would be be nice if you could post some more essays from the book especially
on personalities like Trumper, Hobbs and Wolley.
Gopal
Nafis Ahmad
Mohan Krishnamoorthy
>In article <C1sM3...@syd.dms.CSIRO.AU> mo...@theta.mel.dms.CSIRO.AU (Mohan Krishnamoorthy) writes:
[...discussion on McDermotts' dismissal in Adelaide...]
> Not that Brendan needs my help in defending his remarks on r.s.c
> but what noone seems to have taken into account on this point is
> that even if it did touch McDermott's glove after striking the
> helmet, and it can only have been the faintest of nicks, there is
> no way the umpire could have known that IMHO from seeing the
> incident and a number of replays. Shades of the Lara incident in
> Brisbane.
A few corrections first:
. Don't say EVEN if it did touch McDermott's glove... blah blah blah.
It DID touch his glove and that is as certain as night follows day.
Border said so himself.
. Is a faint nick a nick too? In other words, can one be out off a
faint nick?
Sure enough. End of story...
Now, about the comparisons between the Lara incident in Brisbane and the
McDermott one in Adelaide.
The similarity is that they were both close decisions.
However, while one was a "brave decision" the other was silly.
Furthermore, while one was a correct decision, the other was not!
I don't see the basis of comparison at all...
> Australia was definitely very unlucky to have lost the 4th test in
> that way. Of course there remains the interesting question,
> would McDermott have walked if the umpire gave him not out?
> By the look on his face when he was given out, I doubt it.
Simple answer. NO.
Why? It is common knowledge that Simpson (coach) feels a player must
walk ONLY when given out. Then again, when one is so close to victory,
such a magnanimous gesture would be difficult EVEN for a person like
Vishwanath!
However, one point that has failed to emerge in all these discussions
is Simmons' sportsmanlike behaviour earlier on. He dived forward at
slips to an edge from May and scooped the ball up, it seemed, literally
centimetres above the ground. All the other Windies players seemed
convinced it was out and carried out the "war dance" only to be held
back by Simmons' raised arms, suggesting it wasn't out. Even after
a few replays, it was impossible to say if it was indeed grounded.
Simmons could well have let the "war dance" continue. Suxh theories
merely undermine the brilliant efforts of a good team which is quite
singular in its exemplary sportsmanlike behaviour on and off the field.
I was just remarking the other day to a colleague that Australia has
been rather lucky in hosting two successive really good teams (in
terms of behaviour and sportsmanlike behaviour). First, there was
Azhar and his Indian team. Exemplary ethical standards and brilliant
behaviour that few teams (certainly NO Australian team in living memory)
would have been able to match. Then, the Windies team, which won many
friends on this tour through some excellent cricket, brilliant attitude,
great sportsmanship (especially from its captain) and the class and
the fun they exude.
> From my reading of Brendan's postings on r.s.c I've never gained the
> impression he didn't know what the lbw was unlike many others on this
> group which was his point as I see it.
We differ...!!
> Brendan wasn't the only one who wasn't impressed with some of the WI
> "appealing" antics, and the incident he relates above wasn't the only
> occassion. Did you see how they carried on in the first innings of
> the fifth test when Steve Waugh (I think) was given not out caught
> behind off Courtney Walsh when it was obvious he didn't get near the
> ball? No sour grapes here, Brendan's just telling it how it was IMHO.
Where were you on the last day of the Brisbane test? A clean house
would help before one starts commenting on the dirt in other peoples
homes!!
>> -------
>> The probability of someone laughing at you is proportional to the
>> stupidity of your statements.
>> -------
> Hmmm ...
Exactly!!
/Mohan
mcb...@vax.oxford.ac.uk
> In article <11...@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au> bre...@cs.uq.oz.au writes:
>
>> In <28...@grivel.une.edu.au> dcam...@neumann.une.edu.au (King Arthur) writes:
>
>
>> There where a couple of these on the last day too. One where Warne took
>> his hand off the bat just in time and one where McDermott was hit on the
>> helmet. The West Indies didn't bother to consult the umpire on either,
>> they just went into their familiar war dance of self adulation.
>
> Dear, oh dear! This man is mad! The implication in the above is that
> the Windies get some of their wickets by going on a "war dance of self
> adulation". That's utter crap. They don't need deception and pressure
> tactics on umpires to get their wickets. They get it through their
> class and the total incompetencies of the opposition. (Btw, if you look
> past the end of your nose, I think you will be surprised to find that
> there is a whole world out there).
>
> Anyway, I suppose such (blindly and visciously parochial) posters will go
> into deep speechless hibernation after the Windies splat a totallly and
> utterly convincing defeat at Perth. Not much doubt about that, huh! A
> match over in a little over two days. A fantastic, convincing victory.
> No war dance this. More like a superb victory dance...
>
> /Mohan
What an excellent riposte Mohan.. Glad to have you back; I was fearing the
jingo crowd were going to take over completely:-).
>
> -------
> The probability of someone laughing at you is proportional to the
> stupidity of your statements.
P.S. - You must be over the moon with the Indian win!
Brendan Mahony
|Dear, oh dear! This man is mad! The implication in the above is that
|the Windies get some of their wickets by going on a "war dance of self
|adulation". That's utter crap. They don't need deception and pressure
|tactics on umpires to get their wickets.
You may not think they need it, but they clearly do, except for
Richardson.
Daavid Turnbull
The Ausies lost the last test match in dramatic style being totally taken
apart by the Windies bowling... Well Ambrose's at least... they described
him as bowling "hand grenades" and if you saw any of it you would know why.
This artical sort of captures the atmosphere... so close and yet so far..
the Windies holding onto that supremacy which they probaly deserve :-(.
bre...@cs.uq.oz.au (Brendan Mahony) writes:
--
Daavid Turnbull daa...@kowari.cpsg.com.au +61 3 823 0222 (fax) +61 3 824 8068
CP Software Export Pty Ltd ACN 006 640 133
19 Cato Street, Hawthorn, Victoria, Australia, 3123.
Brendan Mahony
> It DID touch his glove and that is as certain as night follows day.
> Border said so himself.
You seem to be one of the select few that Border said this to.
Since the gloves below th level of Craig's chin, in fact tucked in there
very tightly, I feel we must resort to a Magic Ball theory to explain
the way the ball deflected off the helmet onto those gloves.
Rohan Koduvayur Kri Chandran
>
>> It DID touch his glove and that is as certain as night follows day.
>> Border said so himself.
>
>You seem to be one of the select few that Border said this to.
>
>Since the gloves below th level of Craig's chin, in fact tucked in there
>very tightly, I feel we must resort to a Magic Ball theory to explain
>the way the ball deflected off the helmet onto those gloves.
>
Hmmmm.. Look's like Brendan's never going to accept this one...
Well, if the word of Border and McDermott isn't good enough.. then nothing will
be.
I don't know why I wasted my time doing this...
Rohan
--
*******************************************************************************
Manchester United Football Club * INDIA - We are the Champions.....
_______________________________ * England are the losers...
Leading the way in the nineties * ODI's: India 1 England 1
1990 F.A.Cup * TEST's: India 1 England 0
1991 Cup Winners Cup * #1 fan of Kapil Dev
1992 League Cup & Super Cup * #1 fan of Azhar (joint with Mayank)
1993 Premier League?? * KAPIL DEV - 414 / 4965
1993 F.A. Cup?? * AZHAR - 3479 (46.39/12 in 78/3)
*******************************************************************************
Rohan Chandran roh...@leland.stanford.EDU
mcb...@vax.oxford.ac.uk
> In <C1sM3...@syd.dms.CSIRO.AU> mo...@theta.mel.dms.CSIRO.AU (Mohan Krishnamoorthy) writes:
>
> |Dear, oh dear! This man is mad! The implication in the above is that
> |the Windies get some of their wickets by going on a "war dance of self
> |adulation". That's utter crap. They don't need deception and pressure
> |tactics on umpires to get their wickets.
>
> You may not think they need it, but they clearly do, except for
> Richardson.
Would you care to elaborate?
McBean
Spaceman Spiff
>
>Since the gloves below th level of Craig's chin, in fact tucked in there
>very tightly, I feel we must resort to a Magic Ball theory to explain
>the way the ball deflected off the helmet onto those gloves.
>
jeez... i thought that it was obvious.
Stay cool,
Spaceman Spiff
Non illegitimati carborundum Don't let the bastards get you down
ecrj...@economics.adelaide.edu.au
> In <C1sM3...@syd.dms.CSIRO.AU> mo...@theta.mel.dms.CSIRO.AU (Mohan Krishnamoorthy) writes:
>
> |Dear, oh dear! This man is mad! The implication in the above is that
> |the Windies get some of their wickets by going on a "war dance of self
> |adulation". That's utter crap. They don't need deception and pressure
> |tactics on umpires to get their wickets.
>
> You may not think they need it, but they clearly do, except for
> Richardson.
I have to agree with Brendan's comments in part here - I was at the Adelaide
Oval on every day of the Test, and found the Windies would go up for appeal for
just about everything that beat the bat or deflected off the batsmans body
(with gloves and bat nowhere near the deflection). I had to laugh on the
number of occasions in both the Adelaide and Perth Test matches the stump
microphone would pick up a couple of the slips shouting "Catch it" after the
ball had missed the outside edge by a good foot! This is not to say some of the
other Test teams do not do the same, it's just something I noticed throughout
the series.
In regards to the Craig McDermott "dismissal" on the last day of
the Adelaide Test, the bowler, Courtney Walsh, had run in celebration towards
gully before the umpire had put his finger up, and I felt (along with many
others), that Walsh's "war dance" contributed greatly to the umpire believing
McDermott was out. Remember the uproar during the 1990 Windies v England series
in the West Indies, when Viv Richards appeal at slip consisted of running
straight at the umpire at the bowlers end waving and pointing his finger at
him? The batsman was not out, yet was given out. Being a cricketer myself, I've
seen many times a batsman given out after the force and conviction of the
bowling teams appeal leaves the umpire with little choice. This is not to say
the umpire will always give the batsman out when the bowling team appeals
"enthusiastically", but these appeals can sure help!
And briefly, I felt after watching all 5 Tests, that the standard of umpiring
was a disgrace. Time after time, blatantly incorrect decisions were made
against both sides at vital times. The retirement of Australia's two best
umpires before the season didn't help, but something has to be done.
After all is said and done though, the Windies outclassed Australia in Perth to
win the series and Ambrose proved he is one of the greats. It was a thoroughly
enjoyable series to watch, the close Brisbane and Adelaide Tests being
beauties! Australia had their chances to win the series but blew them. They now
have to redeem themselves against New Zealand and England and sort out a few
selection problems. Interesting times lay ahead.....
--
Daniel.
mcb...@vax.oxford.ac.uk
>
>> It DID touch his glove and that is as certain as night follows day.
>> Border said so himself.
>
> You seem to be one of the select few that Border said this to.
>
> Since the gloves below th level of Craig's chin, in fact tucked in there
> very tightly, I feel we must resort to a Magic Ball theory to explain
> the way the ball deflected off the helmet onto those gloves.
Well Brendan since all of the papers here were quoting Border as saying that he
had confirmed this with Craig McDermott, maybe you would like to write to the
sports editors of The Daily Telegraph, The Guardian, The Independent and the
Times to correct the fallacy thay have published for several days running.
Oh and the BBC newsclips need to be corrected as well.
Peter ABELA
> In article <11...@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au>, bre...@cs.uq.oz.au (Brendan Mahony) writes:
> > In <C1wuq...@syd.dms.CSIRO.AU> mo...@theta.mel.dms.CSIRO.AU (Mohan Krishnamoorthy) writes:
> >
> >> It DID touch his glove and that is as certain as night follows day.
> >> Border said so himself.
> >
> > You seem to be one of the select few that Border said this to.
> >
> > Since the gloves below th level of Craig's chin, in fact tucked in there
> > very tightly, I feel we must resort to a Magic Ball theory to explain
> > the way the ball deflected off the helmet onto those gloves.
>
> Well Brendan since all of the papers here were quoting Border as saying that he
> had confirmed this with Craig McDermott, maybe you would like to write to the
> sports editors of The Daily Telegraph, The Guardian, The Independent and the
> Times to correct the fallacy thay have published for several days running.
>
> Oh and the BBC newsclips need to be corrected as well.
>
In the Sydney Morning Herald yesterday, there was an interview with Craig
McDermott, and he was (is) adamant that he *did not* hit it. I must confess
that the impression Border gave is that he *did* hit it.
The Speaker.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------/\/\----
Peter Abela, Computing Science Cadet, Process & Engineering Section / / /\
BHP Information Technology, Wollongong Region / / / \
Mail : P.O. Box 261, Warrawong 2502, NSW, Australia / / / /\ \
Telephone : +61 42 755625 Fax: +61 42 755215 \ \/ / / /
Internet : Peter.P...@BHPMELMSM.BHP.bhpmel04.telememo.au \ / / /
E-Mail : DEVAX1::WEA...@itwol.bhp.com.au \/\/\/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All opinions are my own, and not BHP IT's
===============================================================================
mcb...@vax.oxford.ac.uk
> In the Sydney Morning Herald yesterday, there was an interview with Craig
> McDermott, and he was (is) adamant that he *did not* hit it. I must confess
> that the impression Border gave is that he *did* hit it.
Without wishing to belabour this point it does seem rather strange this. I
mean why would Border say it? Why would news reports all round the world carry
this fallacy? Thiongs that make u go hmmmm...
Evan Harris
Peter> In the Sydney Morning Herald yesterday, there was an interview
Peter> with Craig McDermott, and he was (is) adamant that he *did not*
Peter> hit it. I must confess that the impression Border gave is that
Peter> he *did* hit it.
On 19 Feb 93 23:52:16 GMT, mcb...@vax.oxford.ac.uk said:
mcbean> Without wishing to belabour this point it does seem rather
mcbean> strange this. I mean why would Border say it?
The current version of the story is that Border thought McDermott said
that he did hit it to him (Border). McDermott now says that he told
Border he did not hit it, but Border must have misheard/misinterpreted
what he said. McDermott didn't say anything publicly straight after
the game, only Border did.
mcbean> Why would news reports all round the world carry this fallacy?
Ah yes, it was in the all the news reports around the world, therefore
it must be fact. Of course, there was only one source for all these
reports. McDermott hasn't said anything until very recently.
mcbean> Thiongs that make u go hmmmm...
Disclaimer: I don't know if he hit it or not.
--
Evan Harris ev...@cs.mu.OZ.AU
Dept of Computer Science, The University of Melbourne, Australia
mcb...@vax.oxford.ac.uk
> <1993Feb16....@iwsd01.itwol.bhp.com.au>
> <1993Feb19.2...@vax.oxford.ac.uk>
> Sender: ne...@cs.mu.OZ.AU
> Reply-To: ev...@cs.mu.OZ.AU (Evan Harris)
> Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia
> Lines: 31
> In-Reply-To: mcb...@vax.oxford.ac.uk's message of 19 Feb 93 23: 52:16 GMT
>
> In article <1993Feb16....@iwsd01.itwol.bhp.com.au>, WEABEP@DEVAX1 (Peter ABELA) writes:
>
> Peter> In the Sydney Morning Herald yesterday, there was an interview
> Peter> with Craig McDermott, and he was (is) adamant that he *did not*
> Peter> hit it. I must confess that the impression Border gave is that
> Peter> he *did* hit it.
>
> On 19 Feb 93 23:52:16 GMT, mcb...@vax.oxford.ac.uk said:
>
> mcbean> Without wishing to belabour this point it does seem rather
> mcbean> strange this. I mean why would Border say it?
>
> The current version of the story is that Border thought McDermott said
> that he did hit it to him (Border). McDermott now says that he told
> Border he did not hit it, but Border must have misheard/misinterpreted
> what he said. McDermott didn't say anything publicly straight after
> the game, only Border did.
>
> mcbean> Why would news reports all round the world carry this fallacy?
>
> Ah yes, it was in the all the news reports around the world, therefore
> it must be fact. Of course, there was only one source for all these
> reports. McDermott hasn't said anything until very recently.
Let me expand Evan, while ignoring the sarcasm. Doesn't it seem a bit strange
that *days* after this had cirulated we have the first rebuttal of the story?
with one of the weakest-sounding excuses on the book? Also if you look at my
original statement I was querying why newspapers would have misquoted Border so
extensively. So there was really no need for that pedantic statement.
Evan Harris
evan> The current version of the story is that Border thought
evan> McDermott said that he did hit it to him (Border). McDermott
evan> now says that he told Border he did not hit it, but Border must
evan> have misheard/misinterpreted what he said. McDermott didn't say
evan> anything publicly straight after the game, only Border did.
On 28 Feb 93 21:50:57 GMT, mcb...@vax.oxford.ac.uk said:
mcbean> Let me expand Evan, while ignoring the sarcasm. Doesn't it
mcbean> seem a bit strange that *days* after this had cirulated we
mcbean> have the first rebuttal of the story?
Maybe. McDermott didn't talk to the media straight after the game and
(I assume) they didn't have the chance to talk to him until they got
to NZ. Why this is the case, I don't know, however given the poor
attitude of the team towards the media (Border complained several
times that the team thought that the media thought that everything
they did was wrong and everything the WI did was right), it's unlikely
he would have gone running to the media to say he hadn't hit it.
It also wouldn't have looked very good during the series and may have
had a damaging effect on the relationship between the teams, which was
very good (especially when compared with recent series).
mcbean> with one of the weakest-sounding excuses on the book?
What did/does he have to gain by lying (which I assume you are
implying)? The series is over, after all.
mcbean> Also if you look at my original statement I was querying why
mcbean> newspapers would have misquoted Border so extensively.
The last ball resulted in the game becoming the Test with the smallest
winning margin in history.
From the replays it was not clearly out (or clearly not out, mind you).
Both these facts are going to lead to the game, and the final
dismissal and the comments on it being widely reported. The
newspapers did not misquote Border. McDermott claims Border
misunderstood what he said to him.
mcbean> So there was really no need for that pedantic statement.
Yeah, probably. 8-)